Examining Truth vs. Falsehood in Pauline Scripture©
The only abbreviation used in this will be SC, standing for Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. This concordance is used in the free E-Sword program, which gives the Eebreet (Hebrew script) or Greek words behind the English text of our Scriptures.
All Scriptural references will by our own translation of Scripture, based upon many resources, unless otherwise referenced.
Thanks go to Carl Felland for his work in reading this document and providing editing suggestions. Praises be to Yah for revealing these truths regarding the writings of Paul.
Paul: Apostle of the Stumbling Block
If one was to pick a single “apostle” or figure whose life, teachings, and writings have been the most heavily debated, it would have to be the Eebree (Hebrew) P’rush (Pharisee) known as “Paul” or “Sha’ul.” That is only natural, since 14 scrolls of the modern-day Scriptural canon are composed of his writings. That is, if we assume that Eebreem (Hebrews) is written by him and included in that count (Romans to Hebrews). Undoubtedly, his writings form much of the basis of Christian beliefs in the Anointed Son, and how people should relate to the “Torah” or “Law.” Without the writings of “Sha’ul” or “Paul,” there would be no “Pauline Christianity” as it exists today.
Many people have written books on the life of Paul and his teachings. Many have concluded Christianity itself is a Pauline religion, not instituted by the Anointed Son or His twelve “apostles.” Paul is proudly proclaimed by others as the “apostle to the gentiles,” who taught that we are free from Torah/Law. It is needless to say that his writings are used as the ultimate authority for doing away with all things “Jewish” or “Hebrew.” Are these things true? Was Paul really the “apostle to the gentiles?” Was he the founder of “Christianity?” Did he teach against “Jewish law” or “Torah?”
For some, the reading of works like this would be nonsense, as they have already made up their mind and concluded what they believe regarding Paul and his writings. Such information, claiming to examine truth vs. falsehood in Paul’s writings, must seem like heresy to many people… an endeavour that leads one to forsake Scripture and the Anointed Son Himself. Nonetheless, we have undertaken the task to introduce people to the fact that there is a serious problem. Those who have read through articles on our website or have read our book, The Path of the Almighty and His Son, you KNOW and have already come out of a lot of “Christian” deception. You have recognized that many things asserted by mainstream “Christianity” have been lies. What we will examine here is the very foundations of “Pauline Christianity.”
As the Wonderful News about the Anointed Son spread through the message of His early followers and “apostles,” gentiles were confronted with the “Torah of Yisra’El” (Law of Israel). Gentiles wondered how they would apply Torah or relate to it as believers in the Anointed Son. But for Yahudim (Jews) who accepted the Anointed Son, the Torah/Law wasn’t even an issue. Yahudim (worshippers of Yah) knew that Yahushua the Anointed Son followed, upheld, and exalted the Torah/Law in His life and teachings. But the “Torah” or “Law” became the central battle between Paul and the other followers and “apostles.” It is precisely this issue which we must examine truthfully... because the battle still rages today. We MUST find out if Paul was right in his teachings of Scripture regarding the Torah/Law.
Without a doubt, it would be impossible for Christians to argue against circumcision, men covering their heads in prayer, feast days of Lev. 23, and other subjects of the Torah/Law, had it not been for Paul’s writings! So-called Scriptural “believers” who are living “lawless lives” or “Torah-less lives” have Paul’s writings to thank for that. In fact, they have only his writings to thank for that. In reality, they should NOT be thankful for that… because those who forsake Yah’s Torah receive judgment, wrath, etc. In fact, the people who receive the punishment of “wormwood” or bitter water mentioned in Rev. 8:10-11 are those who forsake Yah’s Torah. “Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked according to it, 14but they have walked according to the stubbornness of their own heart… Therefore thus said jwjy (Yahuah) of hosts, the Mighty One of Yisra’El, ‘See, I am making this people eat wormwood, and I will make them drink poisoned water’ ” (YirmeYahu (Jer.) 9:13-15). Of course, Revelation is hailed as one of the greatest messages of the “New Testament” to Christians. But it is doubtful that many Christians have realized that the punishment of “wormwood” comes upon those who forsake the observance of Torah/Law, when we read Revelation in light of the prophet YirmeYahu (Jer.).
“Messianic Judaism” has had a hard time wrestling with “lawlessness” vs. “lawfulness” in Paul’s writings. Seventh-day Adventists and other denominations like the Worldwide Church of God have also had a hard time with Paul’s writings. Many people, recognizing the validity of the 10 commandments and things such as Sabbath-keeping have attempted to reconcile such belief with Paul’s writings. Elisheba and I, in times past, have attempted to show that the anti-law or “lawless” statements of Paul are balanced or even ruled out by his “lawful” statements which uphold the law. Most people who follow the Anointed Son and yet love the Torah of Yah have attempted to show Paul as a Torah-observant Pharisee who did not speak against the Torah/Law. But why all the confusion? Why do lawless Torah-breakers use Paul’s writings to justify their lawlessness if Paul was so clear on this issue? And why do Torah-keepers have to endlessly argue with Paul and try to explain away his anti-Torah statements? Let us now examine how Paul brought HIS message about the Anointed Son and the Torah/Law to others. Are you prepared to meet the “apostle of the stumbling-block?”
Chapter One: Who was the Mighty One that Paul Worshipped?
Clearly, the Scriptures teach of an Almighty Creator, who sent His only Son from His right hand, to come and deliver us from our transgressions through His death and resurrection as Passover Lamb. This Almighty Creator has revealed His Name, His Sovereignty, His laws, and how He is to be worshipped throughout Scripture. Is this the Mighty One that Paul taught?
In Acts 17:22-23, Paul came to a place in Greek called the “Arios Pagos,” meaning the “rock of Ares,” a false mighty one which the Greeks worshipped (see Strong’s Greek #697). It is called “Mars hill” in most English texts. “Aries” or “Ares” is commonly worshipped falsely as a starry constellation today, in what is falsely called the “zodiac.” Many people look at the stars to guide their lives, thinking that if they are born at the time when “Aries” is seen, then there are special “horoscope” implications for their lives. They even believe in different colours that go with each sign for their birth. Such things are not Scriptural. There is truth to the fact that the stars show us Scriptural messages in the form of picture-constellations, but not in the way people believe in the “zodiac” or “horoscope.” Anyhow, the Greeks worshipped “Aries” or “Mars” for war. So Paul comes to this “rock of Ares,” and he finds an altar built for the worship of a false mighty one which has no name. What most people assume is that this false mighty one was not really worshipped or known, because it was unnamed. However, it was “Agnostic” worship that was going on here. Check the Greek. It says “Agnostes Theos.” It is equivalent to what the false-worshipping Yahudim (Jews) are teaching today through kabballah, in addressing the Most High as “Ein Sof” or the “Ineffable One” … meaning you can’t pronounce His Name or truly know Him. They call Him “ha Shem” (simply “the Name”). But these cabbalists ARE worshipping someone. We must emphasize that false worship was going on at this “rock of Ares.” The reason we have pointed this out to you, is that these Agnostics were conducting false worship and slaughtering at this altar of “Agnostes Theos,” this “rock of Ares.”
Paul then spoke to the people of Athaynos (Athens), saying “I understand that in all things you are very superstitious (or religious). 23Because as I travelled and looked at your worship, I found an altar with this engraved on it, ‘To the unknown mighty one’ (Agnostes Theos), whom therefore you worship ignorantly. Him I declare to you. 24The Mighty One that made the world and all that is in it it…” (Acts 17:22-24). Think about this for a minute. Elisheba and I used to gloss over this in our readings of Paul’s writings in the past. People always try to justify it and rationalize it as evangelism… but we don’t anymore. We have to take it at face value and deal with it. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the Agnostic Greeks hearing this message of Paul’s. If I was an Agnostic Greek, bringing slaughterings to this altar to the “Agnostes Theos,” and worshipping at this altar, how would I have interpreted Paul’s speech? Taking it just as it reads, I would be led to believe that there is nothing wrong with the altar, or the mighty one that it represents, I just didn’t know who it belonged to! Paul has simply revealed that this unknown mighty one is the same mighty one that Paul serves and worships, and now declares to me. The only problem is… this was not the altar of Yah’s Dwelling Place in Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) at the time of the first century. Nor was it an altar that Yah commanded His people to build through Scriptural commandments. This altar had nothing to do with the Almighty Creator of Scripture, or His Anointed Son. And the people worshipping at this false altar were not worshipping the Mighty One of the Scriptures.
Paul has come along and revealed to these Agnostics that this unknown mighty one is indeed the same one Paul worships, and now Paul is revealing this unknown mighty one more fully to them as the creator of heaven and earth. They could therefore continue their worship at this altar, knowing more fully who it represents. But you might say, “No, that is not what Paul meant! Paul said that the Almighty does not dwell in idols, which is what Acts 17 continues to say after verses 22-24!” True, Paul did go on to say that the Almighty is not made by our hands in idols of gold, wood, or silver (17:29). This just goes to show how illogical Paul’s evangelism really is. Out of one side of his mouth he preaches that they are worshipping the true Creator at this false altar on the “rock of Ares.” But then he says that the Creator does not dwell in rocks or idols. There is no justification for Paul going around and condoning people’s false worship by giving their idols a different name or revealing their idols to them in a different way! And that is exactly what has been done in Acts 17:22-24.
No, we can’t go around telling people that Buddha statues are being worshipped ignorantly, but that these same statues still point to YaHuWaH as Creator of heaven and earth. We can’t go around telling Catholics that their altars in their churches are representing the Almighty YaHuWaH. For one thing, the pagan altars are made from “cut stone,” when Yah’s altar was not! He commanded His people not to make altars out of “cut stone” (Exodus 20:25). Contrary to Scripture, Paul taught that a false altar represented the Most High jwjy (YaHuWaH). And this is exactly what many Christians believe today. Many Christians honestly believe that gentiles/pagans of different religions are truly worshipping the Creator of heaven and earth which Scriptural believers worship. This is a direct result of Pauline teaching… and it is false. The Anointed Son revealed the Father to us, as did everyone from Mosheh (Moses) to Mal’aki (Malachi) (in the common “Bible” order of “books”). And all throughout Scripture, other than Paul’s writings, He is worshipped by His Name, and in accordance with all the laws and commandments He gave His people. He never once said that people worshipping in Asherah groves or at Catholic - universally heathen - altars were worshipping Him in spirit and in truth. When examining Paul’s writings, this is the reality that Scriptural believers must face.
Three Warnings from the Anointed Son
First Warning - Efesos (Ephesus):
1To the messenger of the assembly of Efesos (Ephesus) write… “you cannot tolerate those who are evil, and have tested those who say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them to be liars. … 6But this you have: That you hate the deeds of the followers of Nikolaos, which I also hate (Rev. 2:1-2,6).
Second Warning - Pergamos:
“I have a few things against you, in that you have those who hold the teaching of Bil’am (Balaam), who taught Balak (Balac) to throw a stumbling-block in front of the children of Yisra’El (Israel); to eat things offered to idols and commit whoredom. 15In this way, you also have the teaching of the followers of Nikolaos, which I hate” (Rev. 2:14-15).
Third Warning - Thoo-ah-teera (Thyatira):
“I hold a few things against you, because you permit that woman, Eezebel (Jezebel), who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit whoredom, and to eat things offered (slaughtered) to idols” (Revelation 2:20)!
Interestingly enough, Revelation is said to be written after Paul’s writings were written. Some scholars give an early date for the writing of Revelation to around 40CE (Common Era). We should probably be amongst those, since there is an early Aramaic manuscript of Revelation called the “Crawford” manuscript. This manuscript still exists in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England. The point is that these warnings of Revelation chapter two are straight from the words of the Anointed Son, `wswjy (Yahushua). They are warnings from Him that the assemblies of Thoo-ah-teera (Thyatira), Efeesos (Ephesus), and Pergamos are in dire need of repentance. The message of Revelation speaks specifically “to the seven assemblies which are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4). What is it specifically that these assemblies in Asia needed to hear? Well, for three of them, they needed to hear a specific warning regarding idolatry, the teaching of Nikolaos (or the “Nicolaitanes” – KJV), and the stumbling-block which was put before Yisra’El (Israel) by Bil’am (Balaam) and Balak (Balac). It is a message of warning which specifically deals with eating foods slaughtered or offered to false mighty ones (idols). The Anointed Son condemns it as “whoredom” or “porn” (check the Greek yourself)! But with this condemnation upon those who permit and partake of food offered to false mighty ones, comes a very DISTURBING REVELATION.
The warnings of Revelation chapter two reveal a certain “apostle” who put a “stumbling-block” before the assemblies of the Anointed Son. Many people will never recognize this stumbling-block for what it is, because they are afraid of shaking the foundations of their belief system. But ignore it as they may, there it stands… in the writings of their own “Bible” (as they call it)… causing many to stumble. Quite clearly, this “stumbling-block” has to do with “idolatry” and the teaching of “Nikolaos” (Nicolaitanes).
The word for “stumbling-block” in the Greek is “skandalon,” from which we get our English word “scandal” from. Carl Felland suggested we should focus on this word in Rev. 2:14. And certainly we should, for there is one so-called “apostle” who indeed laid a “scandalous trap” for the earliest followers of the Anointed Son in the first century and onwards. A “scandal” is synonymous with the idea of an “evil plot” which is hidden and traps people. When we hear about scandals in the news, they are things that were kept secret become revealed. “Scandals” are never a positive thing. And a “scandal” usually leads to shame and humiliation when it is exposed. And in this case, the “scandal” or “stumbling-block” talked about in Rev. 2:14 leads to death. In fact, almost every time we come across the word “stumble” in Scripture, it is associated with “falling” and “death.” One great example is the prophecy regarding the Anointed Son as a “stumbling-block” which many will fall over and die. Kefa (Peter) understood this prophecy when he referred to YeshaYahu (Isa.) 8:14 in 1 Kefa (Pet.) 2:8. `wswjy (Yahushua) the CornerStone is referred to as a “stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, to those who stumble at the Word, apathetic (unbelieving).” The text of YeshaYahu (Isa.) 8:14 refers to the Anointed Son as “l’eh-ben negef,” “the stone of stumbling.” So we see a consistency between the Eebreet (Hebrew script) of YeshaYahu (Isa.) 8:14 and 1 Kefa (Pet.) 2:8. The Anointed Son became a stumbling-block to those who did not understand Him, or the prophecies concerning Him. And many have perished in unbelief, stumbling over Him. Likewise, Rev. 2:14 is a warning that there is a stumbling-block which is causing many people to fall and die.
And when the “apostle of the stumbling-block” is revealed for who he truly is, then Scriptural believers will indeed draw closer to the Truth, and live the Scriptures more fully… without stumbling anymore.
Let us now get back to the three warnings of Revelation to the seven assemblies in Asia. The first and second warnings mention the followers of Nikolaos, or the “Nicolaitanes” as the King James Version states. This term, meaning “victorious over the people,” some say refers to a “heretic” named “Nicolaus,” according to the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Greek number 3531. Whether there ever was such a person remains a mystery. But the verb “nik-ah-oh” or “overcomes” in Rev. 2:7 forms the first part of the term “Niko-laos.” “Laos” means “people.” Apparently some people were going forth, having victory over the people or followers of the Anointed Son, teaching them to eat food offered to idols (amongst other things). For proof that Bil’am (Balaam) put a stumbling-block before Yisra’El (Israel), teaching them to eat food offered to idols, read Numbers 24:25 to 25:3, connected with 31:8 and Deut. 23:4. Thus, the Anointed Son connects the stumbling-block-teaching of Bil’am (Balaam) with the teaching of the “Nicolaitanes,” which is to cause Scriptural believers to eat foods offered to idols.
On a side note, it is important to know that the issue of Nicolaitanism is not just the teaching of “freedom from the Torah/Law of Yah” through eating “food offered to idols” and other such abominable whoredom. Nicolaitanism is the idea of leaders who preside over flocks of people like false shepherds, brain-washing them, getting them to sit quietly in their pews while they spout off their lovey-dovey sermons or lifeless liturgies, non-Scriptural rituals, and creeds and hymns. Thus it is today, and no one dares interrupt the hymns to examine each line for Scriptural content. No one dares interrupt the sermon to question whether the leader of the service has rightly studied the history, context, and language of the texts that he/she refers to. No one interrupts the creeds or liturgy to question whether they line up with Scripture. Nicolaitanism is a dogmatic dictatorship which is victorious over those who submit under it. Those who submit under it do not question whether they are on solid ground of archaeological and historical truth, in conjunction with Scriptural languages and context.
For thousands of years, Scripture had revealed to the people of the Most High that it was rebellion and transgression to eat food offered to false mighty ones (idols). Besides all of the examples of condemnation connected with idolatry, the story of Dani’El (Daniel) chapter one stands out as a strong witness. In Dani’El (Daniel) chapter one, we find that Dani’El had resolved in his heart that he would not eat of the king’s food or drink the king’s wine. He refused to defile himself with such things, because the king’s food and wine were offered to false mighty ones (see Dani’El (Dan.) 1:8). The main mighty ones of this king were “Nebo” and “Marduk.”
Like Dani’El, one of the earliest decisions of the leadership of the Anointed Son’s messengers (or followers – apostles) was made regarding the issue of food offered to idols. This decision is found in Acts 15. They wanted to be sure that the true followers of the Anointed Son would be free from defilement like Dani’El was. Ya’akob (falsely called “James” – even the Greek text reads “Iakobos”) delivered the famous “Jerusalem decree” as it is called. “Therefore my decision is that we do not trouble those from the Gentiles who turn to the Mighty One. 20But write to them that they should keep undefiled from idols, and whoredom (porniah), and that which is choked to death (animals not killed and bled properly), and bloodshed (murder) (Acts 15:19-20). Acts 21:25 emphasizes again that they wrote to the gentiles to “keep themselves away from things offered to idols.”
If you have The Companion Bible, you would note the comments in the margin on these verses. Since the KJV uses “pollutions of idols,” the comment states “Pollution would be caused by eating unclean (forbidden) food” (The Companion Bible, 1617). The words “choked to death” or “strangled” are also enlightened upon. “In this case the blood remained in the carcass, contrary to Lev. 17:10-14” (ibid).
So now the question remains: Did Paul “write to” the gentiles to abstain from things connected to idolatry as these new believers came into the Body of the Anointed Son? Or was he truly the “apostle of the stumbling-block,” teaching people to eat food offered to idols?
The Stumbling-Block is Placed
By far the most noticeable instance of anti-Scriptural teaching in Paul’s writings is found in 1 Corinthians 8. Largely glossed over by preachers and laity alike, this text has been used to justify “gentile” dietary lifestyle for roughly two millennia now. In the face of dietary laws and examples of righteous Torah-observance in abundance, and in opposition to these examples as shared earlier, Paul proclaimed a NEW and un-Scriptural “LIBERTY” with regards to diet. Defying the council of Acts 15, he takes great length to justify eating food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. You may look in a concordance yourself for the words “offered” and “idols.” You will find that those two words appear in Acts 15, 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 10. And now you will see that 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10 are directly contradictory to Acts 15. “Certainly, concerning the eating of that which is offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other mighty one but One. … To us there is but one Mighty One, the Father, from whom are all things … 7But there is not in everyone THIS KNOWLEDGE. For some who are conscious of the idol in this hour, do eat it as a thing offered to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But food does not commend us to the Mighty One. For we are not better if we eat, nor worse if we do not eat” (1 Cor. 8:4,6-8).
Wow! How much more do you need to hear? You should say “Case closed!” But in case you did not catch what is said - since Paul is very confusing to most people - let us go over it again. After these verses, in the same chapter, Paul goes on to say that this is a true “liberty” (8:9) which followers of the Anointed Son are given… liberty to eat food offered to idols because they know that an idol means nothing and so their conscience doesn’t bother them. But he then has to do some back-peddling because he thinks that some may interpret the eating of food offered to idols as an occasion for others to do so without guilt. Can you think of a greater oxy-moron? In one sense, he is saying that it is wrong to eat food offered to idols because people will think it is okay to do it, and justify their idolatry. BUT first he said that if you know that an idol is nothing, then you can do it! Not only does he contradict himself, but he most importantly contradicts Scriptural dietary laws and examples! We will prove this again as we go. But let us examine again what he has said above.
1. You can eat food offered to idols because idols are not real (8:4). Only the Almighty is living and real (8:6).
2. Not everyone knows that idols aren’t real (8:7), but those who understand Paul’s writing know that idols aren’t real (8:4), so they can eat food offered to idols (8:4).
3. But be careful not to eat food offered to idols in front of others, because you’ll give them the impression that idolatry is okay… so they will continue to offer food to idols… and eat it with justification for doing so (8:7).
4. It doesn’t matter what you eat, because following dietary laws does not recommend you to the Almighty. It doesn’t get you “brownie points.” It doesn’t improve your standing before Him if you eat, or do not eat (8:8).
On that fourth point above, we should ask a question. Does it really matter what you eat or do not eat? In Acts chapter 11, Kefa (falsely “Peter”) is praying at Yapho (Jappa) and has a vision. This vision is used by many Christians to justify the eating of pork and other unclean meats (alligator, MacDonald’s, whatever). Kefa sees a large blanket coming down from above. In the blanket are all kinds of animals, clean and unclean, according to Leviticus 11. It is interesting that Leviticus 11 and Acts 11 correspond on this subject. But Kefa then hears a voice telling him to eat the unclean animals. He says vehemently “No, I won’t eat that. I never have, and I never will. Please forbid it” (Acts 11:8, paraphrased). Then he is told not to call “unclean” what the Mighty One has called “clean.” Notice that it did not say “do not call unclean meats” as “clean.” It simply states that if the Almighty calls something “clean,” then it is “clean.” In fact, this vision had to be given to Kefa a total of three times (vs. 10)! Certainly he must have struggled with this, to have to go over it so many times. But wait, this isn’t about foods at all! Immediately, three men from Kaisaria (Caesarea) show up at his doorstep, and Kefa was led by the Spirit to send them to Shim’on Kefa (Simon Peter). Shim’on Kefa would tell them how these men could be delivered from their transgressions (Acts 11:11-14). Ah ha! These were unclean men who were going to be delivered from their transgressions and made clean and acceptable to Yah! This is what Yah meant by telling Kefa not to call “unclean” what the Almighty calls “clean.” Completely different story from the Christian rendition!
In summary, Kefa is not told that the commandments regarding food are now done away with. Nor is he told that there is no distinction between what is clean and unclean anymore. Rather, the fact that the Almighty makes a distinction to Kefa between what He calls “clean” and “unclean” shows that these distinctions are still in place. Kefa is not told to “call unclean meats clean.” Rather, he is given the same vision three times, so that he will be prepared to meet three men that he would normally have considered unclean. This vision, taken out of context and abused by Christian teachers, compounded by Paul’s teachings on eating food offered to idols, has resulted in one of the greatest apostasies and departures from Scriptural truth and obedience. It is Pauline Christianity’s method of “evangelism” that causes Christians to think it is fine to eat what they want, watch what they want, listen to what they want, and partake of all the unclean modern-day Gentile lifestyle habits… but they call it all “clean.”
Chapter Two: Paul… “the Apostle?”
As much as Christians would like to think that it doesn’t matter what you eat, they are wrong. Having considered that the vision given to Kefa (Peter) in Acts 11 actually confirms the dietary laws of Lev. 11, it is hard to fathom that Paul could endorse food offered to idols. This dichotomy between “Peter and Paul” (as the saying goes), along with the division between Paul and Ya’akob (James) and Yahukhanan (John), has been noted by many well-read researchers and writers. Many writers have tried to comprehend what exactly happened between the time of the Anointed Son’s death and resurrection, and Paul’s conversion and teachings. Let us consider what Paul thought about Kefa (Peter). And let us consider not only what Paul wrote about Kefa (Peter), but what he thought about the other “apostles” also. And let us consider if Paul is ever actually deemed an “apostle” according to Scripture. You will be surprised you didn’t see these things before!
A Strange Conversion
In Acts 1, we pick up the story of the Anointed Son and His followers, right where the 4 eye-witnesses left off. After `wswjy (Yahushua) ascended to heaven, His representatives or “apostles” returned to Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) as instructed. But one of the twelve representatives was missing because he betrayed the Anointed Son and killed himself; this being Yahudah from Keeri-oat (Qerioth), known to most as “Judas Iscariot.” So Kefa (Peter) spoke about this tragedy and motioned that Yahudah (Judas) be replaced with a new representative, since this was prophesied in the Psalms. Kefa’s words in Acts 1:15-20 are quoting from Psalm 109:8 and 69:25. So they prayed and asked to be shown who should be chosen, and then they cast lots. The lot revealed that their Sovereign chose a fellow named “MattitYahu” (Matthias, SC, G#3159). Now we have 12 representatives forming a foundational group in Acts 1, just like the Anointed Son intended when He chose 12 followers at the beginning of His ministry. Revelation 21:14 states that these 12 apostles will be named on the twelve foundations of the wall of the city of Khadasha Yahrushalayim (New Jerusalem)! But what did Paul/Shaul think of these 12 “apostles” or “foundational stones” mentioned in Rev. 21:14? What was Paul’s relationship to the 12 apostles? How did he get along with them?
Paul, to say the least, had a huge ego problem which we will soon look at. But to follow this next section through to its conclusion, we will have to get the story straight from the beginning. In the writing of Acts, we find that not once, not twice, but three times, the conversion story of Sha’ul/Paul is told. All three accounts are basically the same, with minor differences (depending on how you think about it). Here is the summary with differences noted in underline:
Conversion Stories in Acts – 9:1-31; 22:4-21; 26:11-20.
· Paul gets letters from the high priest so that he can arrest Notsrim (Nazarenes) or “followers of the Way” and bring them to be tortured, questioned, imprisoned, and/or killed. He is off on his merry way to Damascus (9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:10-12). Same in all accounts.
· On his way to Damascus, a light shines all around him, and he falls to the ground, and hears a voice from heaven. He is blinded by the light (9:3,8; 22:6,9,11; 26:13). Same in all accounts.
· He is told to go into the city and he would be told further instructions then (9:6).
· The men who are with him remained standing the whole time, and heard the voice, but saw no one (9:7). The men who are with Paul saw the light, but did not hear the voice (22:9). The men who are with Paul are also fallen to the ground (26:14).
· Paul is brought to Damascus, and is there for three days, blinded, without food or water (9:8-9).
· KhananYahu (Ananias) was at Damascus and the Sovereign (Yahushua the Anointed Son) appeared to him and told him what to do for Paul. Same in all three accounts.
· KhananYahu (Ananias) is afraid of Paul and protests, but `wswjy (Yahushua) states that Paul is to be a witness to the gentiles and suffer many things for His Name (9:13-16).
· KhananYahu goes and heals Paul’s sight, and Paul is immersed (baptized) (9:19).
· Paul spends some days with followers of `wswjy (Yahushua) in Damascus (9:20).
· Paul preaches in the synagogues and news of his conversion and witness spreads (9:20-22).
· 9:23 indicates that a great length of days had passed, and there was a plot to kill Paul.
· Paul is let out of Damascus by other followers who helped him over the city wall (9:25).
· Paul goes to Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) to join the followers there (9:26; 22:17; 26:20).
· Followers of `wswjy (Yahushua) in Yahrushalayaim (Jerusalem) are afraid of Paul and do not believe he converted (9:26). Same in all accounts.
· Barnabba brings Paul to apostles to vouch for him, since people are scared as hell about Paul, and he reports about the great things Paul had done in the Name of `wswjy (Yahushua) (9:27; 26:20). Same in all accounts.
· Paul goes in an out of Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) teaching and debating with Greeks (9:28), then to Kaisaria (Caesarea), Tarsos, Galil (Galilee), and Shomeron (Samaria) (9:29-30).
As it was said earlier, the differences between the stories of Paul’s conversion in
Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26 are minimal. But one major difference between the accounts of Acts 9, 22, and 26, is that in chapter 26 Paul is said to receive instructions from the Anointed Son at his conversion on the road to Damascus. In Acts 9 and 22, Paul was supposedly told to go to Yahrushalayim and THEN he would receive instructions. That might seem like a minor difference to many people, but it completely changes the scope of Paul’s story in these three accounts of his conversion. How could he be told to go to Yahrushalayim to get his instructions in the earliest accounts, and then in later accounts he claims he got the instructions right at his conversion? These minimal differences might not be a strong reason to reject his writings or call him a false apostle, but they are quite significant. Most people believe that Acts was written by Lukas (Luke). Let’s run with that for now, not that it makes a difference. And let us also take it for granted that Lukas has accurately related the details of Paul’s conversion story three times, with some minor differences and a few major differences. But take a look at the account which Paul himself gives in Galatians! The differences between his account in Galatians, and Lukas’ three accounts in Acts, are noted once again in underline.
Conversion Story in Galatians 1:13-2:9.
· Paul persecuted “followers of the Way,” same as in his conversion accounts in Acts (Gal. 1:13).
· Paul leaves out details of being blinded by light, his conversation with the Anointed Son, and interaction with KhananYahu (Ananias), but simply says that the Son was revealed to him (vs. 14-15).
· Paul did not speak with others at the point of conversion. Rather, he “conferred not with flesh and blood,” vs. 16. Instead, he “immediately” (vs. 16 again) went to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus (vs. 17). Note that Paul makes a huge point in saying that he did NOT go to Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) at the time of his conversion (vs. 17). This contradicts Acts 9:26; 22:17; 26:20.
· “AFTER THREE YEARS,” then Paul went to Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) to see Kefa (Peter), and stayed with him for 15 days (vs. 18). See previous point for contradiction references.
· HE DID NOT SEE ANY OF the other apostles, except Ya’akob (James) (vs. 19). This contradicts Acts 9:27; 26:20. This even contradicts his admission that Yahukhanan (Jn.) was there when they gave Barnabba to him and sent them away to the gentiles in Gal. 2:9!
· Paul then pauses to assure those that he is writing to that he isn’t lying (vs. 20). Now I don’t know about you, but any time that we have encountered liars, we have noticed that they are usually the first to say that they aren’t lying. If Paul WASN’T lying, why would he have to assure them that he wasn’t?
· THEN Paul went to Syria and Kilikia (Cilicia), and he STILL WAS NOT KNOWN to the congregations in Yahudah (Judea). They had only heard that he converted (vs. 22). This contradicts Acts 9:28-30.
So what can we conclude regarding Paul’s conversion stories in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26, when compared with Galatians 1-2? Well, Paul was either having a case of senile dementia, since he is said to have written Galatians in his old age, or he was deliberately putting the Eebree (Hebrew) congregations and believers out of his conversion story that he wrote to the Galatians. We will see that the truth leads to the latter, and that Paul was deliberately showing he didn’t go to the other followers in the land of Yisra’El, but instead went to Arabia, Syria, etc. We will see WHY he deliberately alters his story in Galatians to suit an agenda he had after his trials in Acts 22 to the end. We will see that this agenda was to appear to be a true apostle, and to show that the other 12 were false apostles. We will see that Paul was indeed an egotistical megalomaniac.
For now, we should realize one simple thing… Paul couldn’t get his own story straight… never mind teaching the Torah/Law to people. I don’t know about you, but every time I tell how I became a believer in the Almighty, His Son, and the Scriptures, the story is still the same. It is understandable that there are differences between the four witnesses… MattitYahu (Matt.), Markos, Lukas, and Yahukhanan (Jn.). They were four different people, reciting details and emphasizing different points from memory regarding the life and ministry of the Anointed Son. But in the case of Paul/Sha’ul, we have one man who fails to get his own conversion story correctly detailed. And as we will see, he altered his conversion story for a specific agenda.
Shimshon (Samson) Pushes Down the Pillars
Almost every Scriptural believer has heard about Shimshon (Samson). Killing many uncircumcised P’lishtim (Philistines) with nothing but a donkey bone, tying foxes together and sending them through harvest fields on fire, he was a force to be reckoned with. And who can forget the tantalizing Deleelah (Delilah), the only one who could bring him to his knees. But most hard to forget is the ending to his story, where Shimshon (Samson) uses his final moments in life to accomplish one last battle against the P’lishtim (Philistines) for the Most High. Like the thief who died beside `wswjy (Yahushua), but used his last moments of life to repent, Shimshon (Samson) comes to his senses at the last moment, says a humble prayer, and then mightily pushes down the pillars of the P’lishti (Philistine) house, resulting in the death of many P’lishtim (Philistines). Surprisingly enough, Paul’s writings correspond with this last part of Shimshon’s story, in that Paul is definitely attempting to push down some “pillars.” But that might be where the similarities end. What “pillars” did Sha’ul/Paul push down?
We have already seen Paul state that when he converted, he did not get his teachings about the Anointed Son from anyone except the Anointed Son Himself (Gal. 1:11-12). But many people knew that upon conversion, he went to Yahrushalayim. Many people would have understood that he would have learned about the Anointed Son from the other apostles. In order to prove that he got his story about the Anointed Son from the Anointed Son Himself, he altered his conversion story in Galatians 1-2. He tries to show that he did not go and see the followers of the Way in Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem), Yahudah (Judea), or the apostles for that matter. And from this point, there is a deliberate progression of rebellion against the 12 apostles that can be seen in Galatians chapter 2. Follow along, starting in verse 6.
“And of those who SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING (important) – whatever they were, it makes no difference to me, for the Mighty One respects no man’s person – because they who seemed to be something added nothing to me (the Greek word here implies that when he gathered to talk “in conference” with them, they didn’t add anything to his message). 7But on the contrary, they saw that the Wonderful News to those not circumcised was entrusted to me, even as the Wonderful News to those who are circumcised was to Kefa (Peter). … 9And when Ya’akob (James), Kefa (Peter), and Yahukhanan (John), who SEEMED TO BE FOUNDATIONAL PILLARS, realized the favour that was bestowed upon me, they gave me and Barnabba (Barnabas) the right hand of fellowship, so that we go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked that we remember the poor, the very thing that I was ready to do (remember, this corresponds to Acts 9 events, not Acts 15).
Let us pause here for a moment to recap what is going on, and your eyes will be opened as we continue afterwards with an even more shocking text. Some people have pointed out that Paul said that the three “pillars” (Ya’akob (James), Kefa (Peter), and Yahukhanan (John)) asked him “only” to “remember the poor.” They point out that Acts 15 told Paul to tell others to abstain from idolatry, food offered to idols, murder, and fornication. But the context of Galatians 1-2 corresponds to his conversion in Acts 9, where he meets the apostles in Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem). So we will give Paul a break here, although it should be noted that Paul does exactly the opposite of what he was told to do in Acts 15. Now notice that Paul uses the word “seemed” with regards to the apostles. The Greek word for “seemed” is “dokeo,” which means “thought” or “think,” and this is the way “dokeo” is mostly translated throughout the Second Witness (New Testament). The Companion Bible’s references in the margin show that the word “seemed” is used also in Gal. 2:2, but is translated as “those which were of reputation” in most versions. Apparently, the 12 apostles were respected highly, and had a reputation, and many people “thought” that they were “something” rather than “nothing.” Are you getting this yet? Paul is pointing out that there are a lot of people out there that think these 12 apostles are “something,” and they “seem to be” “pillars” to a lot of people. But Paul didn’t think very highly of them, and said “whatever they are, it matters not to me” (Gal. 2:6). `wswjy (Yahushua) thought pretty highly of His 12 apostles though, and Revelation 21:14 shows that their names will be on the 12 foundations of the wall of the city of Khadasha Yahrushalayim (New Jerusalem). That “makes no difference” to Paul. And to find out why, let’s now skip to 2 Corinthians 11.
The context of 2 Corinthians 11 is certainly the theme of “deception” or “beguiling” (vs. 1-4). Now why would Paul switch from the theme of beguiling deceptions and preaching of a false anointed one (messiah) in verses 1-3, to the theme of Paul compared to the 12 apostles? To be honest, we don’t know why, but he does. “For I conclude that I am not inferior to the most high-apostles. 6And even if I am in speech, yet not in knowledge…” Okay, so far Paul has said that we should be careful that we don’t get deceived like Khawwah (Eve) did in the garden by the serpent (vs. 3). Then he immediately refers to the 12 apostles using the phrase “the most high-apostles.” This phrase uses the Greek root words “huper” and “apostolos,” meaning “the apostles which are highest.” Quite literally, these apostles came before Paul came on the scene, and they were the “overseers,” which the word “huper” attests to. Paul puts himself on the same level as the high apostles by “concluding” that he is not “inferior” to them. He is comparing himself with them, and in the next verses he actually argues that he is better than them, because he doesn’t take money from congregations like they do. He notes over and over in his diatribe on the apostles in 2 Cor. 11 that the apostles take money from their congregations. Paul seems to think that he is the standard to follow and the only one doing rightly by working on his own, making tents, and not taking from those he ministers to. But just before he states all of that, he says of these same apostles that they are “sham apostles – tricksters” who “transform themselves into apostles of” the Anointed Son, “and no wonder, for Satan transformed himself into an angel of light; therefore it is not much if his servants transform themselves as though they were servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13-15, The Holy Bible in Modern English, pg. 1206)!
Oh, we can hear the complaints now: “Are you sure Paul is calling the 12 apostles ‘sham apostles’ and ‘tricksters’ who ‘transform themselves’ like ‘servants of Satan?’ How do we know that he isn’t talking about others?” BECAUSE HE NEVER CHANGES THE SUBJECT! He never switched his speech from the “most-high apostles” to the subject of anybody else. Contextually speaking, you can’t get around this… he called the apostles over him “sham apostles” and “tricksters.” And it is proven that this is the case as we continue to read. He continues his ranting in verses 16-17, comparing himself with the other apostles. Listen to how eloquently Ferrar Fenton translated 2 Cor. 11:16-17: “I say again, let no one consider me to be a fool; but if I am, and YOU SHOULD REGARD ME AS A FOOL, then I myself will boast a little. 17What I say I DO NOT SPEAK FROM THE (Sovereign – KJV – Lord); but as though in delirium from this madness of boasting.” Can you see that Paul makes absolutely no sense? Isn’t this double-talk? First he says that no one should consider him a fool, but then he says that they should regard him as a fool. Was he drunk when he wrote these things? What did he mean by “delirium” or “insane” as other translations read? Would you count the writings of an “insane” or “delirious” man as Scripture… especially when he says “I do not speak from the Sovereign,” in reference to the Almighty and His Son.
Clearly, Paul wasn’t speaking from the Anointed Son. But the worst parts of this whole speech are yet to come. “For you endure fools gladly, because you are wise! 20And you endure it if they enslave you, if they devour you, if they take from you, if they exalt themselves, or if they strike you in the face! 21I speak from dishonour, because in this way also we (Barnabba and I) have been weak. But in whatever way anyone is bold – I speak foolishly – I am bold also. 22Are they Eebreem (Hebrews)? So am I. Are they of Yisra’El (Israel)? So am I. Are they of Abrahawm’s seed? So am I. Are they ministers of the Anointed Son? I speak as if insane. But I am more (than them) in labours, in wounds beyond measure, in prisons more often, in deaths often”… and boast, boast, boast, he continues. Once again, he truly does sound like a confusing madman, so we should summarize this text.
? Paul is addressing the “super-apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5).
? Paul doesn’t change the subject of who he is speaking about, and reveals the “super-apostles” as being “sham apostles” and “tricksters” (vs. 13-15).
? These “super-apostles” are like Paul/Sha’ul, because they are “servants of the Anointed One” (KJV – servants of Christ) in vs. 22. They are “of Yisra’El” just like Paul. They are the “seed of Abrahawm” just like Paul. They also labour and have been in prison for the Anointed Son, or have died for the Anointed Son. Paul’s boasting is that he is better than them in all of these regards, because he has been near death and in prison more than them (vs. 22).
? These “super-apostles” enslave the other followers who Paul is preaching to in vs. 20. These “super-apostles” have stricken Paul in the face, as well as those he is preaching to in vs. 20.
There is absolutely no way that Paul is talking about anyone other than the 12 apostles who are “huper” or “above” him. But he likens them to “servants of Satan” who “masquerade” as “servants of the Anointed Son.” We will see that the reason why Paul is making this distinction between himself and the 12 apostles is to create a foundation for Pauline Christianity. It is his brand of how to apply the Torah to our lives after the death and resurrection of the Anointed Son. But it is not at all what the Anointed Son started with His 12 apostles, or how He commissioned them to teach all nations WHAT HE TAUGHT THEM. The 12 apostles were Yahudim (worshippers of Yah) who believed in the Torah being written on our hearts and lived out in our lives, as believers in the Anointed Son. Not Paul. Paul tried to push down the “pillars” of the House of the Anointed Son. `wswjy (Yahushua) is the foundation Stone. His twelve apostles are the pillars. Other followers are living stones building the walls. Paul tried to push down the “pillars.” But we do not believe he was successful, unlike Shimshon (Samson).
Some “thought” Paul was an Apostle (at least Paul thought they did)
What was the point of Paul trying to push down “the pillars” known as Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James) and Yahukhanan (John)? It was to show that they are false “apostles,” and that Paul was the true apostle. All you would have to do is read over the previous section of this information to see that. But the amazing fact is that no one, not one person other than Paul/Shaul himself is ever quoted as affirming Paul’s apostleship! You can search the whole of Paul’s writings, as well as outside of his writings, and not once will you find anyone - other than Paul himself - claiming that Paul is an “apostle!”
The only references to Paul’s apostleship are from Paul’s own mouth, seen in a few references. Nine times we see references to “Paul, an apostle of `wswjy (Yahushua) the Anointed One…” These references are Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, Colossians 1:1, 1 Tim. 1:1, 2 Tim. 1:1, and Titus 1:1. This claim to Paul’s apostleship is from his own mouth, to be the “apostle to the gentiles” (Romans 11:13). In 1 Cor. 9:1-2 we see Paul pretty much begging people to recognize his apostleship. Apparently he needed to convince people of this supposed fact. “Am I not an apostle?” Paul pleads. And because many DID doubt his apostleship, he states that “If I am not an apostle to others, yet without a doubt I am to you.” He claimed that these people who did believe in his apostleship are proof of his apostleship (again, 1 Cor. 9:2). But again, the fact that Paul states that he is not an apostle to others is proof that something is seriously wrong. As we saw earlier, Paul boasts in some places about being greater than the apostles Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), and Yahukhanan (John). But in other places where he had a hard time convincing people of his apostleship, he toned down his boasting and tried to make himself as the least and most humble of apostles. “I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Assembly of the Mighty One” (1 Cor. 15:9). Indeed, “others” did not think Paul was an apostle, and according to his teachings against the Torah, Mosheh, Yisra’El, and the Dwelling Place, they had enough reason to deem him not “fit” for that position.
“You Can Trust Me, I’m Not Lying”
One very interesting nugget about Paul’s apostleship is he has to convince his audience that he is not lying. “I am ordained as a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in the Anointed One and do not lie)” (1 Tim. 2:7). And as a matter of truth, Paul had to tell people on several occasions that he was not lying. After he relates the story of his conversion story in his letter to the Galatians, completely different from the stories of his conversion throughout Acts, he says “the things which I write to you, see, before the Mighty One, I do not lie” (Gal. 1:20). And after Paul calls the “very chiefest apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5, KJV) “false apostles” and “deceitful workers” (2 Cor. 11:13, KJV), he then tells people “The Mighty One and Father of our Sovereign `wswjy (Yahushua) the Anointed One, who is exalted forevermore, knows that I do not lie” (2 Cor. 11:31). But interestingly enough, Paul expects people not to believe that he is lying in all of these passages, even though he stated in Romans 3:7 that he does lie sometimes to exalt the truth of the Almighty. Of course, it is his brand of what he thinks to be true, but not necessarily true when it comes to the rest of Scripture and the apostles. And when Paul was on trial for teaching against the Torah (Law), against the people Yisra’El, and against the Dwelling Place (for this trial accusation, see Acts 21:28), he tried to defend himself by saying “I have lived with a clean conscience before the Mighty One until this day” (Acts 23:1). And when he stated this, “the high priest KhananYah commanded those that stood by him (Paul) to strike him in the mouth” (Acts 23:2). The high priest must have thought he was lying about that, or Paul wouldn’t have been on trial for teaching against the Torah (Law), against Yisra’El (Israel), and against the Dwelling Place). And indeed that accusation was true. As evidenced earlier, Paul taught that it was okay to eat food offered to idols. He taught that a false altar of worship was representing the Almighty as “Agnostes Theos” or the “unknown mighty one,” its just that the people worshipping there didn’t know the Name of the Almighty. And we could go on through his writings in Romans, Galatians, and other places where Paul teaches against the Torah, Yisra’El, and the Dwelling Place. Truly, there was some justification for Paul being hit in the mouth when he claimed that he had lived with a clean conscience. Apparently, there were others who thought Paul was lying about his apostleship, and `wswjy (Yahushua) warned that there was a false apostle who went around teaching the assemblies of the Anointed Son to eat food offered to idols. Thus, it is no wonder that Paul wrote many times that he wasn’t lying, in order to fool many people into believing his lies.
Chapter Three: Paul’s Torah vs. true Torah
Paul Lied to Teach “the Truth”
“For if the truth of the Mighty One increases through my lie resulting in His exaltation, why then should I be judged as a transgressor” (Romans 3:7)? Clearly, some people thought that Paul was a rebellious transgressor who taught against the Torah. Paul’s defence was that the truth is exalted through his lie. Do you want to believe in the writings of a self-admitted liar, who justifies his lies by saying that they actually increase the truth and exalt the Almighty? Can we possibly think that the Almighty wants Scripture to be lied about, under a “means to an end” way of thinking? Does the Almighty allow us to eat food offered to idols in order to witness to idolaters like Paul taught us to do in 1 Cor. 8? Does the Almighty allow us to lie about false altars of worship in order to bring people to the Almighty like Paul taught us to do in Acts 17:23? Well, apparently a lot of people think that way, because Christendom mostly uses any means necessary to get the converts to come. In reality, we can see that Christianity is mostly a Pauline religion based on an anti-law attitude that separates itself from the Anointed Son and His original followers and way of life.
Lie Number One – Only the Woman was Deceived
One of the most obvious lies is found in 1 Timotheos (Tim.) 2:14. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.” If we read B’raysheet (Gen.) 3, dealing with the deception of Adam AND Khawah (proper name of the woman falsely called “Eve”), we read that the woman “saw that the tree was wonderful for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate. And she also gave to her husband WITH her, and he ate” (vs. 6). Then we read in vs. 17 “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree”… and we know the rest. The bottom line is that Adawm WAS deceived, as was his wife. Adawm was there WITH her when she took the fruit and gave it to him. He heard the lies, and he bit into the falsehood also. He listened to the voice of his wife. And the “seed” or “generations” within his loins fell with him and his wife into transgression. That is the reason why the Almighty then speaks of a promise that a Deliverer would come through the “seed” of Adawm, and deliver them from their transgressions. Otherwise, we would not need redemption. Lie number one for Paul is that only the woman was deceived.
Lie Number Two – No One is Righteous
In Romans 3:9-18, Paul quotes Psalm 14:3. Psalm 14:1-4 is talking about corrupt men, who do wickedly, who are filthy, and who destroy Yah’s people like eating bread. Of course there is none righteous among the wicked people who eat Yah’s people like bread! But Paul uses this quote to say that there absolutely isn’t a single righteous person alive! His idea is that we are all filthy and under “sin” (KJV – Rom. 3:9). Now it is certainly true that “we are all unclean, and all our righteous acts are as menstrual rags” (YeshaYahu (Isa.) 64:6). Please notice that while the prophet YeshaYahu (Isaiah) is saying our righteous deeds are like menstrual rags, he is also admitting that we do accomplish righteous deeds as righteous followers of the Most High. It is also true that we became transgressors through the seed of Adawm, because of his original transgression which caused our fallen state of being… hence the fact that we die and return to the dust, just as the original Adawm. But the worst thing about Paul’s argument in Romans 3 is not that he quotes Scripture wrongly and doesn’t apply it correctly, it is that he is trying to compare those who observe Torah with those who do not. He contradicts himself in that comparison, because he uses Psalm 14:1-4 in his speech, but uses it in reference to Torah-observant believers. He tries to show that those who observe the Torah are not righteous. But Paul is wrong when he states that Torah observant believers are “without the fear of the Mighty One” (Rom. 3:18). He is wrong when he states that Torah observant believers are “swift to shed blood” or “filled with cursing and bitterness” (Rom. 3:14-15). How do we know this? Psalm 14 states that it is the “fool” or the “wicked” who have these qualities. Secondly, Proverbs condemns cursing, bitterness, lying, murder, and so does the rest of the Torah! So those who observe Torah would love the Almighty with all their heart and mind and strength, and they would not murder, curse, or be filled with bitterness.
Paul’s writings make it seem like no one can be righteous, and that the observance of Yah’s Torah will lead to cursing, bitterness, and every transgression imaginable. And it is quite evident that many Christians are following Paul’s attitude, because many of them see themselves as being imperfect, messy, no different from anyone else except for their profession of belief. But when the Almighty decided to choose a people and set them apart from all the nations, Yisra’El, they were to be a royal priesthood and nation. They were not to be like everyone else. They were to be peculiar, strange to the other nations. And indeed, we are to be set apart from others. We are to be different. And if we follow the laws and commands of the Almighty in His Torah, we will be. His laws and government are completely different than gentile nations’ laws and government. But it is no wonder that Paul thought there is no one righteous, because he did not know what true righteousness is. This brings us to lie number three, Paul’s understanding of HOW we are “righteous.”
Lie Number Three – Paul’s Idea of How We are Righteous
Paul declared a “righteousness that is separate from the Torah” (Romans 3:21-22). And while most of Christianity thinks that this is consistent with Scripture if we believe in the Anointed Son, the truth is that there is no righteousness apart from the Torah. The Anointed Son died for our transgressions against the Torah. Therefore, the Torah is a part of our righteousness. The Anointed Son perfectly obeyed the Torah, and that is the reason why His blood is able to blot out our transgressions against the Torah. He lived according to the Torah, died according to the Torah, and blots out our transgressions against the Torah. Not only this, but He enables us to obey the Torah by writing it upon our hearts. That is not to say that the Torah was not written on the hearts of those in the time of the First Witness (Old Testament), because people like Dawid (David) said “Your Word have I hidden in my heart, that I may not transgress against You” (Psalm 119:11). Most people have not read YirmeYahu (Jer.) 31:31-33, but the prophet YirmeYahu (Jer.) there wrote about what the “B’rit Khadasha” or “Renewed Oath” (falsely called “New Covenant”) would be. Evidently, the prophet wrote that the purpose of the Renewed Oath would be to write the Torah upon the hearts of Yah’s people. If we truly believe in the death and resurrection of the Anointed Son, then we must believe that the “Torah,” translated as “Law, Commandment, Instruction,” or “Teaching,” is to be written upon our hearts and lived out in our lives.
But Paul declared a righteousness that is “by belief (faith) alone” (Romans 3:28). And to those of you who think that Paul was only talking about “justification” and not “sanctification,” you must consider what others taught on this subject. Kefa (Peter) and many others had a different definition of “justification” than Paul had. They had a Scriptural definition. Yahukhanan (John) made a distinction between Qayin (Cain) and Hebel (Abel), showing that Qayin (Cain) slew his brother because his “works” were evil, but Hebel’s “works” were righteous (1 Yahukhanan (John) 3:12). Rightly so, Yahukhanan (John) and Kefa (Peter) had a definition of righteousness that is shown by “works,” not by one’s profession of the lips by belief alone in sincerity of heart. Yahukhanan (John) used the illustration of Qayin and Hebel right after he finished saying “Little children, let no one deceive you, he who practices righteousness is righteous, even as He (Yahushua the Anointed Son) is righteous. He that commits transgression is of the enemy (Shatan) (ibid, vs. 7-8).
If Paul tells us that we will be declared righteous by our belief, but Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), and Yahukhanan (John) tell us that we show our belief and righteousness by our works, and cannot believe without works, then who are you going to believe? If Paul tells us that we are righteous apart from the Torah or works, but Yahukhanan (John) defines righteousness by works of righteousness defined in the Torah, who are you going to believe? Ya’akob (James) states, in opposition to Paul’s letters, that we are NOT declared righteous by belief alone, but by works also. Kefa (Peter) is so livid in what he writes, that he wrote “belief without works is dead” (2:14). And in the very last part of that same statement, Kefa (Peter) basically asks “can belief deliver the one who only believes but doesn’t have works?” Read Kefa’s words for yourself and think hard about it. Pauline teaching is exactly opposite. Pauline teaching says that we don’t have to obey the Torah regarding circumcision, because if we believe in the Anointed Son, then that is enough. Pauline teaching says that we don’t have to obey the Torah regarding the eating of food offered to idols, because we know that idols are not real. But Revelation states that we will be judged according to our “works” – 20:12-13; 9:20; 14:13. We must overcome and do the “works” of the Anointed Son – Rev. 2:26. Most importantly, the Anointed Son stated that whoever breaks the commandments and teaches other people to do the same will be called “least” in His rulership (Matt. 5:17-19).
Paul constantly separates those who obey the Torah, and those who simply believe. He does this in his many phrases using “of the Torah” or “of belief.” In one major statement, he states that those who are “of the Torah” will not be inheritors of everlasting life (Romans 4:14). Paul believes that the “Torah works out wrath” (Romans 4:15). Instead of causing people to love the Torah and uphold it as Yah commanded, and as Yahushua lived it, Paul causes people to fear the Torah as “working out wrath,” and teaching that the Torah enslaves people under a cruel “bondage.” He teaches that the Torah is a “ministry of death” (2 Corinthians 3:7). He also called it a “ministry of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:9). In fact, Paul uses the word “bondage” a total of 12 times in Romans, Galatians, and Eebreem (Hebrews), in reference to the Torah.
PAUL BLAMES OUR TRANSGRESSIONS ON THE TORAH. His idea is that if we didn’t have the Torah, then we wouldn’t have transgressed. Romans chapter seven is one of the most confusing arguments in Paul’s writings, but if you sift through all the double-talk you can see the point he is making. “I would not have known transgression, except by the law. And I would not have known lust (desire to have or covet), but the law had said ‘You will not lust’ (10th commandment, not to covet). But transgression, taking an opportunity through the commandment, worked in me every kind of lust. And without the law, transgression is dead” (Romans 7:7-8). This is absolute falsehood and nothing could be further from the truth. Essentially, Paul is saying he never would have had any kind of lust or desire to covet if it wasn’t for the 10th commandment!
Most people don’t know that the Torah commands us to wear beards, that we should wear clothing that is not mixed with different fibres, that we should not have sex during the 7 days of a woman’s menstrual cycle, even if that cycle seemed to have ended on the 5th or 6th day, that they should pay their employees at the end of the day, or much of anything else that the Torah speaks about. But people break almost all of these commands without knowing them. Therefore, people transgress the Torah without knowing it, because they do not love Yah’s commands or seek to obey them and know them. By and large, most people don’t know what Scripture commands us to do. They don’t transgress because they know what Scripture says and deliberately rebel against it. Our transgressions are because we do not love Yah’s commands and instructions and seek to live by them, not because Yah gave us those commands. Most importantly, if we blame our transgressions on Yah giving us the Torah, then we are blaming Yah for our transgressions! That is not right. When Adawm ate of the tree which Yah commanded him not to eat of, Adawm did not say “Almighty Father, You commanded me not to eat from that tree. If You did not make such a commandment, then I would not have been tempted to eat from that tree. There would have been no commandment to tempt me to break it. It is Your fault that I ate from it, because You commanded me not to eat from it, which made me tempted to eat of it.” That is Paul’s logic.
No wonder Paul thought that Mosheh (Moses) had a ministry of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7-9)! He thought that we transgress because we are tempted, and we wouldn’t be tempted if the Almighty didn’t give us those commandments of death and condemnation in the first place. But can we honestly believe that the Almighty delivered His people out of bondage to Mitsrayim (Egypt) only to give them a ministry of death and condemnation? Did the Almighty spend 40 days and nights with Mosheh (Moses) in the mountain, teaching Mosheh (Moses) how to administer death and condemnation upon Yisra’El through engraved commandments? Elisheba and I cannot believe that. Rather, the Almighty said that He gave them His commandments to set them apart from other peoples and nations, to make them a royal priesthood, and to give them a prosperous life. In fact, He stated that if they obey His commands, then they will live long and prosper (Deut. 6:1-3; 11:27; 1 Sh’mu’El (Sam.) 12:14).
Paul even goes as far as to say that our evil “passions” are a result of the Torah (Romans 7:5)! And immediately after he writes that, he states that we are now “released from the Torah” (Romans 7:6). Again we have the idea that the Torah is an enslavement, but in the Anointed Son, we are free from all law/Torah. We are Torah-less or lawless according to Paul’s teachings. But Revelation 20:12-13 says we will be judged according to our works. Those works are the obedience of Torah, or disobedience against His Torah. When the Almighty judges us, He is going to have to judge us according to something. And it isn’t going to be simply the sincerity of one’s heart and belief, because lots of people believe in all kinds of things but don’t care one bit about Mosheh (Moses), the prophets, or the rest of Scripture. The Almighty Judge will judge us according to His laws, just as an earthly judge rests his judgment according to earthly law books and constitution.
Lie Number Four – You are Loved or Hated Before You are Born
One of the worst parts of Paul’s teachings is that we are either loved or hated by the Most High before we are even born. This is found in Romans 9. He states that it doesn’t matter if you run after Yah, or wish to know Yah and love Yah. You must be “called” or “chosen.” You are either loved or hated by Yah before you are even born. See particularly verses 11 to 16. Paul misquotes two passages in Romans 9:12-13. In verse 12, he quotes Gen. 25:23. At that time, Ribkah (Rebecca) was pregnant with two boys in her womb. Yah spoke to Ribkah (Rebecca) of the truth that Ya’akob (Jacob) and Esau would become two nations, and that Esau would serve Ya’akob. But nowhere did the Almighty say to Ribkah that he hates Esau in this passage, prior to Esau’s birth. Rather, it was after Ya’akob (Jacob) and Esau were older and their characters of righteous or evil were formed and seen through their righteous or unrighteous actions that the Almighty stated “yet I loved Ya’akob (Jacob), and Esau I hated” (Mal’aki (Mal.) 1:2-3). Yet Paul makes it seem like before these boys were born, the Almighty loved Ya’akob (Jacob), but hated Esau. To prove his point, Paul takes two texts from two completely different ends of Scripture – one in B’raysheet (Genesis) 25:23, and the other in Mal’aki (Mal.) 1:2-3. He tries to take these two texts, from two completely different time periods, from two completely different contexts, and tries to make them say that the Almighty loved Ya’akob, but hated Esau, long prior to their birth. And he makes it look like it is one verse or passage from Scripture that he is quoting, when he really pieces a part from one text and a part from another text together.
Paul makes a worse fumble by quoting another text out of context to prove his teaching on predestination. In Romans 9:18-22, Paul explains that the Almighty Potter has every right to make what He wants. He can make a clay vessel of righteousness to be exalted, or a clay vessel of evil to be dashed in pieces. He quotes from YeshaYahu (Isaiah) 45:9-11. But Paul only quotes the part that suits his theory. The entire quote speaks of how the Almighty is the Maker of heaven and earth, but His created beings argue with Him that He made them. According to the passage, the created beings or clay are arguing with the Potter for making them, not because the Almighty made them vessels for “honour” or “dishonour” as the KJV of Romans 9:21 reads. And in yet another teaching, the Almighty shows that if a vessel becomes marred in His hand, as Yisra’El (Israel) did through their transgressions, He can remake them again! See YirmeYahu (Jer.) 18:2-6. Such is the case with Nineveh in the story of Yonah (Jonah). But Paul makes it seem like the loving Potter in YirmeYahu (Jer.) 18 is not a true representation. Instead, Paul gives us the impression that the Almighty can’t work with a marred vessel, and that he creates vessels of righteousness or evil, and it has nothing to do with us, because He determines it before hand to make it that way. WRONG. The prophet YirmeYahu (Jer.) stated that the clay vessel, Yisra’El, BECAME marred in His hand. He didn’t do it! But He was willing to work with them again.
Paul says that it doesn’t matter how hard you run or seek after Yah, if you are a vessel determined beforehand for unrighteousness, then that is what you will be (Rom. 9:16). But the Almighty Father says many times throughout Scripture that if we seek Him and search for Him and turn to Him, then He will turn to us (Prov. 8:17; YeshaYahu (Isa.) 51:1; YirmeYahu (Jer.) 29:13). Yet so many have been deceived by Paul’s writings on this subject. I have heard many times that people choose to live unrighteously or deliberately transgress the commandments because the Almighty made them that way. “Oh, then why did God make me this way? He knew I was gonna be a homosexual, so He can’t possibly condemn me for making me this way.” Another fellow actually quoted me Romans 9 on this subject, saying that he must have been hated by Yah before he was born, and that is the reason why he does not follow Scripture. And if you are a Christian who believes Paul’s writings are Scripturally true, then what are you going to say to that? You shouldn’t have anything to say, because if Yah made them a vessel of dishonour and hated them before they are born, how are you going to teach them the truth? The point is, Paul lied again. It isn’t true. The Almighty can make a righteous vessel out of us if we will allow Him to work on us with His hands. That can only happen when we allow Him to give us a love for His Scriptures, His laws and commands, and to enable us to obey His laws and commands in righteousness. If we turn to Him and love Him, He will turn to us. If we seek Him, we will find Him.
Lie Number Five – Paul’s Teaching on Circumcision
(Partly taken from our website article, Circumcision: The Oath of Awbrahawm’s Seed)
The subject of circumcision is a subject which most people will avoid, because the very word strikes pain into their ears. It is a word which stabs to the heart of the uncircumcised, and arouses thoughts of blood and slavery. Again, that is thanks to Paul’s teachings on the Torah enslaving us. But is this how the Almighty thinks when the word “circumcision” is mentioned? Are Paul’s ways the same as Yah’s Way? Are Paul’s thoughts the same as the Almighty’s thoughts? What do the Scriptures have to say on this issue? These are the real questions we must ask regarding this subject. Sadly, as we proceed into the depths of Yah’s promises regarding circumcision, and His command concerning circumcision, we will see that Christianity has not had a clue on this subject. This subject is not for the squeamish, but we will examine this subject in an appropriate manner.
The Almighty prophesied that He would give His Son for the redemption of Yisra’El. Abrahawm was asked to prophesy this by his willingness to bring his own son Yitskhak (Isaac) as an offering to Yah. Yah came to Abrawm in a vision, proclaiming that He is Abrawm’s shield, and that Abrawm’s reward for his offering of his son Yitskhak (Isaac) would be great. Abrawm believed this promise, and “it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Ex. 15:6). As Awbrawm was about to slay his son on the altar of burnt offering, a ram (male lamb) was provided in place of his son Yitskak (Isaac). This is why the name of this land was called “MoriYah” even before this offering took place. “MoriYah” means “my provision” (mori) is of “Yah.”
Yah made an oath to Awbrawm that He would make Awbrawm’s descendents multiply “exceedingly” (Ex. 17:2). Then the Almighty gave Awbrawm the name of “Awbrahawm,” changing his name from “high father” (Awbrawm) to “high father of many nations” (Awbrahawm). This was a promise and an oath between the Almighty and Awbrahawm. Awbrahawm was then asked to cut the foreskin of his flesh as an outward sign of this righteousness, and of his oath-relationship with the Almighty. “This is My oath which you will keep between Me and you, and your seed (descendents) after you: Every son among you will be cut. 11And you will cut off the foreskin of his flesh. And it will come to be a mark of the oath between Me and you” (Gen. 17:10-11). The Almighty continued by saying that this was something to be done to Awbrahawm’s natural descendents, as well as those who are purchased with silver (slaves/servants/co-habitants) (vs. 13).
Shockingly enough for Christians, the Almighty said that this was to be an “everlasting oath” (vs. 13)! Our question to Christians must be: How long is “everlasting?” We believe that Yah meant it when He said it will be “everlasting.” Moreover, Yahuah said that anyone who doesn’t follow this physical sign of this oath will be “cut off” (in other words “destroyed”) from Yah’s people.
So what is the sum of this short analysis of Genesis 17?
1. Awbrahawm was declared righteous through the Anointed Son (symbolized by the ram provided in Yitskhak’s (Isaac’s) place. Therefore it doesn’t make sense that all Yah cares about is the righteousness of one’s heart. Awbrahawm was declared righteous before he was asked to do an outward physical cutting of the flesh, as a sign between the Most High and Awbrahawm.
2. It is an “everlasting” sign.
3. It is a sign for both the descendents of Abrahawm, and those who become a part of Yah’s people by being purchased with silver.
Now if Christians truly believe that circumcision is a type of enslavement and something horrible, then why did the Almighty command Awbrahawm to do it in the first place? Why would the Almighty declare Awbrahawm a righteous man, only to punish him with the duty of having to cut his foreskin? We believe just what Scripture said… that it was an outward sign of an oath-relationship with the Almighty.
It should be pointed out that there is a correlation between the word “oath” (“covenant” in KJV) and the word for “circumcise.” The word for “oath” is “b’reet,” which means to “cut an agreement,” and was shown through the cutting of an animal offering, and by swearing an oath between one another. The greatness of the oath of circumcision is comparable to the animal offerings. Rather than cutting an offering and making an oath with Awbrahawm, Awbrahawm and his descendents (and those purchased with silver) would be cut in their flesh! Please understand that the ancient people of Scripture thought of themselves like trees. The tree produces seeds and from those seeds we get fruit. The fruit then bears more trees and more fruit through its seeds. Likewise, a man’s sperm was considered to be seed, planted in the fertile soil of the woman’s womb, resulting in a fruitful tree. Thus, the Almighty directly made a “cutting” and an oath with Awbrahawm that was to last forever, and an oath to his seed/descendants. It is symbolized by cutting an agreement with a physical cutting upon Awbrahawm’s foreskin, the very place where his seed (sperm) proceeds from. It is a physical sign that shows who the people of Awbrahawm’s oath belong to. It is a physical sign of a heart acceptance of the Almighty. It is deemed as a righteous action, and shows that we honour Yah’s oaths and commands.
What most people don’t know is that there is no such thing as “circumcision” according to Scripture. The word “circumcision” in English means to “cut around” the head of the penis. This is the common interpretation of Scripture. It is the common practice of hospitals. However, if you go to different places around the world, you will see that this is not the only way to cut the foreskin of one’s flesh. The word in Scripture for “circumcision” is “mool” or “milah” which means to “cut back” the foreskin of the flesh. It doesn’t mean to “cut around” the head of the penis. Modern-day cutting around the head of the penis is a process which is complicated and often ends in drastic results. Because of the 20-40 minute process, there is an extreme amount of pain which one would need to be “put under” drugs for. We will not go into the details for modern-day cutting around the head of the penis, but it should be noted that many times the skin is cut well below the head of the penis and results in a lot of discomfort and pain to the man long after the operation. Many penises have been deformed, bent, or lots of other tragedies as a result of the common modern-day cutting around the head of the penis for both children and adults. Scripturally speaking, “circumcision” or “mool” or “milah” should have been translated simply as “to cut back” the foreskin of the penis.
For details on this process, do a search on Google for Troy Miller’s circumcision websites dealing with “milah” vs. “periah.” One warning, Troy’s websites on this subject show you how to perform a “milah” circumcision (simply cutting the foreskin and not around the head of the penis), but we do not advise that you do this yourself. It must be given a lot of thought, a seriously sharp knife (such as a barber’s straight-razor), and it must be done in one stroke that is precise and hard and fast, and should never be done alone. Your instrument should be able to cut through cow hide or thick chicken skin with ease. If you would like to talk to us about this process and experience, please contact us. The point is, Scriptural “circumcision” is a short, quick, single cutting of the foreskin that hangs over the head of the penis. That is why it is called “foreskin,” not the entire skin that covers the head of the penis! But let us get back to the promise to Awbrahawm and the Scriptural sign of that oath through cutting the foreskin.
Paul/Sha’ul believed that those who accept the Anointed Son are truly “Awbrahawm’s seed” (Gal. 3:16,29). Now if we are truly Awbrahawm’s seed through the Anointed Son, we would think that physical circumcision should apply to us, because it was to be a sign between Awbrahawm’s seed and Yah for an “everlasting” oath. After all, those whom Awbrahawm purchased with silver were also supposed to be circumcised. Paul stated that we are the “assembly of the Mighty One, bought with His own blood (the blood of Yahushua being taken as the bloodline of the Almighty Father) (Acts 20:28). This aspect of Paul’s (Sha’ul’s) teaching is true, since the Passover Lamb redeemed or purchased the life of the firstborn son in Exodus. If we are Awbrahawm’s seed purchased by the blood of the Anointed Son, then we should be circumcised, just as those who were purchased with silver in the First Witness (OT).
Century upon century since the death and resurrection of the Anointed Son, people have forsaken the physical act of cutting one’s foreskin… and it is all because of one man’s preaching… Paul’s preaching. No one can argue otherwise. Paul/Sha’ul is the only one who speaks negatively against the Torah/Law and circumcision. Paul teaches that if a person is practicing the Torah, then circumcision profits them. But if a gentile practices Torah, it is regarded to him as circumcision. In other words, we have a double standard under Paul’s teachings (Rom. 2:25-26). Those who obey the Torah and get circumcised have a profit. But gentiles don’t have to, because when they obey the Torah, it is as if they are circumcised already. Oh, but Paul is so confusing, because he teaches that the Torah is a ministry of death and condemnation… so why would a gentile be observing the Torah anyhow? Paul does away with the fact that a person literally has to be circumcised to observe Passover (Ex. 12:48). And most people don’t observe Passover as part of their belief in the Anointed Son as their Passover Lamb. Most Christians believe, according to Paul’s teachings, that if you have accepted the Anointed Son, then your heart is circumcised, and you don’t have to have your flesh circumcised.
In Paul’s mind, if you obey the Torah/Law of Yah, then you are cursed (Gal. 3:10). He argues this way again in Gal. 3:11-12, when he states that we are “justified by faith,” BUT to Paul, “the Torah/law is not of faith.” Paul’s contention is that if you obey the Torah/law, then you are under a curse, and you are not believing or “of faith,” because the Torah/law is not of “faith.” He proceeds to say that if you observe the Torah/Law, you will live in it/by it. This is true according to Lev. 18:5; Deut. 8:1; 30:16; etc. But Paul says the opposite! We live by “faith” now, and not by the “Torah/Law.” He also contends that the Spirit is not received by works of the Torah/Law (Gal. 3:2). Perhaps this is one reason why many Christians believe the Spirit of the Most High was not given to Yah’s people until after the death and resurrection of the Anointed Son. This is of course to ignore the abundance of texts which state that Yah’s Spirit is with His people in the First Witness (OT). See Khaggai (Hag.) 2:5; Prov. 1:23; 2 Sh’mu’El (Sam.) 23:2; Yob (Job) 27:3.
The fact is, Paul did not preach to people that they should be circumcised according to the Torah in any of his writings. Not once does he mention the fact that physical cutting of the foreskin is a sign between Yah’s people forever. Not once does he mention that the physical cutting of the flesh is a requirement to observe Passover. In fact, nothing could be more anti-circumcision than Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 7:18, which states that if you weren’t circumcised when you got “called” to believe in the Almighty and His Son, then it doesn’t matter if you get circumcised. But in Exodus 12:41-49, it is stated that no un-circumcised person can partake of Passover, the very meal which the Anointed Son commemorated as a remembrance of Him from that night onward (Lukas 22:13,19). As we have seen so far, circumcision is an outward physical sign of a spiritual heart acceptance and oath with Yah. But everything Paul said points in the opposite direction.
Paul COULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT if it could be proven that “circumcision of the heart” was a new teaching of the Second Witness (NT) which came into effect only after the Anointed Son died and rose again. But the fact of the matter is… CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART IS NOT A “NEW TESTAMENT” TEACHING! The Almighty commanded circumcision of the “heart” in Deut. 10:12-17; 30:6; YirmeYahu (Jer.) 4:4! Yah even went beyond that spiritual circumcision of the heart to command also the circumcision of the “lips.” Mosheh (Moses) shows that it was understood that circumcision of the lips was necessary, when he says that he is a man of “uncircumcised lips” (Ex. 6:30). Yah even went beyond that to talk about circumcision of the “ear” (YirmeYahu (Jer.) 6:10)! So who is greater? Who is right? Was it Yah who commanded circumcision of the foreskin of our flesh, plus circumcision of the ears and lips and heart? Or was it Paul/Sha’ul who taught that all we have to do is accept Yahushua and have our heart circumcised? This is the crux of the matter. As for us, we believe Yah El Shaddai (Yah Almighty). Here are a few texts representing what the Almighty thinks of people who do not have circumcision of the flesh, lips, heart, and ear:
? Anyone not circumcised is “cut off” from Yah’s people - Gen. 17:14.
? Don’t marry to uncircumcised people – Gen. 34:14; Judges 14:3.
? No Passover for the uncircumcised - Ex. 12:48.
? If heart is not circumcised, Yah is against you – Lev. 26:41.
? Prophecy that the uncircumcised and unclean will not enter Yahrushalayim in the future – YeshaYahu (Isa.) 52:1.
? Those with uncircumcised ears cannot hear Yah’s word – YirmeYahu (Jer.) 6:10.
? Death to the uncircumcised – Yekhezk’El (Ezek.) 28:10; 31:18; 32:19-32.
? Uncircumcised in heart and flesh cannot enter Yah’s House – Yekhezk’El (Ezek.) 44:7-9.
? Being uncircumcised is not recommended – Acts 7:51.
Even after all that we have shown so far, there may still be some who are whining. They might refer to Acts 11, where the Almighty gives a vision to Kefa (Peter) regarding the acceptance of gentiles into the fold of believers. They might also refer to Acts 15, where Ya’akob (James) declared four stipulations to the converting gentiles. In both cases, Christians do not have a leg to stand on. In the first instance, Acts 11 simply teaches that gentiles should be accepted into the fold of Yahushua (vs. 9), not that we don’t have to observe Yah’s commands/Torah, etc. In the second instance, Acts 15, the four requirements were given in order to allow gentiles to continue studies in the synagogue and learn the teachings of Mosheh (Moses) as they continue from one Shabawt to another (15:21). Yes, they were still observing Shabawt (Sabbath) at that time, and going to synagogue, and learning the teachings of Mosheh (Moses). That is what Acts 15:21 shows.
Dawid (David) boasted about being circumcised and in an oath-relationship with the Most High. His circumcision was a major reason that he was not afraid to take on Gol-yat (Goliath). Just read his speech in 1 Sh’mu’El (Sam.) 17:26-36. Being circumcised in and of itself does not earn anyone everlasting life. But one should first be circumcised in heart, ears, and lips, and then be circumcised in the flesh as a physical sign of their oath with the Most High and His Son. We should have seen so far that the Almighty equally condemns a person for being physically uncircumcised as He does being spiritually uncircumcised in heart, lips, and ears. YirmeYahu (Jer.) 9:25-26 tells us that Yah will punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised, because there are many who are physically circumcised but not circumcised in heart, lips, and ears! Therefore, we should be concerned about not only observing physical circumcision or physical observance of the Torah as a whole, but also the spiritual observance of the heart, lips, and ears.
Lie Number Six – Men Shouldn’t Wear Head-Coverings or Have Long Hair
(Partly taken from our website article on Hair, Head-Coverings, and the Seal of the Name)
Read 1 Cor. 11 and you will note quite plainly that Paul is comparing men and women. The women are to cover their heads in prayer, whereas the men are not to do so. If the women cover their heads in prayer, they bring honour to the Anointed Son. If men cover their heads in prayer, they bring dishonour to the Anointed Son. He also taught that a man should not have long hair. Both of these concepts speak against precedents laid out in the lives of righteous men in the Torah (OT). In the writings of Dani’El we find that the Eebreem (Hebrews) covered their heads in prayer and worship. In the life of Dawid (David) we see that he and his men covered their heads in prayer and worship. The prophet Yekhezk’El (Ezek.) was actually commanded to wear a turban. And EliYahu (Elijah) had long hair.
Without fail, “Jewish” men have always covered their heads in prayer and worship, as well as their women. Not only in prayer and worship, but at all times. Islamic men and women do the same. North American Christian women used to cover their heads at all times also. People in Turkey and other European countries have also covered their heads from time to time, both men and women. Men and women in Afghanistan cover their heads. In fact, if you were to Google “the evolution of hats,” you would find many videos that have documented the use of head-coverings throughout time, in different cultures around the world. Truth be known, it is only in recent fashion that men and women have discarded their head-coverings, and that men have been clean shaven.
Sha’ul’s teaching on head-coverings is based on the teaching of “headship,” meaning a “hierarchy of authority.” Sha’ul (Paul) explains that the Head of the Anointed Son is the Almighty Father (vs. 3). This truth is evidenced by many Scriptural texts which show the Father as the “Head above all” (1 Chron. 29:11). Sha’ul (Paul) progresses by saying that the Head of Adawm (Man) is the Anointed Son. And just as A’aron was the high priest, and the other priests came under his headship, so also the Anointed Son is High Priest, and Scriptural men come under His headship as priests (Rev. 1:5-6). Sha’ul (Paul) completes the hierarchy of headship by stating that the head/authority above the woman is Adawm (the man). This is shown throughout Scripture to be true also.
What Sha’ul (Paul) says next in 1 Cor. 11 about head-coverings in relation to Scriptural headship is appallingly not in line with the rest of Scripture. It is not only “appauling,” but “a-Pauline-Christianity” teaching which contradicts the rest of Scripture. Please don’t misunderstand. For several years, we tried to reconcile Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) teachings with the rest of Scripture. There are many who would defend Sha’ul (Paul) to the bitter end, trying to define Greek words used in 1 Cor. 11, and change the context of what he says. But in the end, the context speaks for itself, and we must deal with it. Sha’ul (Paul) ties the issue of head-coverings to the teaching on Scriptural Headship. In the same breath that he speaks on Headship, he states that a man dishonours the Anointed Son, as his Head, if he covers his head when praying or prophesying (vs. 4). And if a woman does not cover her head when praying or prophesying, then she dishonours her husband (vs. 5). The context allows no other conclusion. The context is Scriptural Headship, and how head-coverings honour or dishonour that hierarchy of Headship. Many “Messianic Jews” try to argue that vs. 7 speaks against men “veiling” their faces (G#2619 – katakalupto), and not against head-coverings. But vs. 7 speaks plainly in line with vs. 5 and the context of honouring or dishonouring the Scriptural hierarchy of Headship. Sha’ul states that because Adawm (Man) is created in the image of Elohim (the Father and the Son), he should not cover his head.
So what is the big deal? Well, the problem is that the rest of Scripture gives example after example of men covering their heads in prayer, worship, mourning, etc. These are not just priests either, but regular men, kings, and prophets. Many of the men’s robes had a hood attached to them also (See YeshaYahu (Isa.) 3:22-23, where some translators have believed the word “tsawneef” is used to describe the “hood” of the robe, differently than the prayer shawl (“aderet” or “ma’atafaf”) or the turban (“peh-air” or “mits-nefet”). Once again, we have much to learn from Yah’s Tent and its services and priesthood, described in Exodus. The Scriptural priests had to have their heads covered, as can be seen in Ex. 28:40. A special head-covering was to be worn by the high priest, noted in Ex. 28:36-38. Even in times of mourning, the high priest was never allowed to take off his head-covering (Lev.21: 10-11).
And what of our High Priest, the Anointed Son? YeshaYahu (Isa.) 61:10 says, “He has clothed me with the garments of deliverance. He has clothed me with the robe of righteousness, as a Bridegroom puts on a regal head-covering, and as a bride adorns herself with jewels.” Well, this passage deals with three aspects that believers in the Anointed Son will have, in preparation for the marriage feast of the Lamb. But let us focus on one aspect for now. The word “head-covering” is “peh-air,” and is defined as an “embellishment” or “fancy headdress.” Now how many weddings have you been to, where the bridegroom is wearing a fancy turban? I wish I had known about this before Elisheba and I were married. But truth is progressive. One step at a time. Needless to say, when the Anointed Son comes as the Bridegroom for the marriage feast of the Lamb and for His bride (Yisra’El), He will be coming with a fancy headdress. And as men, we should be like priests, according to Rev. 1:5-6, and wear our head-coverings proudly! Such a sign also shows that our men and women are preparing for the marriage feast of the Lamb.
Then we have two Scriptural texts regarding men covering their heads in weeping and mourning. “And Dawid (David) went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up. And he had his head covered, and he went barefoot. And all the people that were with him covered their heads. And they went up, weeping as they ascended. … And Dawid said, ‘Oh jwjy (Yahuah), I pray to You. May the advice of Akhitophel be turned into foolishness’” (2 Shemu’El (Sam.) 15:30-31). This text shows that in a special time of need and weeping, Dawid and many other men covered their heads in prayer. And apparently their prayer was answered if you read the rest of the story. Then we have the prophet Yekhezk’El (Ezek.), who was told to speak to the people of Yisra’El about their future. “You will not cover your beard, nor eat the bread of men. And your turban (or bonnet) will be upon your head, and your sandals upon your feet. You will not mourn or weep, but you will waste away for your crookedness and growl towards one another” (Yekhezk’El (Ezek.) 24:23).
Turn again now to the Tent of the Most High which was with His people Yisra’El in the wilderness. Think about the ark of jwjy (Yahuah) which was in the most set-apart place, with the kerubim (cherubs) facing one another on top of the ark (Ex. 25:18). Now compare this with the vision that YeshaYahu (Isa.) had in chapter six of his writings. “I saw the Sovereign seated upon the throne, high and lifted up. And the length of His robe filled the Palace (heavenly Temple). Above it stood the seraphim. Each one had six wings. With two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew” (YeshaYahu (Isa.) 6:1-2). Now surely is quite absurd to think that heavenly messengers, in their exalted and pure state, have to cover their faces before the Most High, and yet Christian preachers say or teach that it is Scriptural to remove a head-covering when praying or prophesying as men! Are we higher than heavenly messengers, that we need not cover ourselves in the presence of the Most High in prayer?
Even if Sha’ul’s writings in 1 Cor. 11:7 meant not to “veil” one’s face with a head-covering, such a thing would be against Scriptural thought when we think of this example of the heavenly messengers. Moreover, it has been pointed out that when the Anointed Son said we should go into our “closet” (or “secret place” – Matt. 6:6), He was probably referring to the wrapping of oneself in their “prayer shawl.” In fact, the Greek word “tamion” has been studied as corresponding to the Eebree (Hebrew) “meh’eel,” from which we get the word “mantle.” We see a truthful example of this in the famous story of the “still small voice” of jwjy (Yahuah). EliYahu (Elijah) went in the wilderness, fleeing persecution, and spent many days and nights there. EliYahu prayed to the Most High, and then there was wind so strong that it cut the mountain and busted through rocks. Then there was a great earthquake. Then there was a great fire. Then there was a still, small voice. AND WHAT DID ELIYAHU DO? He was so humbled that he “wrapped his face in his mantle (aderet – large covering), and stood in the entrance of the cave,” where he then heard the voice of the Most High (1 Melakim (Kings) 19:13). So does it make sense that a man should dishonour the Anointed Son if he would cover his head with a turban or even veil his face with a prayer shawl? It doesn’t make sense to us.
Once again, we note that Sha’ul (Paul) is the lone ranger whose writings are used against the Torah (Law) in general, and in this case, against head-coverings. Scripture states that we should confirm things with at least two or three witnesses (not in all cases, but in most) (Deut. 17:6). It states that when we study Scripture, it should be compared with the rest of Scripture, “line upon line, here a little, and there a little” (YeshaYahu (Isa.) 28:10). We do not find these types of anti-law statements in the writings of the four witnesses (MattitYahu, Markos, Lukas, and Yahukhanan), or in the writings of Ya’akob (James) or Yahudah (Jude). Thus, our standpoint has been to skip from Acts 9:3 up to the writings of Ya’akob (James). Thereby, we do not have to deal with trying to figure out what is true in Sha’ul’s writings, and what isn’t. It should be noted that much of Sha’ul’s writings are true, and do line up with the TaNaKh (OT). But one spends an incredible amount of time trying to figure out what is true from what is false in Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) writings. This exposure of Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) anti-Torah teaching on head-coverings should be enough to at least open your mind to the truth that we should disregard Sha’ul’s (Paul’s) writings.
We have tackled the issue of men wearing head-coverings, and we need to look at the issue of men wearing long hair. People have taken Paul at his word, believing that long hair on a man is unscriptural. Again, Paul is the lone ranger whose writings are used against the Torah (Law) in general, and in this case against men having long hair. But we are advised to confirm things with at least two or three witnesses (not in all cases, but in most) (Deut. 17:6). When studying Scripture, we need to compare the whole of Scripture, “line upon line, here a little, and there a little” (YeshaYahu (Isa.) 28:10). We do not find these types of anti-law statements in the writings of the four witnesses (MattitYahu, Markos, Lukas, and Yahukhanan), the writings of Ya’akob (James), or Yahudah (Jude). Our stand has been to skip from Acts 9:3 up to the writings of Ya’akob (James). Then we don’t have to deal with trying to figure out what is true or not true in Sha’ul’s writings. Sure, much of Sha’ul’s writings are true and do line up with the TaNaKh (OT). But one spends an incredible amount of time trying to figure out what is true from what is false in his writings. On the subject of men with long hair, we will see momentarily that Paul is wrong.
The command not to shave the head or cut off the sides of the beard is given in the midst of a chapter warning Yisra’El not to profane or defile themselves (see Lev. 21, particularly verse 5). Thus, it is defiling in the sight of the Almighty to shave one’s head or beard. Most men did not have long hair, but exactly how long is debatable. But there are several Scriptural examples. There are those who take a vow of “nazeer” (separation) who were commanded to grow their hair until the end of their vow (Num. 6:2-5). And then we have the example of EliYahu (Elijah), who was described as the “ba’al sa’ar” or “sovereign of hair” quite literally (2 Melakim (Kings) 1:8). And we can’t forget Abshalom whose long hair got him stuck on a tree, leading to his death by those that pursued him (2 Sh’mu’El (Sam.) 18:9-15).
Most importantly, men understand that they are not to round the corners of their head, meaning a shortly shaved or cropped hairstyle like the heathen (gentiles) (Lev. 19:27). Scriptural men are to wear a longer style of hair, and these are generally the types of hairstyles which the men of Scripture had. Nor were they to destroy the borders of their beards (jaw-line) by shaving (ibid). The Scriptural command of Leviticus 19:27 is not to “destroy (shakhath) the borders (pe’oat) of your beard” (Lev. 19:27). Plainly, this commandment is not to shave off our beard. Let us get real honest. The only reason modern men are clean shaven and have close-cropped hairstyles is because of modern-day gentile nations fashion trends . . . and it is only since the later half of the 19th century . . . less than 100 years. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules about not shaving the hair or beard, but the commandment still stands as a whole. Most Christians would no longer see this command as a valid spiritual AND literal command. In fact, they probably wouldn’t see it as either spiritual OR literal. But they claim that they are following the Anointed Son.
The Anointed Son had a beard. One of the proofs that He was the Anointed One (Mashiyawk—Messiah) was that He would have His beard pulled harshly in chastisement for our transgressions. “I gave My back to those who strike, and My cheeks to those who pulled out the beard. I did not hide My face from humiliation and spitting” (YeshaYahu (Isa.) 50:6). People have focused on the flogging or “stripes” (ibid, 53:5) that the Anointed Son received in His suffering for us. Many have focused on the nails driven through His wrists and feet, or the mocking, slapping, punching, and spitting. Not many have noticed that in ancient times, beards were a sign of maturity, the pride of a man, and nobility. Pulling out someone’s beard or destroying it by shaving was a great shame (for example, Ezra 9:3). Like the shaving of a lion’s mane, the Lion of Yahudah faced the shame of a plucked beard by His captors. Like a sheep that stands silently in front of the shearers, so was He . . . and His beard was plucked out or “sheared.”
The command to keep our beards grown out is one that is both spiritual and literal, although Christianity would have a hard time seeing this. We are allowed to trim the beard (2 Sh’mu’El (Sam.) 19:24), but not to destroy it by removing it. The beard shows our maturity, like a grown lion. To shave the lion’s mane is to de-masculinize the male lion; just as shaving our beards would be to make us like women. Like cross-dressing, the destruction of the beard is a fashion trend that has buried the line of demarcation between men and women. One of our favourite quotes is a Greek saying which states that “There are two kinds of people in this world that go around beardless – boys and women – and I am neither one” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/beard).
Conclusion: Whose Message was It?
It is PAUL’S “gospel” (KJV) which Paul preaches (Romans 2:16). This is opposite to the other witnesses of the Anointed Son, who preached the Wonderful News OF the ANOINTED SON (Matt. 24:14; Markos 1:1-2,14). Not once did the other followers say that it was “their” witness, irrespective of other witnesses. Nor did they make it seem like they got their message straight from the Anointed Son. But Paul isolates himself as the lone apostle who consulted no one else to learn his message, professed his own apostleship without anyone confirming it, but who had everything revealed directly to him by the Anointed Son at his conversion. The 12 apostles came together and shared the witness of the Anointed Son as they studied it from the prophecies, as they remembered their dealings with the Anointed Son, and as they needed to teach others of the ministry and News of the Anointed Son Himself. Even the Anointed Son did not preach His own message, but only preached the Wonderful News of the Father (Matt. 4:23; Markos 1:14-15). The Anointed Son and His 12 apostles did not boast of their works, but Paul often did, putting down the 12 apostles. The real question is, how did Paul’s work ever gain approval by the other apostles in Acts?
It is not just a hypothesis, but a real fact, that Paul wrote his letters to the different assemblies of his after he was imprisoned in the latter part of Acts. Paul’s conversion must have seemed real to the believers in Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) in Acts 9 and onward, in order for them to accept him as a true believer. Bar-nabba (Barnabas) also put in a word for Paul to gain approval. And the fact that Paul was no longer persecuting the “followers of the Way” (Acts 9:1) was probably enough reason for people to think “Gee, Paul has really changed and met the Anointed Son.” And it was also quite natural for people to accept Paul in a leadership position as a former P’rush (Pharisee) and a part of Roman government enforcement. Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), and Yahukhanan (John) probably had very high expectations when they sent Paul and Bar-nabba off on their mission to witness to the nations… as Acts 15 shows.
In Acts 21, things take a completely different road, don’t they? Yes, and Paul plays along to take the attention off of his anti-Torah teaching by taking some men with him to the Dwelling Place (Temple) to finish his vow of separation (Nazarite vow). And it would have been very hard for Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), and Yahukhanan (John) to really know if Paul was doing anything wrong in his evangelism and witness, because they were focused on their own missions, assemblies, and work. Surely they would have thought that Paul was doing what they agreed to in Acts 15, which was to bring the believers to synagogue each Shabawt to learn the Torah (Acts 15:21). And we must also remember that at the time when Paul was sent out in Acts 15 by the apostles, the only writings they had were the writings of the First Witness (OT) and more than likely the writing of MattitYahu (Matthew). And while most people think that Revelation was written close to 70 years after the death and resurrection of the Son, the Aramaic version of Revelation is given a much earlier date. So again, around the time of Acts 15, they were dealing with the First Witness (OT) and the writings of MattitYahu, and perhaps Revelation or a few other scrolls. And these things were read in the synagogues on festival days. Not keeping the festival days or forsaking the assembly of synagogue would have been unheard of. And there were no “Christian churches.”
But while Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), and Yahukhanan (John) were doing their work, there were many assemblies in Asia who resisted Paul’s brand of evangelism and heard Paul’s anti-Torah teachings. And in Acts 21:28 they had Paul hauled off for trial quite quickly (Acts 21:28). Paul even tells of his rejection in Asia in 2 Cor. 1:8; and 2 Tim. 1:15. As we discovered earlier, the Anointed Son congratulated some of the assemblies of Asia for rejecting false apostles, liars, and those who tried to get them to eat food offered to idols (Rev. 2-3). During Paul’s trials in Acts 21-28 though, Paul managed to get the crowd arguing about the issue of resurrection rather than deal with his anti-Torah teachings (Acts 23:6). He escaped death and was placed under house arrest (Acts 24:27; 27:1; 28:16,30). This is where Paul wrote his many letters to the different assemblies, continuing his message of freedom from the Torah to live lawlessly free, to eat food offered to idols, not to cover our heads in prayer as men, for men not to have long hair, that the Torah is enslaving and causes us to transgress by opportunity of the commandments, and all the rest of it.
Thus, while many people think that Acts gives us an honest picture of Paul’s conversion and approval by the “pillars” or apostles who were above him, Acts only brings us to the time of his imprisonment. And it wasn’t until after his imprisonment that he did his writing. Most certainly, Paul probably never imagined that an anti-Torah, anti-Hebrew, anti-feast day, anti-commandment-keeping religion would be founded upon him and his writings… Pauline Christianity. And as a result of Paul’s letters and widespread anti-Torah evangelism, people were forced to pick between Paul’s writings or the writings of Kefa (Peter), Ya’akob (James), Yahukhanan (John), and Yahudah (Jude). Unfortunately, many choose the path of Paul’s writings, forgetting what the three pillars wrote (Kefa, Ya’akob, and Yahukhanan). Pauline Christianity eventually snuffed out the Notsrim (Nazarenes) or “followers of the Way,” and they are virtually unheard of after 4th century history (400CE onward).
Like Yisra’El of old, which started out well and had many wonderful years of Torah observance, so also it went with those who believed in the Anointed Son at first. Before Paul came along, Kefa (Peter) was reaching out to the gentiles with a few others, seeking the “lost sheep” which were scattered on every mountain. And Yisra’El (Israel) was scattered they forsook Torah-observance (Zek. (Zech.) 7:12-14;Yirme. (Jer.) 31:10; Deut. 30:1-4). That should speak volumes to us. But once Paul came along, tares began to be sown among the assemblies of the Anointed Son which the true apostles and followers had founded in Yahrushalayim (Jerusalem) and the nations. At first it was through his oral speeches. And then it became compounded when he put it in writing under prison watch.
The earliest followers of the Anointed Son must have been so excited when they first started out. They had lived with `wswjy (Yahushua) and witnessed His ministry, death, and resurrection. They had brought that message to many others, and people believed their witness. Assemblies were formed amongst the nations and in the land of Yisra’El (Israel). People were not only following the laws and commands of the First Witness (OT), but were following in the steps and message of the Anointed Son. And then Paul came along… the lone voice and writer whose words have put a stumbling-block before Scriptural believers in the Anointed Son. He sowed wheat amongst the tares, and the confusion that has resulted from his writings continues to cause many to stumble. The assemblies which resulted from Paul’s evangelism or infiltration were touted as the crown of Paul’s work. It would be his “gospel” that he promoted for acceptance. It would be his “gospel” that would eventually judge all men in the day of judgment (Rom. 2:16). And now we must make a decision, much like the assemblies in Asia faced. Do we accept the writings of Paul’s gospel, or do we accept the writings of MattitYahu (Matthew), Markos (Mark), Lukas (Luke), Yahukhanan (John), Yahudah (Jude), Ya’akob (James) and Kefa (Peter)? The latter is essentially what the original Aramaic Peshitta text contained regarding the Second Witness (NT). And prior to that, there were several texts in Eebreet (Hebrew) and Aramaic in separate manuscripts. Then came the Greco-Roman texts of Paul’s writings. Will you choose the Ebree (Hebrew) or Aramaic Way of the Notsrim (Nazarenes)? Or will you choose the Greco-Roman lawlessness of Paul’s way? The Anointed Son made this choice very clear to us when He warned that there were some “who say they are apostles, and are not” (Rev. 2:2). He warned that they were “liars.” He warned that they were teaching His followers to eat food offered to idols (Rev. 2:14). And what is the final word on this subject? Paul taught his listeners to eat food offered to idols in 1 Cor. 8, verses 4 and 10 and chapter 10, verses 25 to 27.
If you make the right choice to reject the false apostle of the stumbling-block known as Paul/Sha’ul, it will take some time to heal. You will need to re-evaluate things and ask yourself “Did I get this from Paul’s mouth alone, or is what I believe according to ALL other Scriptures?” It will take time, but you will need to re-read the Second Witness (NT) without reading Paul’s writings, and then think long and hard about what you should believe. Such measures will give you a proper view of Scripture and how you should now live. May Yah favour you and keep you, grant you wisdom and understanding, and give you strength to walk as the “followers of the Way” once walked.
This is the Path of the Almighty and His Son!