tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
A friend sent me this link. I will post only part.
Galatians continues to be as painful as it is pernicious. This is blatantly "I Paul" am more credible than God. "Look (ide – behold, see and notice this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos – transliterated Paul, whom Strong’s called "the most famous of the Apostles;" the name is of Latin origin and means "small"), say to (lego) you all (umeis) that (hoti – because) if (ean) you are circumcised (peritemno), Christos (ΧΡΣ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the correct title "the Implement of Yah") [is] for naught, nobody useful, and nothing of value, annulling the possibility that (oudeis – totally worthless and completely meaningless, negating the idea that) He will be helpful to (opheleo – beneficial, profitable, useful, advantageous, or of assistance to) you (umas)." (Galatians 5:2) According to this statement, to believe Paul’s word you must reject God’s Word.
Since this is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying, "if you follow Yahweh’s advice in the Torah you cannot be saved by Yahshua," let’s examine the three verbs carefully. The first one, "lego – I say," pits Paul against Yahshua: "the ‘logos – word’ made flesh." It was written in the first person singular, present active indicative. So, even though the pronoun "I" is designated in the verb, Sha’uwl added "ego – I" separately, in addition to his name, "Paulos," to emphasize that he alone was the source of this "declaration, narration, command, assurance, and recommendation." The present tense indicates that "Paulos," as the writer, was portraying his statement as not only being valid currently, but remaining valid. In the active voice, the verb confirms that Sha’uwl was the sole source, and solely responsible for this statement and for its consequence. The indicative mood attests to the notion that Paul wanted his audience to believe that what he was portraying was real and completely accurate. As such, he has negated the notion that he was speaking for the Messiyah as His Apostle. Paul is speaking for himself, and he is misappropriating the impetus behind Yahshua’s mission. Simply stated, Sha’uwl is disassociating the Messiyah from the Torah, and thereby completely nullifying His purpose.
"Peritemno – you are circumcised" was written as peritemnesoe in the second person plural, present passive subjunctive. The passive voice combined with the subjunctive mood signifies that there is somewhere between a possibility and a probability that the subject is being acted upon, suggesting in this case that Sha’uwl wanted us to believe that the Galatians may have been hoodwinked or compelled into being circumcised.
Moving on to the next word, at first blush it appears as if oudeis was misused in this text. It is actually an adjective (meaning that it should be modifying the noun "Christos"), not an adverb coloring the nature of "opheleo – he will provide help." Oudeis is defined as "the negation of a noun," as "no one, nothing, and nobody," all of which are rather demeaning when associated with the Messiyah. But, as hard as this may be to believe, the Messiyah is completely "negated," "a nobody" and "is nothing" when He is separated from Yahweh and His Torah. His sacrifice has no meaning or benefit if not equated with Passover and Unleavened Bread.
Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case "the Messiyah" is "in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account whatsoever, and completely meaningless," all of which is true when "Christos" is disassociated from God’s Word as Sha’uwl has done.
Oddly, noting that umas, designating the pronoun "you," was rendered in the personal (referring to a person) second person plural (and thus "all of you" or "you all") accusative (marking it as the direct object of the verb), "opheleo – to provide assistance" was written in the third person singular, denoting "he will [not] provide help." As such, we need to move "umas – you" from between "Christos" and "ouden – nobody useful" (as it appears in the Greek text), to the end of the sentence.
And while I don’t want to sound like a boring fourth grade grammar teacher, rendered in the future active indicative as ophelesei, the verb conveys the idea that "his negated benefit will not actually be accomplished in the future" by the subject, who is the "Messiyah." And the future negated benefit is defined as: "being of help, assistance, or value, being useful or profitable, being of any assistance, advantageous, or helping someone accomplish something beneficial."
I apologize in advance for asking you to read this again, but it is necessary if we want to understand Satan’s agenda. "Behold, I, Paulos, say to you all that if you are circumcised, Christos is for naught, nobody useful, and nothing of value, annulling the possibility that He will be helpful to you." (5:2)
It should be noted here that as a Jew, and as the son of a Pharisee, Sha’uwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So by writing this sentence, Paul is either saying that his rules don’t apply to him (as was the case with Muhammad and is the case with most politicians and religious leaders), or he is publicly announcing that the Messiyah is of no value to him. And I’ll let you ponder whether one or both of these realities is actually true.
Now here is a consortium of English translations for your consideration. NA: "Look I Paul say to you that if you might be circumcised Christ you nothing will benefit." LV: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." KJV: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." NASB: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."
In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you." While Paul wrote that you have no hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that considerably to suggest that circumcision isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.
Since I am bereft of words, let’s reconsider Yahweh’s position on circumcision as it was articulated in Genesis. "God said to ‘Abraham (from ‘ab, father, and raham, compassionate, merciful and forgiving): ‘You shall closely and carefully observe (samar – personally examine, intently look at, care about, revere, study, heed, keep, and be preserved by) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth), and your descendants after you throughout their generations (dowr – dwelling places and time). (17:9) This is My Covenant (beriyth – family-oriented agreement) which relationally you shall closely, personally, and carefully observe (samar – intently study, examine, and keep) between Me and you, and between your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. (17:10) And you shall be circumcised in the flesh (basar – physical body and genitalia) of your foreskin (‘aralah – fold of skin that covers the conical tip of the penis); and it shall be accordingly the sign (‘owt – the mark and non-verbal symbol, the example and standard) of the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beriyth – marriage vow and binding agreement between parties; from beiyth, family, home, and households) between Me and you. (17:11) Absolutely circumcise (muwl muwl) those born in your home (bayith) and those you adopt.... This shall exist as My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth) in your flesh, as an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – completely unlimited in time, location, or situation) Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth)." (Genesis 17:12-13)
"But the uncircumcised male (zakar – man at any age or stage of life) who (‘asher – relationally) is not (lo’) circumcised (muwl) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar – physical body and genitalia) of his foreskin (‘aralah – fold of skin that covers the conical tip of the penis), that soul (nepesh) shall be cut off and separated (karat – severed and banished, killed and eliminated) from being with (‘eth – associating with and accompanying) Her (hiy’ – [speaking of our Spiritual Mother’s]) family (‘am – and people), breaking and nullifying (parar – violating and disassociating from) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth).’" (Genesis 17:14) There can be no doubt; according to Yahweh circumcision and the Covenant are related and inseparable.
Rather than Sha’uwl’s "if you are circumcised, your salvation is nullified," God said: "if you are not circumcised, your soul will be cut off and separated from My family because you have broken and nullified My Familial Covenant Relationship." So, you can believe Paul, which means rejecting Yahweh, or you can trust Yahweh, which means rejecting Paul. Their positions are the antithesis of one another
http://questioningpaul.com/Questioning_Paul-Galatians-10-Pharmakeia-Poisoned.Paul
The author makes a compelling argument that according to Paul, it was his way or god's way.
I would love to see vincent's, and a few other's, opinions on this.
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
Paul vs God - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread