Galatians

Galatians is considered by scholars to be an authentic Pauline letter. I disagree. I am not a scholar and I know there is a lot of scholarly writings that I could review that I have not reviewed yet. However, I have many years of Bible study and life experience, along with a particular eye for detecting deception. This commentary will present my skeptic view of the letter to the Galatians. I do not believe Paul was a real person, primarily because no one ever testified to meeting Paul. Everything that has ever been written about Paul is a reference to the Bible letters that have his name associated with them. When I found out that the life of Paul matches in many specific details to the life of Josephus, yet Josephus never mentions Paul at all, I came to the conclusion that Paul was a fictional character based on the life of Josephus. The scholars date the letter to the Galatians to the 50's because Paul (if he existed) died in the 60s under Nero. Of course scholars have to say this letter was written before Paul died, if they are going to take the position that Paul wrote it. However, there is no evidence that this letter existed in the first century. The main reason scholars date this letter to the 50's is because they take the position that Paul was really the author (because the letter says so) and dead people can't write letters. It is my position that this letter was written in the second century and the name Paul was just a name that carried authority in the Christian perspective.

Chapter Selection

Comments

Galatians 1

1-5. Paul is identified as the author in the first verse. The scholars accept Paul as the author, even though they don't know who Paul was, and they agree that many of the letters that identify Paul as the author are lying about Paul being the author. Paul says he was not appointed apostleship from any man, but from Jesus Christ and God the Father. Paul never gives his own account of his conversion. We get the road to Damascus story from the book of Acts and a different author. According to Acts, Paul was a prominent Jew who was well-known in Judaism, yet Josephus never mentions him. That is suspicious. Verse 2 says Paul has many brothers with him in writing to the churches of Galatia. Galatia was a region in central Turkey and it was a Roman Province. It is important that you realize all of Paul's letters were written to Roman provinces. The Bible also says Paul admitted to being a Roman citizen. The Roman connections and references are usually ignored by Christians. Christianity is a Roman religion and it always has been, but Christians sweep that obvious fact under the rug. Verse 3, Paul makes his second distinction between Jesus and God the Father. Paul never calls Jesus God, but consistently lists Jesus and God as two different characters. In verse 4, Paul makes another distinction between Jesus and God by saying Jesus died for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to God the Father's will. This idea of someone dying for the sins of another is anti-Jewish and pro-Greek. The Jewish Scriptures say many times that no one can pay for the sins of another and that God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Modern Christians are so Greek minded, they don't even realize that have adopted Pagan Greek human sacrifice in opposition to the Jewish Scriptures. If Jesus delivered them out of the present evil age, how did he do it? The only possible answer to that question would be by causing the believers to be tortured to death, so they could go to Heaven after they die, because Jesus didn't deliver anyone from evil in this physical earthly realm. According to the Bible, Paul was beaten and stoned and left for dead many times, and Jesus never delivered him from those evils. Paul is praising Jesus for failing to deliver him from evil. Paul's brainwashing tactics are already in full force.

6-9. Paul is amazed that the people of Galatia have so quickly believed in some other gospel, besides what he himself preached. This brings up several issues. This presumes that Paul has already met these people and preached to them and that someone else has gone behind Paul and taught something different. It would also indicate that these people were really gullible to believe what anyone told them and that Paul didn't have any compelling evidence for his claims. It also is strong evidence that there was no Holy Spirit guiding the believers into all truth. Paul tells them that even if an angel from Heaven came and told them something different then that angel should be cursed. Paul is saying that he has more authority than an angel from Heaven. That is some serious arrogance. Paul is demanding that he is the only one that teaches truth and they should believe him over everyone and everything else. Paul is god in his own eyes.

10-12. Paul says he is only seeking to please God not men, but who was his God? I think Paul's God was Caesar. The arch of Titus was built by Caesar Domitian, who was the son of Vespasian and brother of Titus, who were both Caesars before him. On the arch of Titus, Domitian has this inscription, "dedicated to the God Titus, who was son of God Vespasian." Caesars were not mere men, they were gods. In verse 11, Paul says again that he did not get his gospel from a man. In 12, Paul says he didn't receive his gospel or learn it from a man, but through revelation of Jesus Christ. I can easily imagine a character like Josephus who was a Jew who was captured in war and given the option to be tortured to death or proclaim that Caesar was god, then all the sudden he received the revelation that God was standing on earth in the appearance of a man, in Caesars clothing.

13-19. Now we get Paul's conversion story from Judaism to Christianity. Paul says you heard how I lived in the past in the Jews religion (notice he didn't say he was a Jew, but he observed the religion), and that he persecuted the assembly of God beyond measure and ravaged it. It is very interesting that Paul is considering Christian churches to be the assemblies of God rather than Judaism. In 14, Paul says he was a young prodigy in the Jewish religion that was advanced in the religion beyond his cohorts, and he also identifies his lineage as a Jewish lineage when he calls Judaism the traditions of his fathers. In 15, Paul says God took him from his mother's womb and decided to "reveal Jesus in me." In 16, Paul says he did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did he go to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles, but he went to Arabia instead, then he returned to Damascus. So Paul says nothing about the blinding light on the road to Damascus, followed by the conversation with Ananias like Acts says. Maybe I will write a page on the contradictions in Paul's conversion and link it here (not available yet). Christians ignore Paul's own conversion story and only remember the account by the anonymous author of Acts. In 18, Paul says after 3 years he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him 15 days. In 19, Paul says he did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother. Guess what! James, the Lord's brother was not even one of the twelve Apostles. Go figure. So according to Paul in Galatians, after Jesus was revealed to him, he saw no person, but went to Arabia for 3 years, then he went to Damascus, then Jerusalem to see Peter for only 15 days. Then he saw James, the brother of Jesus, but accidentally called him an Apostle.

20. Paul promises he is not lying about the things he is writing to them, so I guess the author of Acts is the liar then, according to Paul. Then after Paul met Peter and James, he went to Syria and Cilicia, but he was still unknown by appearance to the churches in Judea. Those Judean Christians just heard that the one who once persecuted us now preaches the faith he tried to destroy, and they glorified God through Paul's conversion. This is a classic story of going from hating the religion to teaching it. Notice Paul didn't mention any miracles that accompanied him like we hear about in the book of Acts. On to chapter 2.

Galatians 2

1-10. Paul ended chapter 1 by saying he spent 3 years in Arabia, then only met Peter (for 15 days) and James in Jerusalem before going to Syria and Cilicia. Now in chapter 2, Paul says he returned to Jerusalem after 14 years, and he had Barnabus and Titus with him. In verse 2, Paul says he went in private before those who were respected in Jerusalem to tell them what he has been preaching to the Gentiles, and that not even Titus who was a Greek was compelled to be circumcised. This indicates that Paul was preaching that circumcision was not necessary. Imagine if Paul was talking to respected Jews in Jerusalem prior to their destruction in 70 CE and telling them that he was teaching everywhere that circumcision was no longer required because Jesus died on a cross. It is unconscionable that a Jew in Jerusalem would accept the end of the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision because some guy died on a cross. In verse 4, Paul says some people would sneak around and look at other men's weiners just to see if they were circumcised. He calls it "spy out our liberty in Christ" so they could be brought back into bondage to law. Paul is all about being set free from bondage to the Jewish Law. That is not something that a Jew would be interested in. The Law was considered to be from God, and wanting to be free from the Law would be the same as wanting to be free from God. In verse 5, Paul says we didn't submit to the Jewish Lawyers for one hour, so the truth could prevail. In verses 6-7, Paul again says those respected men imparted nothing to me, but they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles. This is another contradiction with Acts. In Acts 10, we see that Peter was entrusted by God with preaching to Cornelius and the Gentiles, but Paul here says he preached to the uncircumcised while Peter preached to the circumcised. In verse 9, Paul says James, Cephas, and John were pillars and they gave Paul and Barnabus the right hand of fellowship that they preach to the uncircumcised while Peter/Cephas, James, and John preach to the circumcised. I feel like there is an important point to be made about whether Paul calls Peter Cephas or Peter, but I haven't nailed that down yet.

11-14. It is in Gal.2:11 that Paul rebukes Peter to his face when he came to Antioch, because Peter would eat with the Gentiles until people from James showed up, then Peter would draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles. Many other Jews would also pull back from Gentiles when the James sect of Jews would show up. Paul says even Barnabus was caught up in their hypocrisy. Compare this story to Acts 10 when Peter supposedly learned by a vision from God that Gentiles should not be considered unclean. According to Paul, Paul was the one who taught Peter this, not God in a vision. In verse 14, Paul asks Peter why he hypocritically compels the Gentiles to live like Jews.

15-21. Being a Jew by nature is a reference to bloodline Jewish heritage, and being a Gentile sinner is a Jewish stereotype that God is not pleased with whoever is not a bloodline Jew. This contradicts Paul's ideology in Romans 2 about Gentiles who by nature do the things of the law are a law unto themselves. This Galatian author seems very different from the author of Romans. In verse 16-17, Paul says no flesh will be justified by obedience to Law but only by faith in Jesus Christ. However, Jesus was not a servant of sin, so if we sin after we destroyed sin, then we are proven to be law-breakers. Oh my goodness, Paul, can you make up your mind? Are we under law or not? Is it all about believing in Jesus or is it about getting sin out of our life? Paul would just answer yes, because he refused to say sin was truly defeated and paid for, because that would justify sinful behavior and would be too liberating, so his conclusion is we don't have to worry about the JEWISH law, but we still need to be good people. This is obviously a Greek philosopher who just wanted to be absolved of Jewish Law, and it makes no sense that any Jew would ever consider absolving the Jewish Law unless the Jewish Temple and Jerusalem had already been destroyed. This is why I conclude that Paul could not have written this letter before 70 CE. In verse 20, Paul says he has been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but it is Christ who lives in me. If Jesus was crucified for you, or him, or us, then why would we need to be crucified with Christ? If Jesus died for us, then why do we need to die for him? How many times does someone need to die to please God? The death of Jesus was not good enough, you need to die for God too. If that is the case, then Jesus didn't accomplish anything with his death. In verse 21, Paul says if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. This necessarily means that Paul thinks the reason Jesus died was to eliminate the concept of achieving righteousness through the Jewish Law. You still need to sacrifice your life for Jesus and God, you just don't have to worry about that stupid Jewish Law anymore. It is a con. He is just replacing one set of Jewish Laws for another set of Greek laws.

Galatians 3

1-5. Paul must not have gotten the message that Jesus said not to call anyone a fool, because he opens Galatians 3 with "Oh foolish Galatians." Jesus didn't get his own message, since he called the Jews fools in Matthew 23. Paul asks, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth. So now, it is about obedience instead of faith. Amazingly, Paul says that Christ was openly portrayed among the Galatians as crucified. When was Jesus openly portrayed before the Galatians as crucified. I guess we are to assume that these Galatians were in Jerusalem to observe his crucifixion, but why would Gentiles who lived in Galatia be in Jerusalem on a Jewish feast day? It doesn't make sense. Nobody, including scholars, apply basic common sense when reading the Bible. It is complete nonsense on every page. In verse 2 Paul ask if they received the Holy Spirit from works of the law or from faith, so now he switches back to emphasizing faith over obedience. Not only that, if they received the Holy Spirit why would he call them foolish, and why would they be bewitched or confused? Paul calls them fools again in verse 3, and says they began in the spirit but are now in the flesh. Verse 4 talks about their suffering in vain, because suffering was considered to be a right of passage to find truth. In verse 5, Paul says miracles are performed among the Galatians, but they don't happen according to law, but according to the hearing of faith. Yea right, that is the only way we know of miracles today to, is if we hear a story that has no evidence. Oh did you hear about how God worked a miracle to save someone? I don't have any evidence that it happened, but you should just believe it by hearing the story and have faith.

6-9. We get some similarities with the author of Romans when he now talks about Abraham being the father of all nations based on faith, rather than bloodline. This is simply the Greek interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Greeks were impressed with the Jewish Scriptures, so they interjected themselves into their scriptures and interpreted them from the Greek perspective. So Abraham was not intended to be just the literal bloodline ancestor of many nations, but the Greek perspective is that Abraham would be the father of all nations who simply believe their interpretations of who god was. Once again, Paul switches off obedience back to faith. Paul just teaches whatever is convenient at the time.

10-14. Now Paul wants to double down on the evils of the Jewish Law. He says whoever is under the Law is under a curse because whoever doesn't keep the law perfectly is cursed. In verse 13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. The Jewish law was only ever for Jews, so why would Paul be holding the Jewish Law over the heads of Gentiles? They never knew the Jewish law or thought it applied to them. Why wouldn't someone ask Paul this question? The answer is because it is all propaganda. Paul was not speaking to Gentiles in Galatia who saw the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. The Romans were just sending out their propaganda after Jerusalem was destroyed to explain why the Jewish law was eradicated and outdated.

15-18. Paul says human covenants or agreements are unchangeable after they are confirmed and no one can add to a human contract or make it void. With this in mind, Paul goes all the back to Abraham and says Jesus was the actual covenant God made with Abraham. It wasn't about the Israelites, but it was all about Jesus only, because God made a promise about Abraham's offspring, not about his descendants. So Paul is skipping over Moses and the entire Israelite history, to conclude that God's covenant with Abraham was all about Jesus and never about the Jews. Verse 18 Paul concludes that the promise to Abraham could not be changed by the Law of Moses.

19-22. So what was the purpose of the Law of Moses? Paul says it was ADDED because of transgressions, until "the offspring" (Jesus) would come to fulfill the promise. Paul says the Law was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (Moses) and then Paul leaves a cliffhanger to say that a mediator acts between two parties. God is one party, Moses is the mediator, and who is the other party? I think Paul is cutting out the Jews and replacing them with Gentiles. Maybe he considers Moses to mediate for the old Jews, Peter mediates for the living Jews, while Paul mediates for the Gentiles. Verse 21 asks if the law was bad, but Paul says no, the Law served God's purpose to imprison all things under sin, just so the promise by faith in Jesus might be given to all who believe. This is implying that whoever does not believe in Jesus is still imprisoned by sin. So Paul is presenting this concept of sin and curses that Gentiles never knew they were under, just so he can present the remedy to a disease they didn't know they had.

23. Before faith came, WE were in custody under law. Who is the we? The gentiles were not under the Jewish law. If Paul was a Jew, then he was under the law before he rejected the Jewish Law, but these Gentile in Galatia were never under the Jewish Law! This is how I know this is not a legitimate letter at all. Paul is speaking to a fictional audience. In 24, Paul says the law was a tutor to bring us to Christ, but the Gentile Galatians were never tutored by the law. 25. Now that faith is here, we are no longer under a tutor, not only did they have a disease they were unaware of, now they had a tutor they were unaware of. 26. you are all children of God through faith in Jesus. So the Israelites thought they were children of God because they thought God chose them out of all nations to be his children, but Paul is teaching Gentiles the secret to becoming a child of God is simply to believe in Jesus. Everyone wants to be a child of God, right? I used to want to be a child of God, but now I realize children of God are just gullible people who are easily manipulated with false diseases, with false cures, and false promises. In 27 Paul introduces baptism as a method to put on Christ, so it is not just about belief in Jesus, you also need to put on Jesus through baptism, which was a Pagan Greek ritual practiced in the Roman Empire through other cults like Mithraism. 28. Now there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. That sounds good, but Paul still had different rules and expectations for men and women, slaves and free, Jews and Gentiles. 29. Paul concludes the chapter by repeating that anyone who belongs to Christ becomes Abraham's offspring (not descendants, LOL) and heirs according to promise. I laugh because Paul made the point earlier that the word "offspring" indicates Jesus only, or else Moses would have used the word "descendants" to indicate plurality of people. So when the Jews thought offspring meant them, Paul said it meant Jesus only, but then Paul uses the same word to apply to all Gentiles. What a scam!

Galatians 4

1-7. Galatians 4 is all about natural children, adopted children, slaves, and heirs, as a metaphor for Jews and Gentiles, but "Paul" is inconsistent in his applications. Verses 1-2 say an child heir is the same as a slave as long as he is a child, until the father appoints the day for the son to become a man. In verse 3, Paul says WE were children held in bondage to the fundamental principles of the world. When Paul says WE, he must be referring to Jews, but he is talking to Gentiles (he later calls them YOU). The fundamental principles he refers to must be the Jewish Law, because that is the law of bondage for the Jews. In verses 4-5, Paul says at just the right time God sent his son, born of a woman, to redeem those who were under the Law, so WE may be adopted as children. Only the Jews were under the law, therefore Paul is saying Jesus only redeemed Jews. This is consistent with what Jesus said in Matthew 15:24, that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus did not come for the Gentiles, according to Jesus and Paul in these verses. So when Paul says Jesus redeemed the Jews from the Jewish Law and says WE were adopted as children, he must be talking about Jews being adopted as children, not Gentiles. In verses 6-7, Paul talks about YOU Gentiles and says YOU are children. You are no longer bondservants, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. So Paul just said WE Jews were adopted as sons when Jesus redeemed us Jews on the cross, and YOU Gentiles went from being slaves to sons through Jesus, but he doesn't explain how Gentiles went from slaves to sons, when he expressly says that only the Jews were the ones who were redeemed on the cross. I think this is just bad writing, but people try to force some wisdom into bad writing.

8-11. In verse 8 he is talking to YOU Gentiles again and says YOU were in bondage to false gods. Verses 9-10 are wild. Paul says now that YOU have come to know God, or rather came to be known by God (as if God didn't know them before because God is not all-knowing), why then do YOU turn back again to the weak and miserable fundamental principles (Jewish Law) to which you desire to be in bondage, by observing days, moths, season, and years? The Gentiles were never under Jewish Law, yet Paul is rebuking Gentiles for wanting to go back to their old ways of bondage to Jewish Law, yet they were never in bondage to Jewish Law, only the Jews were in bondage to Jewish Law. It would help on one hand, if Paul was referring to the Jewish God as the false gods that the Gentiles worshipped in verse 8, but Gentiles didn't worship the Jewish God in the past. Paul is rebuking the Gentile Galatians for wanting to go back to Judaism, when they were never Jews. It is lunacy. In verse 11 Paul says is he afraid for them, because he might have wasted his time trying to teach them that they were free from Jewish Law.

12-14. Paul indicates that he has visited the Galatians before and says he preached the Gospel to them the first time, and he says they received him as an angel (or messenger) of God, even as Christ Jesus. The word angel just means messenger, but whether you say angel or messenger Paul is identifying himself and Jesus as messengers or angels from God. The Bible does not teach that Jesus was God, but that Jesus was a messenger or angel from God. Many Christians refuse to see this.

15-18. Paul indicates that his eyes may have been bad by saying they would have plucked out their eyes and given them to him, but then says now they hate him because he tells them the truth. This indicates that the Gentiles wanted to be in bondage to the Jewish Law so bad, they started hating Paul just because he told them they were no longer in bondage to the Jewish Law, but Gentiles were never in bondage to Jewish Law. It's ludicrous.

19-27. Paul calls them his little children, as if he is their father, and says he is perplexed by their desire to be under the Jewish Law. This whole letter to the Galatians is assuming that there were Gentiles who thought they were obligated to keep Jewish Torah, and I don't think that was ever a problem. Only the Jews thought they were obligated keep Jewish Torah. In verse 21, Paul addresses those who want to be under Jewish Law and gives the analogy of Abraham's two sons Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born to a slave woman, but Isaac was born to a free woman. In 23, the slave woman had a son according to fleshly plans of sexual relations, but the free woman had a miraculous son born to a free woman who was barren and past the age of child bearing, due to a promise from God. In 24, Paul says these two women are an allegory in which Hagar, the slave woman, represents the old Jewish covenant given on Mount Sinai in Arabia and responds to first century Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children. Now this is a key point that has bearing on the possible date this letter was written. If Jerusalem and her children were in bondage at the time this letter was written, it would more closely represent the time after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. The Jews were under Roman rule prior to 70, but they were defeated and enslaved after 70. It is not rock-solid, but when you combine it with the overall theme of the letter that the Jewish Law was no longer applicable, that too would reflect a time AFTER 70 when the Jewish Temple and Jerusalem had been destroyed. It is not logical that the Jewish Law would cease to have relevance because some Jewish teacher died on a cross, but it is logical that people would think Judaism had ended after Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed. In 26, Paul says the Jerusalem from above is free, which is the mother of us all. So the earthly Jerusalem was a physical city that was destroyed and the people there were in bondage, but the imaginary city in the clouds was a free city for both Jews and Gentiles.

28-31. I think Paul switches from saying WE Jews and YOU Gentiles in verse 28 to combine Jews and Gentiles under the same WE. He says WE are children of promise like Isaac. In 29, he says just as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so the Jews now persecute us Christians (or children of promise) today. I don't think Jews ever persecuted Christians. I believe this is a false narrative. I believe the Jews were only fighting for their own freedom and liberty from Rome, but it is interesting that no matter how you slice it, the enemies of both the Christians and the Romans were Jews, both before and after the war. Verse 30 quotes Genesis 21:10, saying to cast out the slave and her son, for the son of the servant will not be heir with the son of the free woman. Paul is saying that the Jews need to be cast out to make room for Christians. If Paul said this before the 70 CE war, then it would be a battle plan, but if he said this after 70 CE (which I think is the case), it would be a justification for why the Jews were destroyed in war. Somebody just had the idea that they could use the Jewish Scriptures as justification for destroying the Jews. Just call the Jews the sons of the slave woman and call Christians the sons of the free woman. The Jews could scream you are misinterpreting our scriptures all they wanted, but the Romans would just tell them to shut up or die. We won the war, we get to interpret your scriptures however we want. Obviously your god loves us more than he loves you, because your God gave us Jerusalem and your Temple in the war.

Galatians 5

1-6. Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. In this section, Paul is not just saying the law doesn't matter whether you observe it or not. He is saying they should refuse to be enslaved by the Jewish Law. In Romans 14, Paul says you can either observe the law or not, just follow your conscience and don't fight about it, but here in Galatians 5 he is advising them to refuse the Law, using circumcision as the example. In verse 2, circumcision profits you nothing, as if Gentiles thought cutting skin off their penis was a requirement from God or that God would bless them if they removed their foreskin (ludicrous). In 3, Paul says if you receive circumcision, then you must keep the whole law. In 4, he says getting circumcised and seeking justification from obedience to the Jewish Law will alienate you from Christ, and it results in your fall from grace. Again, obeying Jewish Law is forbidden by Paul in this section. It is not optional. In 6, he says circumcision doesn't amount to anything, but what matters is faith working through love. This is the kind of teaching that really appeals to Gentiles. You do not have to cut your wiener skin, just be a good person. This is why Paul appeals to Gentiles, and this is why Jews despise Paul. Paul was overtly speaking against the Jewish Law, and it is not reasonable to blindly accept the narrative that Paul was a Jew who hated the Jewish Law. It is much more reasonable that Paul was a Roman who hated the Jewish Law.

7-12. Paul says you Galatians were running well when you understood that the Jewish Law is no longer applicable, but someone came along and confused you to think the Jewish Law was still applicable. In 9, he says a little yeast grows through the whole lump, indicating that one guy can confuse many people to think the Jewish Law is still applicable, when Paul's main teaching is that the Jewish Law was no longer applicable. That is why I think Paul's letters were all written after 70 CE when Israel fell to Rome. Verse 10 Paul proclaims judgment on whoever is confusing the Galatians to think the Jewish Law is still applicable. In 11, Paul says if he taught circumcision then he wouldn't be persecuted and the cross of Jesus would no longer be a stumbling block, therefore he is saying that the Jews were his only enemies, because only the Jews hated people who rejected their law, and only the Jews stumbled over the idea that the death of Jesus on the cross was the reason the Jewish Law was no longer applicable. Some people interpret verse 12 to say Paul wishes they (the Jews) would cut their whole penis off and not just the skin, but I think it is most likely a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of Israel in 70 CE, when the nation was cut off from their land and religion.

13-21. Paul says you were called to freedom, but then he immediately enslaves them with certain regulations like don't use your freedom to gain in the flesh. Paul is saying they are free from the Jewish Law, but he quotes the Jewish Law (Leviticus 19:18) to say the whole law is summed up in loving your neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a good law, but Paul is strangely teaching them to reject the Jewish Law while quoting the Jewish Law. In 16, he says to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh. In 17 he says the flesh and spirit are at enmity with each other and you must not do what your flesh desires. In 20-21 he makes a list of fleshly desires that they should avoid. So the freedom is not so free after all. Paul just provides a new list of rules to obey in order to inherit God's Kingdom.

22. There is no law against love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh and its passion and lusts. This is a deceptive way of saying you are free from the Jewish Law, but this new law has no rules except to have no earthly desires at all and sacrifice everything you desire for an unprovable prize. Paul's teachings look good on the surface, because he presents it as a kind of freedom, but he veils his slavery to complete self sacrifice and crucifixion of all earthly fleshly desires and demands you place all your hope in some invisible rewards.

Galatians 6

1-5. Verse 1 seems good, if someone is caught in a fault, you should restore them in gentleness lest you also are tempted. That is good advice. That is why it is hard to recognize the evil lies Paul tells, because he hides behind a few good things. Verse 2 says to bear one another's burdens, which also sounds good, but is not practical. How can you bear another person's burdens? You can help others with their burdens, but you rarely can take their burdens off them completely. Verse 3 brings an insult. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he decieves himself. Which person is nothing? This is a way to convince others they are worthless, and that is evil. Verse 4 he contradicts what he just said by saying each person should examine his own work, then he can boast in himself, for each man will bear his own burden (verse 5). So are you nothing or can you boast in your own works? Can you bear each others burdens or must each person bear his own burdens? Paul is a teacher of nonsense, veiled behind a few good teachings like love your brother.

6. let the one who is taught share in all good things with him who teaches. that means, you should give Paul your money since he is teaching you. Make sure you pay your preachers...I am done paying preachers to teach lies.

7-10. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, a man will reap whatever he sows. If he sows to the flesh he will reap fleshly corruption, but if he sows to the spirit he will reap eternal life. So Paul switches to a works based salvation. You are responsible for your own salvation based on your own choices. Jesus can't help you, you must make the right choices to be saved. Verse 9, don't give up, just keep doing good and you will get your reward if you don't give up. I tried so hard to follow this religion for 46 years, I finally decided no reward is worth the pain and suffering I had to endure. Verse 10, so lets do good to all men, especially those who believe in Jesus. Doing good to other is certainly a good thing, but I don't need Jesus or a promise of an invisible future reward to do good to others.

11. Paul says he is writing with big letters with his own hand. This is another indication that he might have had vision problems. Too bad we don't have any original manuscripts, or else we could compare handwriting. I think the original manuscripts were deliberately destroyed, so they could control the narrative. The lack of original manuscripts is actually really significant. If God wanted future generations to read his truth, then he could have preserved the originals.

12-16. Paul goes back to hating people who teach circumcision, saying they only teach circumcision to avoid the wrath of the Jews. Then he says even the Jews who teach circumcision don't obey the Jewish Law themselves, they just want to brag about convincing you to get circumcised. Verse 14, Paul says he will only boast in the cross of Jesus and how he crucified the world to himself and himself to the world. So Paul is teaching death and sacrifice as the focal point of boasting. Jesus died, I died, I killed the world, I don't want anything in this life except for the invisible, unknowable reward after death (according to Paul). In 15 he goes back to circumcision to say it doesn't mean anything, but the only thing that matters is becoming a new creation (that has no earthly fleshly desires and puts all his focus on the invisible reward after death). Verse 16 says peace and mercy to as many as walk by this one rule to crucify your own life and desires for that invisible reward. All you need to do is sacrifice everything for a promise that it will be worth it in the end. If someone offered you this deal on the street would you take the deal? If they said, just give me all the money in your bank account and your house deed and car titles, I promise you will get a much greater reward after you die. Would you take the deal? Of course not, so why do so many fall for this nonsense in the Bible?

17-18. So let no one cause any trouble, because I (Paul) bear the marks of the Lord Jesus branded on my body. We should all want to be whipped and scarred in the flesh, so we can be more like Paul and Jesus. Just rejoice in your miserable life, because you get the greater reward after you die. Well, what if there is no reward after you die? What if this life is your only chance to live? Would you be happy to sacrifice everything for no reward at all? I am glad I gave up on this pie in the sky promise before I wasted my entire life. Finally, let the grace of Paul's Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, Amen. I was Christian for many years and Jesus Christ only seems like a false promise and a scam to me now. Jesus never comforted me in times of trouble. When I got beaten by the hardships of life, he never helped me out, and now I realize Christians just want you to believe that Jesus comforts you as life destroys us all, simply by placing all your hope in a reward after death.