And what of Galatians 5:2-4 ...

I agree, if Paul said this, then by the evidence of the rest of Scripture, Paul should be lynched. But surely true justice requires that a suspect be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. The evidence must be sought in the Greek text. For what conceivable reason would Paul offer universalism, thus opposing all the rest of Scripture? The answer hinges on one important word, and that is 'Christ'. This word is not a translation of the Greek text at all. The Greek word 'christos' is the victim of unmerciful theological murder. Our translators have taken this Greek word, lopped off the last letters 'os', 'ou', 'o', and transliterated it as 'Christ' into our English Bibles. To the English reader, this word in itself has no meaning - so the reader, thinking it merely to be the 'official' title for Jesus, then tries to fit a meaning of Jesus into some texts, with confusing results.

Firstly: the Greek word 'christos' means 'anointed'. It should be translated as such throughout the Bible. In some cases it does refer to Jesus, but in very many vital cases it does NOT.

Secondly: as the meaning is 'anointed', then one is forced to agree that it is an adjective, not a noun.

Thirdly: this word 'christos' is masculine.

So now, one may ask, what does all this mean? In the first instance, although 'anointed' is an adjective, it can be used as a noun (as in English), and anyone who speaks Greek would automatically recognise the noun to  which 'christos' belonged, by the context, gender and case, whether written or otherwise. For instance, a sentence in English constructed in this way, could read ...

Nobody is going to argue that 'red' is the proper noun of the driven car, so why do our translators do this with the word 'christos'? 'Red' is obviously the description of that particular car in which we drove away.

In the third instance, if 'christos' stands in place of a noun, then because it is masculine, the noun to which it refers must also be in the masculine gender, be it a man, Law, brother, righteousness or a people, etc. The title 'Jesus Christ' should read 'Jesus Anointed' (One) or (Man) -'Jesus' being the Noun described. But 'Christ Jesus' (Greek 'Christou Iesou) by the same token could equally read ...

1 (if 'Jesus' is in the dative case)

'in an anointed Jesus' (thus meaning the same as the title 'Jesus Christ')

2 (if 'Jesus' is in the genitive case)

But this expression was invented by Paul and is only used by Paul throughout Scripture to assist him in his task to explain to the dispersed Israelites their new status brought about by their redemption through Jesus' crucifixion. - They now belong to Jesus by right of His having paid the price for their redemption, whether they wanted it or not, whether converted or not; the deed was done for the whole Israel Nation. He tells them that they are now "an anointed (people) of (or, belonging to) Jesus". The appearance of this expression in any other Books or Epistles than those of Paul will be found to be false when examined against the most accurate Greek texts.

So let us see the effect of substituting this translation in the chosen passages presented by the Prosecution. Incidentally, this same method of translation may also be applied to all Pauline quotations that pose similar difficulties. However, please bear the following in mind whilst reading these translations - these Anointed People (of Israel) now belong to Jesus by the right of Redemption, and that it is the Law of worship that is being discussed.

In Galatians 3:23 where Paul is addressing the womb-brothers (3:15) ...

To suggest that if you 'belong to Jesus' you are a literal descendant (a seed) of Abraham - irrespective of your racial origin - is sheer biological nonsense. And Paul was far too skilled as a lawyer to put forward such a proposition. Does not Peter also testify ...

"But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation for God's possession" (1 Peter 2:9)

That race is Israel only.

The 'male and female' in the Greek text, is in the accusative case, and neuter in gender, which is identical to the Septuagint text of Genesis 1:27 where it states ...

This script was used by all Greek-speaking Bible readers, and therefore would be immediately related to this particular passage. So the descendants of this Genesis 1 creation of Mankind are not within an Anointed People, or in the Kingdom. Only the Adamic strain, sons of Adam, through Abraham and the one seed from lsaac to Israel (referred to in Galatians 3:16) which is anointed, will qualify as heirs to the promise; the evidence for this statement is supported throughout Scripture.

However, should there still be those among my readers doubting the use of 'Christ' as presented here, I would like them to consider some awkward texts that 1 believe prove this application of the word 'Christ' to a people.

Some 'Christians' would argue that this reference to 'Christ' does mean Jesus. But if one bears in mind that 'salvation' means 'deliverance', did Jesus only receive God's strength and deliverance at that point in time, which the first word 'Now' stipulates? This event is after Jesus had led His heavenly armies to war against those enemies of God opposing the saints, prophets and God-fearing ones. No, only the blind would be stubborn on this point especially after comparing this verse with Revelation 11:15 ...

One may ask then that even though this may be grammatically a possible rendering of the Greek word 'Christos', does Scripture give any plain references concerning an Anointed People to which these references could apply? Yes, the answer lies in Habakkuk 3:13 ...

and again, look at Psalm 105:15 ...

The requirement for circumcision ceased with the Leviticus Law along with the Aaronic Priesthood that administered it. It is not in Deuteronomy. Bearing this in mind, what does Paul actually mean? Let us read from Galatians 4:30 ...

 "Yet what is the Scripture saying? 'Throw out the servant-girl and her son, for the son of the servant-girl will not inherit with the son of the free-woman.'(Verse 31) Therefore, womb-brothers, we are not children from a servant-girl, but from the free-woman. (5:1) For an Anointed (One) placed us in a state of freedom. Therefore, stand fast and be not again entangled in a yoke of slavery. Look, I Paul am saying to you, if ever you may be circumcising yourselves an anointed (people), it will profit you nothing. (Verse 3) Now I protest (yet) again to every man allowing himself to be circumcised, that he is committing himself to do the whole (Leviticus) Law. (Verse 4) Those who seek to be justified by Law are cut off from an anointed (people) and fallen away from the unearned Grace (of God). For we, toward spirit, are eagerly awaiting the hoped-for justification, out of faith. For in an anointed (people) belonging to Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision will avail anything by way of justification, but faith working through love (does)."

This whole passage revolves around the question of circumcision or baptism. Before the death of Jesus on the stake, every male child was circumcised on the 8th. day - in accordance with Levitical Law - into the anointed (people) Israel. But after Jesus redeemed Israel, the Levitical Law came to an end. ACCEPTANCE into an anointed (people) now required baptism plus belief that Jesus is the Son of the Living God - that is Faith in Jesus.

If an Israelite did believe and was baptised, then it became possible -by God's Grace - for God to accept the death of His Only-begotten Son Jesus as a sufficient sacrifice and justification not to impute sin to that believer. This is amnesty NOT forgiveness of sin. But this Grace of God only comes into force as a result of two things; the death of Jesus as the Redeemer, and the faith and baptism of the redeemed. Thus Paul was trying to convince these uncircumcised Israelites that they could not have it both ways. If they sought justification by circumcision, then they were not only committing themselves to doing the whole Law, but they were cutting themselves off from God's Grace which was dependent solely on acceptance of an Anointed One (Jesus). Since entry into an anointed (people) now depended on baptism and belief in an Anointed (One), then they were also cutting themselves off from the anointed (people), whom Jesus, by His act of Redemption had now placed in a state of freedom from the Levitical Law - the yoke of bondage unto death.

Note: The Levitical Law was called the 'Yoke of Bondage' because it could not lift the sentence of death for breaking the Law. It could only suspend execution of that sentence until the coming of a Goel (Kinsman-Redeemer) who was without sin, and who could, and would, lay down His life for Israel and so have that sentence of death executed on Himself, instead of on Israel.

Circumcision was instituted as a Covenant between God and Abraham's seed until the End of the Age, or possibly Everlasting. Paul doesn't dispute that nor repudiate it in anyway, but in Romans 4:11 & 12, Paul states that Abraham received this Covenant while he himself was still uncircumcised. He received it as ratifying the promise that he would be the father, not of all the ones circumcised, but the father of the ones believing - that is, all believing uncircumcised persons (as Abraham was himself at that moment) as well as all believing circumcised persons. Since faith or belief in Jesus was now a requirement for acceptance into Israel and because belief does not depend on whether one is circumcised or not, then circumcision was no longer a requirement for entry into Israel, as it had been under the Levitical Law before the First Coming or First Advent of Jesus to the Earth.

It should now be quite evident that none of the accusations made by the Prosecution against Paul can stand up to examination by the Greek text in which Paul wrote his Epistles. This examination again and again and again reveals that there are, indeed, grave errors and seeming contradictions but that the guilt for these errors lies with the translators and theologians, not with Paul.

Before the Defence closes its Case, the Jury should hear a testimony from a leading witness. We call upon Peter the Apostle, who wrote in his letter in II Peter 3:16-18...

 "... as our beloved brother, Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, wherein are some (things) hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteadfast distort, as also the rest of the Scriptures to their own destruction. Ye, therefore beloved ones having this advanced knowledge, beware lest you (get) carried away with the wicked, and fall from your own steadfastness."