A Discovery of Epic Proportions!

Sabellianism may have been the primary precursor to the Catholic Church, and a sect that stood right beside both the Marcionites and the Ebionites in the picture of early Christianity!

I believe I have made a discovery of epic proportions! If I am correct, I have discovered something that Irenaeus went to great lengths to hide; and I figure that anything which Irenaeus attempted to hide has to be critically important to the genuine history of the Christian faith!

Irenaeus' teacher was a man he called “the Elder” and in one place he claimed that his name was “Polycarp.” — Now first off their was no such man named “Polycarp;” it was a bunch of poly-crap! (Although, the “carp” part is supposed to mean “fruit,” and this makes me wonder about the meaning of the name of the guy called “Carpocrates!” - but I digress.) Polycarp was said to be the disciple of the Apostle John. But now, with the recent revelation that the actual name of Irenaeus' teacher was really likely to be a man named “Sabellius” it was only a matter of time before a clear picture of what had actually gone on hear came into focus.

As usual, most discoveries seem to point back to the city of Alexandria, and this discovery (I have to call it something, so why not call it a “discovery”) is no exception. The first ten bishops in the city of Alexandria have proved to be a good timeline for many things. Unlike the first bishops of Rome, there is very little confusion as to who they were and who came before who and I think even the dates of their bishopric are likely accurate. And why do I think this is so? It is because for the first ten bishops in Alexandria, the tradition that was followed there was that in all of Egypt there would be one and only one bishop for all of Egypt! It wasn't until the time of Pope Demetrius I (189–232) of Alexandria that there was for the first time three bishops ordained in Egypt. If you also take into account that every bishop in the line of the Coptic Church has been raised to sainthood in that church, you have got to realize if you think about it how hard it would be for the reconstructionist to go against this monolithic succession reinforced by tradition and alter the history of the line of bishops in Alexandria! Now with everything I said so far in mind take a look at the first four bishops of Alexandria:

Mark the Evangelist (43–68)

(John) Anianus (68–82)

02) (Sabellius) Avilius (83–95)

03) (Cerdo) Kedronus (96–106)

Take a look at the name of the bishop that preceded a man named “Sabellius” in the line; his name is “John!” To reiterate, Polycarp was said to be the disciple of “John;” and the real name of Irenaeus' teacher, rather than Polycarp was “Sabellius!” — Also consider the name of the bishop after Sabellius, a man named “Cerdo,” who just happens to be, according to Irenaeus, the same name as a heretic who was “excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren” (Irenaeus 1.4,3) and who was the teacher of Marcion! — Every time another name lines up the odds get greater that this is more than a coincidence. All that can be proven is that the names are the same, but I can't help but think it likely that they are in fact the same persons! The best scholars have little doubt that Irenaeus engaged in a degree of historical revisionism, and it would be wonderful if all that he doctored up could be reconstructed in order to find the truth. And it is looking to me like he may have heard of the sermons of “Polycarp” (actually Sabellius in Alexandria) when he was a child as he said. He used this knowledge as a framework to fabricate the stories in Asia Minor about the Apostle John and Polycarp, which he had hoped would be able to hijack the actual legacy there about Marcion of Sinope. He probably was afraid that if he called this teacher Sabellius rather than Polycarp, someone might catch on to him.

Another thing that comes out of this theory (if it is a true theory, of course) is that there may have been some sort of change in the way things were done in Alexandria when succession there passed over from Sabellius to Cerdo in 95 CE. Cerdo taught of two or three first principles (gods), but Sabellius (even though the Catholic Church fathers put him as late as the third century – a falsification I'm going to posit) – taught modalistic monarchianism, or modalism. The two can fairly easily be harmonized, but it is I think at least a change in emphasis.

It may well be that we know perhaps much more of what Sabellius taught if any theory proves true. Many have proposed the possibility that there is one author of 1^st Clement, Hebrews, parts of Corinthians, and 1^st Peter. The big question is who was this author? Some have proposed that it was Clement. But I think an Ebionite (as I think Clement was) would not likely quote from the epistles of Paul. Those books do have sort of a degree of a Marcionite flavor to them, but they are so much into the Old Testament you would have to assume lots of interpolations to get that idea to fly well. But considering that it was likely Irenaeus that had so much to do with these books (and many do postulate that they were written by Irenaeus!) I think it quite plausible that the author could have been this Sabellius! If so, it looks like another difference between Sabellius and Cerdo is that although Sabellius had a Marcionite orientation, he also had a fascination for Judaism. Irenaeus said that Polycarp [Sabellius] came to Rome to fight for the cause Quartodecimanism!

Now, having passed through this second level of theory we come to yet a third: Because Irenaeus was in good with Sabellius, the second bishop of Alexandria (after Mark the Evangelist), but hated Cerdo, the third bishop of Alexandria; and also Irenaeus often, it has been noted, seems to go out of his way to avoid making any mention of Alexandria; it paints a possible picture to me that in Alexandria this Sabellius, from the standpoint of his successor Cerdo, may have been seen as sort of a schismatic. But from the point of view of Irenaeus, Sabellius would be the true teacher, and Cerdo the schismatic. And with this in mind I can't help but think of the verses in 1^st Corinthians (which speculatively was the Epistle to the Alexandrians originally!):

“Each one of you is saying, I am ‘of Paul,’ I ‘of Apollos,’ I ‘of Cephas.’ Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

Those ‘of Paul,’ would be the Marcionites – those of Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria. Those ‘of Cephas,’ would be the Ebionites. But who would those ‘of Apollos’ be? The name being so similar to that of “Apelles,” Marcion's disciple, several have made this assertion. But for this idea to be true either Marcion would have to be a 1^st century Christian, or Paul would have to be a 2^nd century Christian. And I know of two individuals that hold these two perspective respectively. But why couldn't Apollos have been Sabellius? The name isn't as close as Apelles, but if you remove the “S” [Abellius] then Sabellius isn't all that dissimilar either! This person called “Apollos” could have very well have been the same person as the second bishop of the City of Alexandria!; and by extension also the likely author of 1^st Clement, Hebrews, parts of Corinthians, and 1^st Peter! And you do find various scholars who have speculated that Apollos was the author of Hebrews as well.

The origin of the Catholic Church, it has been postulated, came from an unwilling marriage of the Ebionite and the Marcionte churches. But if this epic discovery proves to hold weight, there were actually three major players in early Christianity: 1) Ebionites 2) Marcionites, and 3) Sabellianism. And likely, instead of looking to the Ebionites or the Marcionites as the primary precursor to the Christianity of the Catholic Church, we should look to Sabellianism! It was a threesome marriage!

Galatians - Level 1 Reconstruction

Book One of the Apostolicon
The Epistle
of the Apostle Paul

To the Galatians

Book One of the Apostolicon The Epistle of the Apostle Paul To the Galatians by Adrian Cozad is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Soon to be Available Online at: http://Apostolicon.com/ .

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Apostolicon. 3

What is the Apostolicon?. 3

Who Wrote the Apostolicon?. 6

Reconstructing and Translating. 8

Sources. 10

Color Codes. 10

To the Galatians (The Level 1 Reconstruction) 12

Introduction to the Apostolicon

What is the Apostolicon?

The Apostolicon (together with the Evangelicon) is the original canon of Christian scripture. A revised “Catholic” version of the Apostolicon was made by Polycarp and his disciple Irenaeus no later than †172 AD, which preceded the Catholic New Testament canon by 195 years. The original Marcionite canon of the Apostolicon was made no later than †144 AD (although there is good reason to believe that it’s canonization may have been ordered before the end of the first century).

Many scholars believe this “Catholic” canon of the Apostolicon was actually not Catholic but “Marcionite”; and was canonized by “Marcion of Sinope”. This author differs from this opinion in favor of the opinion of researcher Stephan Huller, whose extensive research led him to conclude that the “Galatians first” canon of the Apostolicon was a “Catholic” canon. The reconstruction will begin with the order of this “Catholic” canon of the Apostolicon.

The “Catholic” Apostolicon contains ten epistles of the Apostle as follows:

·        Galatians

·        1^st Corinthians (“Alexandrians” in the original Marcionite canon)

·        2^nd Corinthians

·        Romans

·        1^st Thessalonians

·        2^nd Thessalonians

·        Laodiceans (Catholic redactors later changed this to “Ephesians”)

·        Colossians

·        Philemon

·        Philippians

The original Marcionite canon of the Apostolicon began with the epistle “To the Alexandrians”.

The Evangelicon is a recapitulation of the very first gospel narrative ever written (the first being the Gospel of Mark). It was called, “The Gospel of the Lord”. The Apostle likely wrote it with the intention of having it included with the canon of the Apostolicon, so that its readership would be to all people. It appeared first in the canon, before the epistles.

Clement of Alexandria indicated that “the Gospel of Mark” was the first of all other gospels. He said, “These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly [that is, the rest are a recapitulation][1]; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them”[2].

Marcion of Sinope[3], a man accused of being one of the most dangerous heretics of all time by orthodox Christianity, is said to have compiled and canonized the Apostolicon and, according to a late Catholic tradition, delivered the Apostolicon scripture to John the Apostle[4]. This odd Catholic tradition seemed to say that orthodoxy had need of a heretic to obtain the scriptures written by Paul! Most of what we know about Marcion comes from a record written by his enemies. One such enemy was an early Catholic Church Father named Tertullian. Tertullian claimed that Marcion redacted his gospel narrative from the Gospel of Luke, cutting out everything that he didn’t believe in. But the facts bear out that it was Luke rather which was redacted from the Evangelicon, and added into it interpolations containing Catholic dogma.

There are no surviving manuscripts of the Apostolicon. However, it was quoted extensively by Tertullian and other early Catholic Fathers. By careful examination of their quotes and their descriptions of the differences between the Catholic Apostolicon and the Catholic New Testament the Apostolicon and the Evangelicon can be reconstructed.

The word “Apostolicon” means that which presents “the Apostle”. The title “Apostle” means the one “sent” and originally carried with it a messianic connection. Moses was an “apostle” sent carrying the law and the messiah was prophesied to be an “apostle” like Moses[5] sent to carry a message of a “new law”. The Apostle Paul is the “Apostle” which the Apostolicon presents. Paul was sent to “fill full” the word of God (Colossians 1:25). This he did when he finished writing all his epistles. You see, only in the epistles of Paul do you find the claim that they are scripture, or the word of God. (See: 1^st Corinthians 14:36; 1^st Thessalonians 2:13; see also: 2^nd Peter 3:16). This is why it is so important that the Apostolicon be reconstructed to as close to its original form as possible!

Who Wrote the Apostolicon?

The author of the Evangelicon made references to it in his epistles (Galatians 1:8-9, 1:11, 2:2, 2:7, Romans 2:16, 1st Thessalonians 1:5, 2nd Thessalonians 2:14). The Apostle who wrote the Apostolicon was Paul; but who in reality was this “Paul”?

Polycarpian interpolations (interpolations made by either Polycarp or his disciple Irenaeus) included in the “Catholic” version of the Apostolicon were a part of the process of separating Paul from his original historical identity. The “Catholic” version of the Apostolicon sought to defuse the apostolic/messianic authority of Paul.

The position taken by the Marcionite Church concerning the historical identity of Paul differed significantly from that of the Catholic Church. As a rule the Marcionite Church attempted not to publish historical facts about Paul, but they made it clear that the record in the Acts of the Apostles concerning Paul was completely false. As with all historic Gnostic Christians, the Marcionite Church did not teach that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus came to redeem the Messiah; and every indication is that Paul was this Messiah whom Jesus came to redeem.

The term “Apostle” did not need to be followed by a name because there would be only one person with this title. The truth is that the Apostle Mark was “Paul”, or as Stephan Huller put it, “the Paul”, denoting “the Apostle” whose revelation led to the composition of the original gospel and apostolic letters, the basis of the original Marcionite canon known as the Apostolicon. The Galatians-first Polycarpian/Catholic version of the Apostolicon used “Paul” as a pseudonym.

Who was Marcion? Was Marcion yet another name for Paul?

Some scholars say Marcion was Paul; I maintain that this is true in only one of two ways because there were, in Alexandria, two with the name of “Marcion”.  The first one was “The Apostle” who established the apostolic line of bishops for the city of Alexandria in †38 AD. He was more commonly referred to as “Mark”, and this was the same person as Paul the Apostle! But, in the line of bishops in the city of Alexandria, the seventh bishop in the line was Bishop “Marcion”, who was bishop there from †142 AD to †152 AD. This was the one who was the infamous “heretic” (from a Catholic point of view). Although the common use for the term “Marcionite” means the followers of this so-called heretic bishop, the meaning of “Marcion” is: “The Followers of Mark”[6]; this is what the name meant when it was used historically.

It has been said that Bishop Marcion of Alexandria (i.e. Marcion of Sinope) was the one who canonized the Apostolicon in about †144 AD. It is true that the Bishop of Alexandria did have the authority in those days to do such a thing, and truly Bishop Marcion must have supported the Apostolicon as Christian Scripture, but it is far more likely that the original Apostolicon was canonized by the Apostle Paul himself. And Polycarp’s Galatians-first reengineered version of the Apostolicon had been said to be canonized by Bishop Marcion as a way to associate it’s canonization with a second-century “heretic”, rather than with Polycarp, a Church father associated with the Catholic Church.

Reconstructing and Translating

Rules for Identifying Potential Interpolation

Potential interpolations are identified by the characteristics described by Melissa Cutler[7]:

·        They do not match the writing style of the original author. Sometimes this is so obvious that it can be seen even in an English translation of the text.

·        They do not fit in with the original flow of thought – they often cause the text to jump abruptly to a new subject, and then back to the original subject when the interpolation ends, in a confusing and disjointed way.

·        They do not fit in with the structure of the text – ancient documents had a logical structure with sections that introduced the topic, contained background information, and summarized the conclusions, etc. – Interpolations do not fit in with this structure, as the original author did not plan for them to be there.

·        They disrupt the original text – sometimes sentences that were meant to refer back to something that had just been mentioned will be separated from it by the inserted text, so that they become confusing or meaningless. Sometimes interpolations were added mid-sentence, disrupting even the sentence structure.

·        They often express ideas and opinions that contradict those of the original author.

 

Confirmed Interpolations

Interpolations are “confirmed” if evidence can be found in a reconstruction source that the interpolation could not have been present in the Apostolicon. Confirmed interpolations are removed in the Level One reconstruction. Unconfirmed interpolations will be considered for removal in the Level Two reconstruction if it can be determined that the interpolation in question was likely the work of Polycarp or his disciple Irenaeus.

How Quotes are Incorporated into the Apostolicon

Where a reconstruction source has a quote from the Apostolicon, and it is determined that the quote is essentially the same as the text from a commonly accepted Greek manuscript, that Greek text is considered to be the same as the Apostolicon; regardless of whether the quote is in Latin or Greek. In the case where the two are substantially the same, except for only one or two words, and unimportant verbal differences, the Greek with those words inserted into the text is considered to be the same as the Apostolicon. In the case where the quote is significantly different from any commonly accepted Greek manuscript a translation of the quote is incorporated directly into the reconstruction, this is then considered to be the same as the Apostolicon.

Strong Implication

When a certain meaning is strongly implied, but that implication is not clear in English, a word or two may be added to clarify the implication. Words added for clarity are italicized.

Reconstructing the Original, to be Completed in Two Levels

An effort will be made to reconstruct the original pre-Polycarpian Alexandrian-first Marcionite Apostolicon in the “Level Two” reconstruction. But “Level One” must first be completed, which is the reconstruction of the Galatians-first “Catholic” Apostolicon (using primarily Tertullian and Epiphanius as the reconstruction source).

Sources

This Level One reconstruction is based on the following sources:

1.      “Against Marcion” by Tertullian (Translated by Dr Peter Holmes. Published by T&T Clark 1868.)

2.      Tertullianus “Adversus Marcionem” (Edited and translated by Ernest Evans. Published by Oxford University Press 1972.)

3.      “The Panarion” of Epiphanius of Salamis (Translated by Frank Williams. Published by Brill, The Netherlands 2009.)

I may also incorporate references to other sources if and when I become aware of them.

Color Codes

Grey – Text unchanged as confirmed by quotation or paraphrase in the reconstruction sources.

Green – Text substantially the same, except for only one or two words and unimportant verbal differences, as confirmed by quotation or paraphrase in the reconstruction sources.

Dark Green – Text different, original text restored, as confirmed by quotation or paraphrase in the reconstruction sources.

<Dark Red> - Interpolation or corrupted text suspected.

Blue - Confirmation of text uncertain, quote might not be from Apostolicon.

The Polycarpian Prologue[8]

Galatians are Greeks. These accepted the word of truth first from the apostle, but after his departure were tempted by false apostles to turn to the law and circumcision. These the apostle recalls to the faith of the truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

To the Galatians (The Level 1 Reconstruction)

(1.1)^1:1 Paul, an apostle, not from men, neither through human agency[9], but through Jesus Christ_{[Tertullian-4,9]} (and GOD the Father), who raised himself[10] out from the dead;

(1.2)^1:2 and all the brothers who are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

(1.3)^1:3 Grace to you and peace from GOD the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ;

(1.4)^1:4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present wicked aeon; according to the will of our GOD and Father:

(1.5)^1:5 to whom be the glory unto the aeon of the aeons. Amen.

(1.6)^1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him who called you to his grace unto a different gospel_{[Tertullian-17,18]};

(1.7)^1:7 not that another gospel can at all exist[11]_{[Tertullian-19,20]}; only there are some who would confuse you and pervert the gospel of Christ.

(1.8)^1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven[12], preach any other gospel <besides what we had preached unto you as gospel>, let him be hopelessly accursed_{[Tertullian-21,22]}.

(1.9)^1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if any one preaches unto you any other gospel besides what ye had received, let him be hopelessly accursed.

(1.10)^1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men or of GOD? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be the Christ[13].

(1.11)^1:11 For I make known to you, brothers, regarding the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not in accord with human agency.

(1.12)^1:12 For neither did I receive it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

()^1:13 For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in Judaism, how I intensely persecuted the church of God, and tried to destroy it:

()^1:14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my own race, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

(1.13)^1:15 But when it was the good pleasure of GOD, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb[14], and called me through his grace,

(1.14)^1:16 to reveal His son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles_{[Tertullian-24]}; I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood:

(1.15)^1:17 <neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.>

(1.16)^1:18 <Then (after three years I went up to Jerusalem to inquire of Peter on a personal matter, staying with him for fifteen days).>

(1.17)^1:19 <But I saw none of the other apostles, except for Jacob, the Lord’s brother.>

()^1:20 <Now about the things of which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not[15].>

()^1:21 <Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia.>

()^1:22 <And I was still unknown in person unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ:>

()^1:23 <but they only heard it said that he who once persecuted us now preaches the faith of which he once tried to destroy;>

()^1:24 <and they glorified God in me.>_{[Verses 1:17-24;BA-Tertullian]}

(2.1)^2:1 Then, fourteen years after, I went up <again> to Jerusalem_{[Tertullian-27]} <with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me>;

(2.2)^2:2 <And I went up by a revelation>; in order to confer with them about the rule which I followed in my gospel <which I was preaching among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were considered to be something>, lest by any means I should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain_{[Tertullian-27,32,34]}.

(2.3)^2:3 However, not even Titus (who was with me, being a Greek) was compelled to be circumcised_{[Tertullian-28,31]}:

(2.4)^2:4 but this came through false brothers secretly introduced, who had slipped in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ <Jesus>, that they might make slaves of us:

(2.5)^2:5 to whom we did not yield in submission for the moment_{[Tertullian-29,30,31,33]}; <that the truth of the gospel might continue with you>.

()^2:6 <But from among those who were recognized as pillars, (of what sort they once were, it is of no consequence to me: God shows no human favoritism,) – not even one of them required our submission:>

()^2:7 <But on the contrary, seeing that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, just as Peter was of the circumcision>

()^2:8 <(for the one who effectually worked unto Peter’s apostleship of the circumcision also effectually worked unto mine to the Gentiles).>_{[Verses 2:5b-8;BA-Tertullian]}

(2.6)^2:9 But upon perceiving the grace that was given unto me, Peter and Jacob and John[16]_{[Tertullian-40]}, <the ones considered to be pillars>_{[BA-Tertullian]}, gave to me <and Barnabas> the right hand of fellowship_{[Tertullian-35]}, that we should go to the Gentiles_{[Tertullian-36]}, but they to the circumcision_{[Tertullian-40]};

(2.7)^2:10 only that we should continue to remember the poor[17]r_{[Tertullian-41]}; which very thing I was also diligent to do.

(2.8)^2:11 And yet when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him face to face_{[Tertullian-44]}, because he clearly was to blame_{[Tertullian-42]}.

(2.9)^2:12 For prior to certain ones who came from Jacob, he did eat together with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them who were out of the circumcision_{[Tertullian-42,43]}.

(2.10)^2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

(2.11)^2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, if you, being a Jew, have a lifestyle that belongs to Gentiles, and not a Jewish one, why are you compelling Gentiles to live like Jews?

(2.12)^2:15 Although we are Jews by nature, and not sinners out of the Gentiles,

(2.13)^2:16 yet knowing that one is not justified out of works of law but through faith_{[Tertullian-45,48]} in Jesus Christ, and we believed into Christ Jesus, that we might be justified out of faith in Christ, and not out of works of law: because out of works of law no flesh shall be justified.

(2.14)^2:17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found to be like sinners, does this make Christ serve the interests of error? Of course not![18]

(2.15)^2:18 For if I build up again those things I once tore down_{[Tertullian-46]}, then I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.

(3.1)^2:19 For through law I died unto law, that I might live unto GOD.[19]

(3.2)^2:20 I have been crucified together with Christ. Now it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of GOD[20], who loved me and gave himself for me.

(3.3)^2:21 I do not repudiate the grace of GOD: for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died for nothing.

()^3:1 <O foolish Galatians, who had bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was before written to the parchment of the cross, crucified among you!>

()^3:2 <This only would I learn from you. Received ye the spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?>

()^3:3 <Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?>

()^3:4 <Did you suffer so much in vain? (If it indeed was in vain!)>

()^3:5 <The one therefore who supplies to you the spirit, and works miracles among you, is it out of works of the law or out of hearing of faith?>_{[Verses 3:1-5;BA-Tertullian]}

(3.4)^3:6 Even as Abraham believed god, and it was accounted to him for righteousness_{[Tertullian-58]}.

(3.5)^3:7 Learn therefore that, “the just man shall live out of his faith”[21]_{[Tertullian-48,49,50,60;Epiphanius-100,108,109]}[22], <the same are sons of Abraham_{[“Abraham”;ES-Tertullian-57]}>_{[SP-Tertullian-57,60;BA-Epiphanius]}.

()^3:8 <And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, in you shall all the nations be blessed.>_{[BA-Tertullian;BA-Epiphanius]}

()^3:9 <So then they who are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham_{[“Abraham”;ES-Tertullian-57]}.>_{[BA-Tertullian;BA-Epiphanius]}

(3.6)^3:10 For as many as are <of the works of> under the law are under a curse_{[Tertullian-52;Epiphanius-100,108,110]}: <for it is written, cursed is every one who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.>_{[BA-Tertullian;BA-Epiphanius]}

()^3:11 <For no one is justified by the law_{[“no one is justified by the law”;Tertullian-51]} before god is evident: “the righteous shall live out of faith”[23]_{[“the righteous shall live out of faith”;Tertullian-48,49,50]}.>_{[PR-Tertullian;BA-Epiphanius]}

(3.7)^3:12 <but the law is not out of faith>_{[BA-Tertullian;BA-Epiphanius]}; For, “The one who does them shall live by them”[24]_{[Epiphanius-100,108]}.

(3.8)^3:13 But Christ <redeemed us from the curse of the law, having> became a curse for us_{[Tertullian-53;Epiphanius-98]}! For <it is written>, “Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree”[25]_{[Tertullian-54;Epiphanius-101,111]};

(3.9)^3:14 <that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham_{[“upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham”;Tertullian-62]} in Christ Jesus_{[“in Christ Jesus”;BA-Tertullian]}>_{[SP-Tertullian (Catholic Bible probably quoted)]}; that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith_{[Tertullian-55]}.

(4.1)^3:15 Brothers, to speak in human terms: Even though a covenant be man-made, <yet when it has been confirmed>, no one can set it aside or add anything to it_{[Tertullian-64]}.

(4.2)^3:16 Now to Abraham were the promises made, and to his Seed. He said not “to seeds”, referring to many; but referring to one, “to your Seed”, which is Christ_{[ES-Tertullian-65,66]}.

(4.3)^3:17 Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by god, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of none effect.

(4.4)^3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but god has granted it to Abraham by promise.

(4.5)^3:19 What then is the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

(4.6)^3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator for one party only; and god is one of the two parties[26].

(4.7)^3:21 Is the law then against the promises of god? Of course not! For if there had been a law given which could impart life, verily righteousness would have been out of law.

(4.8)^3:22 But the scripture shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe.

(4.9)^3:23 But before faith came, we were held in custody under the law, imprisoned until the faith should afterwards be revealed.

(4.10)^3:24 So that the law in effect came to be our escort; until Christ, that we might be justified out of faith.

(4.11)^3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under an escort.

(4.12)^3:26 For ye are all sons of <God, through> faith_{[Tertullian-56]}, <in Christ Jesus>.

(4.13)^3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

(4.14)^3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.

(4.15)^3:29 And if ye are ‘Christ’, then are ye Abraham’s ‘Seed’, heirs according to promise.

(5.1)^4:1 But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a bond-slave though he is lord of all;

(5.2)^4:2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father.

(5.3)^4:3 And thus, when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the rudimental spiritual forces of this worldly system_{[Tertullian-63]}:[27]

(5.4)^4:4 But when the fullness of time came, GOD sent forth his son_{[ES-Tertullian-66,67]}, <born of a woman, born under the law>_{[BA-Tertullian]},

(5.5)^4:5 to redeem those who are under law_{[Tertullian-68]}, that we might receive the Fathers appointment to be sons_{[Tertullian-69]}.

(5.6)^4:6 And <because ye are sons>_{[BA-Tertullian]}, he has sent forth His spirit <of his son> into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father’_{[Tertullian-70]}.

()^4:7 <So that you are no longer a bond-slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

(5.7)^4:8 Formerly indeed, <not knowing GOD>, ye did serve them who in essence are not GODS_{[Tertullian-73]}:

(5.8)^4:9 but now that ye have come to know GOD (or rather to be known by GOD) how turn ye back again to the weak and spiritually inferior rudiments_{[Tertullian-71]}? How can ye desire to be in bondage to them all over again?

(5.9)^4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years_{[Tertullian-74]}.

(5.10)^4:11 I am afraid for you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.

(5.11)^4:12 I beseech you, brothers, become as I am, for I also am become as ye are. Ye did me no wrong:

(5.12)^4:13 but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you the first time:

(5.13)^4:14 and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God; as Christ[28] Jesus!

(5.14)^4:15 Where then is your happiness? For I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.

(5.15)^4:16 So then, have I become your enemy, by telling you the truth?

(5.16)^4:17 They zealously seek you, but not for any ideal purpose; but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.

(5.17)^4:18 Yet it is good to be zealously sought after for an ideal, and not only when I am present with you.

(5.18)^4:19 My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you,

(5.19)^4:20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.

(6.1)^4:21 Tell me, ye who desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

(6.2)^4:22 For <it is written, that> Abraham_{[“Abraham”;ES-Tertullian-75]} had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman_{[Tertullian-76]};

(6.3)^4:23 but he who was born after the flesh was of the bond maid_{[Tertullian-76]}, but he who is of promise is by the free woman_{[Tertullian-76;Epiphanius-101,111]}:

(6.4)^4:24 which things are thus allegorized_{[Tertullian-76]}: These are the two Ostensions[29]_{[Tertullian-77]}, the one Ostension relates to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law (from Mount Sinai), engenders to bondage_{[Tertullian-78]}, <which is Hagar>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

()^4:25 <Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answers to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

(6.5)^4:26 <But the Jerusalem that is above is free>_{[BA-Tertullian]} the other Ostension engenders to liberty, being raised far above all archonic-deity and spiritual-sovereignty and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this aeon, but in the one to come; which Ostension is the very Mother of us all; in which we also have the promise of the holy church[30]_{[Tertullian-78]}.[31]

()^4:27 <For it is written, Rejoice, you barren who bears not; Break forth and cry, you who travail not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has the husband.>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

()^4:28 <Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise.>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

()^4:29 <But as then he who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the spirit, so also it is now.>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

()^4:30 <So what says the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.>_{[BA-Tertullian]}

(6.6)^4:31 So then, brothers, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free_{[Tertullian-79]}.

(6.7)^5:1 Stand therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free_{[Tertullian-80]}, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage_{[Tertullian-81]}.

(7.1)^5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

(7.2)^5:3 I testify again that a man who receives circumcision, is a debtor to do the whole law_{[Epiphanius-102,112]}.

(7.3)^5:4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.

(7.4)^5:5 For we through pneuma by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.

(7.5)^5:6 For in Christ <Jesus> neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision[32]_{[Tertullian-83]}; but faith working through love_{[Tertullian-84]}.

(7.6)^5:7 Ye were running well; who hindered you that ye should not obey the truth?

(7.7)^5:8 This persuasion came not of Him who calls you.

(7.8)^5:9 A little leaven corrupts the whole lump_{[Epiphanius-103,113]}.

(7.9)^5:10 I have confidence toward you in the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he who troubles you shall have to bear his judgment_{[Tertullian-85]}, whosoever he is.

(7.10)^5:11 But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then has the stumbling block of the cross been done away.

(7.11)^5:12 I do so wish that those who are unsettling you would be castrated[33]!

(7.12)^5:13 For ye, brothers, were called to freedom; only do not use your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be slaves one to another.

(7.13)^5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled by you in that: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”_{[Tertullian-86,87;Epiphanius-104,114]}.

(7.14)^5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

(7.15)^5:16 But I say, walk in spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the evil desires of the flesh.

(7.16)^5:17 For the evil desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would.

(7.17)^5:18 But if ye are led by the spirit, ye are not under the law.

(7.18)^5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery[34], fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

(7.19)^5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousy, wrath, factions, divisions, sects,

(7.20)^5:21 envyings, drunkennesses, revelries, <and such like>; of which I tell you, even as I have also told you before, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God_{[Epiphanius-105,115]}.

(7.21)^5:22 But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

(7.22)^5:23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

(7.23)^5:24 And they who are Christ <Jesus> have crucified the flesh together with the passions and evil desires_{[Epiphanius-106,118]}.

(7.24)^5:25 If we live by the spirit, by the spirit let us also walk.

(7.25)^5:26 Let us not become vainglorious, provoking one another, envying one another.

(8.1)^6:1 Brothers, if anyone is ever overtaken in some offense, ye who are pneumatic, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness; consider yourself too, so that you are not tempted.

(8.2)^6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ_{[Tertullian-88]}.

(8.3)^6:3 For if anyone supposes himself to be anything he is not, he deceives himself.

(8.4)^6:4 But let each one prove his own work, and then shall he boast only in regard to himself, and not in regard to another.

(8.5)^6:5 For each one shall assume his own responsibility.

(8.6)^6:6 Let the one who is instructed in the word share all good things with the instructor.

(8.7)^6:7 Ye are deceived; god is not mocked_{[Tertullian-89]}: for whatsoever one sows, that shall he also reap_{[Tertullian-90]}.

(8.8)^6:8 For the one who sows into his own flesh shall out of the flesh reap corruption; but the one who sows into the pneuma shall out of the pneuma reap life everlasting.

(8.9)^6:9 And let us not be weary in well-doing_{[Tertullian-91]}: for in due season we shall reap_{[Tertullian-93]}, if we faint not.

(8.10)^6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good_{[Tertullian-92]} toward all, and especially toward them who are of the family of faith.

(8.11)^6:11 See with how large letters I write unto you with my own hand.

(8.12)^6:12 As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

(8.13)^6:13 For neither they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the law_{[Epiphanius-107,120]}; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh.

(8.14)^6:14 But as for me, I will not boast except in the cross[35] of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world_{[Tertullian-94]}.

(8.15)^6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

(8.16)^6:16 And as many as shall live by this fundamental principle, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of GOD[36].

(8.17)^6:17 From now on, let no one harass me; for I bear in my body the marks[37] of <Jesus> Christ_{[Tertullian-95]}.

(8.18)^6:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your pneuma, brothers. Amen.

Book One of the Apostolicon The Epistle of the Apostle Paul To the Galatians by Adrian Cozad is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

 Soon to be Available Online at: http://Apostolicon.com/ .

---

[1]  “Correspondingly” (anomologemenois), means “re-correspondingly” or “recapitulatingly”. “These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the [other gospels] recapitulatingly”; that is all other gospels are a recapitulation of the Gospel of Mark.

[2]  Clement of Alexandria. Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? Chapter 5.

[3]  Marcion, likely the 7th bishop of Alexandria, had, in the eyes of most Christians of the second century, power even greater than the bishop of Rome, and could, with authority, canonize the Apostolicon. There likely would not have been any surviving letters of Paul without the canonization of the Apostolicon.

[4]  This tradition sought to explain how it could be possible that the Catholic Church had need of a heretic to obtain the writings of the Apostle Paul. An earlier Coptic tradition is that “John” was the Jewish name for Mark (i.e. Paul) and so the Apostolicon is authored by this one and the same, actually the only, Apostle.

[5]  Huller, Stephan (2011-05-02). The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Kindle Locations 2148-2158). Watkins Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[6]  “The name Markion might be a back-formation from Aramaic Marqiyônê (singular Marqiyona) meaning the followers of Mark.” (Huller, Stephan (2011-05-02). The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Kindle Location 4304). Watkins Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

[7]  Quotation from “Misogynistic Interpolations in the Letters of Paul”: http://www.original-bible.com/Misogynistic-Interpolations-in-Paul.html .

[8]  Many refer to these as the “Marcionite” prologues. This they could be, but if so they have certainly been tampered with in the Polycarpian/Catholic Apostolicon. Many ancient Latin Catholic biblical manuscripts contained them. It is however very possible that Polycarp or Irenaeus authored them.

[9]
 

     Apostolic authority began with Paul.

[10] “Himself” is confirmed by Origen (Origen. Commentary on Galatians. PL 26 [1845] 313 A,4-7). Paul is not a modalist, as some suggest. Paul spoke of GOD having raised Christ out from the dead in 1^st Corinthians 6:14, Romans 8:11 and Ephesians 1:20. Why would he demonstrate modalism so explicitly in Galatians 1:1 and not elsewhere? The prepositional variation is for rhetorical persuasion. However, this could be a demonstration of Marcionite Dualism: “Christ” was resurrected by God, but “Jesus” raised himself; “Christ” and “Jesus” being two separate persons. Also, the text here is uncertain. Tertullian skipped over quoting this part of verse 1:1 and resumed at verse 1:6 (Tertullian-4,9,17,18).

[11] “Not that another gospel can at all exist”: “aliud evangelium omnino non esset”.

[12]
 

     “An angel from heaven”, alludes to Jehovah the creator (Tertullian-23). But because this angel is a preacher of another gospel, it likely refers to another messiah, one of Jehovah; who would likely be Peter.

[13] Another reference of Paul being the Christ! - mistranslated in modern versions.

[14] Paul alludes to a Messianic prophecy (Psalm 71:6) which he applies to himself.

[15] “I lie not”, a consistent flag for a Polycarpian/Irenaean interpolation.

[16] Use of “Peter and Jacob and John” rather than “Jacob and Cephas (Caiaphas) and John” may indicate a quote from a latter manuscript.

[17] I think the “poor” in Jerusalem refers to the priests and Levites, who were “poor” because the law prescribed that they may not have land for their inheritance in Israel. This also, I believe, is the reason the Christian sect known as “Ebionites” had that name (“Ebionite” means “poor”); indicating that Jewish priests and Levites dominated the Ebionite Christian sect. This further supports the context that supports the premise that the “men” Paul referred to when he said that his apostleship was “not from men, neither through human agency”, are those who are of the Levetical Priesthood.

[18] The corruptions in Peter’s gospel cause people to be hypocrites. Peter’s gospel contained the true gospel message of justification in Christ, but it also taught that you must be circumcised and be under the law; which corruption is why “we ourselves also are found to be like sinners”. And if this were the pure gospel message it would make “Christ serve the interests of error”; which is of course it is not.

[19] Verse 2:19 is the first verse of Galatians quoted by Clement of Alexandria.

[20] Only dead flesh is free from law. To “live in the flesh by faith” does not necessarily mean that the flesh is alive. The context clearly dictates that Paul’s flesh is dead on the Cross with Jesus. The “Body of Christ” (the church) is a dead body of flesh that is on the cross. (This is a very wonderful thing from a spiritual point of view. Who wouldn’t want to exchange their corrupt body of flesh for an incorrupt body of spirit?!) To add law to this presentation is like circumcising a corpse. Paul was not rebuking Peter so much as he was condemning the corruption in Peter’s gospel which was the cause of Peter’s hypocrisy.

[21] Habakkuk 2:4.

[22] Verse 3:7 is the first verse of Galatians quoted by Epiphanius.

[23] Habakkuk 2:4.

[24] Leviticus 18:5.

[25] Deuteronomy 21:23.

[26] Tertullian, after quoting verse 3:16, strongly implies that he was not quoting the Apostolicon saying: “But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained” (Tertullian-66). Then, Tertullian quotes nothing more until verse 3:26. This leads one to easily conclude that verses 3:16-25 are an interpolation not included in the Apostolicon. However, Tertullian’s number one priority is to win the argument, and his number one argument is to prove that there is but only one god who is both the just and the good god, both the creator of the world and the creator of the ‘new creation’ (in Christ), both the giver of the law as well as the one who makes an end to the law by offering His son to redeem those under his own law! Instead of entering Jehovah’s world as a ‘buyer’ to redeem us from Jehovah, Tertullian must take the position that Christ, acting on behalf of Jehovah, redeemed us from Jehovah; making Jehovah both the buyer and the seller of one and the same transaction! If Tertullian quoted these verses he would have to deal with there implications. Defending his position would be further complicated by dealing with verses 3:19-20. In doing so losing his argument would be unavoidable. This then is the real reason Tertullian started to quote these verses, and then implied, though he didn’t explicitly say, that they were not in the Apostolicon, and then proceeded to the next section.
In verses 3:19-20 we read, “What then is the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator for one party only; and god is one of the two parties”.
Let us analyze these verses, just as Tertullian would have had to have done if he had dealt with them as see what conclusions we would have to come to. “A mediator is not a mediator for one”; an obvious observation; there cannot be only one party to a mediation; a mediator must be a mediator for at least two parties. It is safe to infer that the mediator here referred to is Moses. Who then are the two parties in this mediation? “It [the law] was ordained through angels”: Such an explicit statement requires us to include “the angels” as one party to this mediation. It should go without saying that the other party to this mediation is those who were the recipients of the law, namely the children of Israel. Thus we have the two parties involved; but wait, isn’t god a party to this ‘giving of the law’ also? After stating that “a mediator is not a mediator for one party only” it continues on to say: “and god is one”. Many a commentator has tried to interpret this statement as something akin to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. To do so disconnects the verse from its context and especially the continuity of the verse directly before it. This is not allowed in the Greek! The word “and” in the phrase “and god is one” is the Greek conjunctive particle “de” (“de theos eimi heis”). This conjunctive particle marks the super-addition of a clause in continuation to what has preceded it. (It may also serve to mark the resumption of an interrupted discourse.) Hence “god is one” must relate to “a mediator is not a mediator for one party only”. This forces the meaning to be: “god is one of the two parties”. (The Ethiopic version has this rendering: “god is one of the two”.) So let us set aside the bias of Trinitarian translators so we can stick to the context and meaning of the scripture! Now if god is one of the two parties, and there is no indication that there are more parties involved then just two – no more, no less – clearly, god is with the party of “the angels”: god is an angel!
Tertullian, fearing, in advance of this verse, how difficult it can be to disprove Marcionite doctrine using Pauline scripture, commenting on Galatians 1:8 said: “But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, “Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed,” because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! ... He said “angel” in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply an angel to the gospel of the Creator” (Tertullian-21,22,23).
In conclusion, verses 3:16-25 of Galatians are regarded to be included within the original canon of the Apostolicon.

[27] Verses 3:21b-28,4:1-2 are connected with verse 4:3. Verse 3:29 is connected with verses 3:15-25.

[28] Paul never denied the title of “Christ”.

[29] “Ostensions”: The word used by Paul for the two separate camps of vocational presentations, which correspond to the two powers in heaven.

[30] The superior Ostension, (the one who “is the very Mother of us all”), relates to the promise of the Church, because those who are of this Ostension constitute the “Pneumaticon” (those who by the pneumatic baptism are one in Christ, i.e. one in the Apostle; hence they could be referred to as ‘Apostles’, because even though there is only one Apostle, yet these are all one, in the one Apostle); or, in the context of the setting of the Church, the Presbytery. There was no such thing as ‘ordination to the priesthood’ in the Marcionite Church; but such a concept in the Catholic Church evolved from the Marcionite understanding in which all who attain to the resurrection out from the dead by the pneumatic baptism are called to minister unto those of the first Ostension – those who are of the body of Christ: the Church. To put is simply, the second Ostension provides bishops for the Church.

[31] The redactors moved most of this verse to Ephesians/Laodiceans 1:21. You might expect that if a redactor was to move a verse, it would be moved within the same epistle, not from one epistle to another! And reconstructed Galatians is very similar in writing style to reconstructed Laodiceans. And the ‘Prologue’ for Laodiceans is either lost, discarded, or was never written. This leads me to conclude that there is a possibility that Galatians and Laodiceans may have constituted only one epistle in the original Marcionite canon of the Apostolicon.

[32] Reiteration of Galatians 3:28a.

[33] “Be castrated”: A prerequisite to the redemption rite (a 2^nd pneumatic baptism) in the Marcionite faith. Paul shows a degree of respect for Peter by only indirectly implicating him, and Peter’s gospel, as the reason for the disturbance in Galatia. (The reference to “the stumbling block” (verse 5:11) also implicates “Peter”, which name can be understood to mean “a stumbling stone”). This respect is due because Peter was once Cephas, or Caiaphas, a ‘title’ for the high priest in Jerusalem. Paul reveals here that Peter has not been castrated, and therefore has not had the redemption rite (pneumatic baptism), and therefore it is apparent that Peter abides in the camp of the inferior first Ostension.

[34] “Adultery”, not listed in better Greek manuscripts, may be an indication that Epiphanius was quoting from a latter manuscript, rather than from the Apostolicon. To the Marcionite Christian, any sort of sexually related lust is simply “fornication”, including marriage. (Technically, adultery is not a sin of sexual lust, but rather of covetousness).

[35] Seeing that Paul said one should “boast only in regard to himself, and not in regard to another” (verse 6): Paul’s work had to be that of the cross!

[36] The Israel of GOD is the one who wrestles against the wicked spiritual hosts in the heavens (Ephesians/Laodiceans 6:12); as Jacob (Israel) also did (Genesis 32:24-30). Yet there is another meaning that comes out of the context of Galatians. Isaac is the son of the free woman (Galatians 4:22), and Isaac represents the Christ (because he was to be sacrificed by Abraham (who represents Jehovah-the demiurgos) but in his place a “lamb of god” (representing Jesus) took his place, saving Isaac from being sacrificed). The son of Isaac is Jacob, who after he wrestled with the demiurgos he was given the name of “Israel”. The true Christ (whom Isaac represented) was Paul. Paul said to the Galatians, “My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you” (Galatians 4:19), because true salvation is a process of being pneumatically born again. Paul was in labor hoping to engender born again Galatians, and it is Christ who gives birth to Christ, hence the phrase, “Christ be formed in you”. Of course Paul is spiritually female in this context because he is the embodiment of the superior Ostension, as he said, “the other Ostension engenders to liberty … which Ostension is the very Mother of us all; in which we also have the promise of the holy church” (Reconstructed Galatians 4:26). This “Israel” Paul speaks of, in the context of his letter to the Galatians, are Paul’s own sons, the pneumatically born again Galatians.

[37] “Marks” (Stigmata) were the actual marks of the crucifixion, signifying that Paul was branded to be the slave of Jesus, and a sign that Paul was the Christ. It also hints at the actual name/title of Paul, which is ‘Mark’. There is no record of any Hebrew ever having the name “Mark” in all of antiquity up until the name ‘Marcus Julius Agrippa’ (whom researcher Stephan Huller maintains was one and the same as the Apostle Paul), the last king of Judea. In Aramaic ‘Mark’ could be taken as either a name or a title, depending on the context. From ‘Mark’ is derived the terms ‘Marcion’ and ‘Marcionites’. In Aramaic, ‘Marcion’ is ‘Marqiyônê’, and means ‘the followers of Mark’. Just as the name/title “Israel”, in the previous verse, was understood to mean ‘the first one to ever wrestle with the archon-deity Jehovah’, Paul here implies that he is the first one to actually triumph over the archon-deity Jehovah on the cross with Jesus. The Stigmata in Paul is stated as a literal point of fact, not as a ‘miracle’. Paul most certainly did not imply it to be a miracle as the phenomenon of the Stigmata as a miracle was of late date (Saint Francis of Assisi, August †1224) and only in the Roman Church. There is no record of any such ‘miracle’ ever occurring in the East. All the Eastern Orthodox Churches deny, or at least question, the legitimacy of the phenomenon of the Stigmata as a miracle.