Galatians is the most transparent letter of Paul. He spends the first two chapters building up his credibility, stating that his sources and information are directly from Jesus, and are superior to anything in Jerusalem. He spends time putting down others who he feels were competing with him, like Peter – saying he called him a hypocrite to his face.

The point of the book of Galatians is to convey to gentiles that they do not need to keep the ritual commandments. This is not a controversial thing to say – it's very transparent from the text. He's going to do this in many ways – in Chapter 3 he explodes, 'You foolish Galatians, who bewitched you? Who filled your mind with these ridiculous ideas that you have to have circumcision, and keep the commandments.'

So what is the context? Why is Paul doing this? As it happens Paul's travels were enormous and he set up churches all along the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, etc. and then he leaves to found another Church. Only to return later and find that other christians have been there and have told them that in order to believe in God you have to keep the commandments. Circumcision, for Paul, represents it all. Paul explodes in rage. This is the identifying feature of Paul's letters. Paul's letters are always filled with rage. He is very volatile. As an aside this is one way we know Hebrews was not written by Paul – it was written systematically and in a different style. Paul was very committed to stating that you should not be keeping the commandments.

Paul is using faith as a antinomean message, meaning that if you have faith you are against keeping ritual commandments. This is a false dichotomy. In the Hebrew scriptures it is illustrated time and time again that if you have faith in God it is demonstrated by your keeping of the commandments. So Paul is not using this word in a normal way, but is setting it up as a contrary position. Yet despite what Paul claims, we are told explicitly in Genesis that God gave Abraham the covenant precisely because he kept the commandments;

For Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him: Keeping My commandments, My decrees, and My instructions.Genesis 26:5

Paul is not going to quote this or deal with this idea from Genesis, and it is his failure to address this core message of Genesis that shows Paul to be cherrypicking and twisting scripture to deceive people.

In Chapter 3, Paul draws special attention to the idea that Abraham had 'faith' in God and away from the basis of the story (the ten tests of Abraham). Then, based on the earlier false dichotomy of faith vs. works will then say that you do not have to keep the commandments because Abraham was a “man of faith” and that therefore God's blessing comes solely from faith. The twisting of scripture is clear; Paul's quote is in bold, but how is it possible he missed the other verses?

1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”

2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”

3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.”

4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.”

5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.Genesis 15:6

First, this is a story of how Abram (not Abraham) was doubting God's promise to him. Second, this is the story of Abram, as mentioned – not Abraham. Abram did not receive the blessing and become Abraham until he did what God had required of him and even then not until he had accepted the covenant of circumcision in Chapter 17. For all of the above reasons and many more, Paul's arguments in Galatians are spurious at their best.

Paul makes several clear mistakes througout the book of Galatians. One is the misunderstanding of plural nouns such as 'zera', which only and exclusively refers to descendants in the plural. Another is in Galatians 3:19 where he gives a great two-for-one; first he says the Law was given by Angels, which is nonsense – it was spoken directly by God. This is shown from Exodus 19:9, 19:11, 20:1 and so on. Secondly, he says it was given to a mediator. He means Moses, but this is also false – it was spoken directly to everyone present, and they were told that only in a matter where they could not decide how to adjudicate special edge cases of the law, shall they go to a religious court for judgement (the court being made up of priests and judges, who were the so-called rabbis of the day).

Paul makes this 'mistake' in order to state that his message is superior to the Torah because it comes directly from God. Of course, his premise, as well as his conclusion here, is a complete fabrication. On the Christian side, this is the foundation of, and leads directly to Marcionism. Marcion was a strong proponent of Paul and the book of Galatians.

In Galatians 3:17, Paul states that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years. This means that Paul was aware of, and accepted, the oral law. This is because it is an oral tradition that the Jews were in Egypt for 210 years, and not 400 years. Therefore Paul knew about and accepted the 430 year marker between the covenant of Abraham and the giving of the Torah. How is this possible that Paul accepts the validity of the oral torah in order to make the point of denying it? There is no medicine for this sort of nonsense.

By Galatians 5:12 Paul, in exasperation, states that those who are still concerned about circumcision might as well cut off the whole thing. You can not make this stuff up.

In Galatians 4:22-23 Paul makes the stunning argument that the nation of Israel was descended from Hagar. At this point you may be wondering if there is a need to respond to such a transparent and obvious lie. Unfortunately there is because Christians for thousands of years have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Paul. The truth is that the nation of Israel is, of course, a descendant of Sarah's and not Hagar's. They are also descendants of Jacob – and Isaac was Jacob's father. Isaac – the son of Abraham. Who would believe such an argument? Someone who was unstudied and who have already accepted the narcissistic writings of Paul in Galatians 1 and 2.

Paul was easily enraged. He argued with other Christians extensively and could not get along with them. He didn't like Peter, he didn't like Barnabas, he didn't like John and he didn't like Mark (yes, the gospel authors).

In Galatians 4:14 Paul claims to have been received (and therefore expects to be received), and I quote, “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus”. Really? Am I making this up, or is Paul?