 Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith
more to Paul’s teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I would like to
jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and take a quick, speculative
look at the Old Testament.
The Old Testament teaches
that Jacob wrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not
only wrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bear
in mind, we’re talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator of
a universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over a
billion galaxies of which ours—the Milky Way Galaxy—is just one (and a small
one, at that), and prevailing? I’m sorry, but someone was a couple pages short
of a codex when they scribed that passage. The point is, however, that
this passage leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish
concept of God or accept their explanation that “God” does not mean “God” in the
above verses, but rather it means either an angel or a man (which, in essence,
means the Old Testament is not to be trusted). In fact, this textual difficulty
has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have tried to cover it up by
changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What they cannot change, however,
is the foundational scripture from which the Jewish Bible is translated, and
this continues to read “God.”
Unreliability is a
recurring problem in the Old Testament, the most prominent example being the
confusion between God and Satan! II Samuel 24:1 reads:
“Again the anger of
the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to
say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’”
However, I Chronicles
21:1 states: “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to
number Israel.”
Uhhh, which was it? The
Lord, or Satan? Both verses describe the same event in history, but one speaks
of God and the other of Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference.
Christians would like to
believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly
deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted
books to this subject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over
whether Jesus’ family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4
differ over the wording of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and
John 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.
Things get worse when we
enter the arena of the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew
27:32, Mark 15:21) or Jesus (John 19:17)? Was Jesus dressed in a scarlet
robe (Matthew 27:28) or a purple robe (John 19:2)? Did the Roman soldiers put
gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23) in his wine? Was Jesus crucified
before the third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did
Jesus ascend the first day (Luke 23:43) or
not (John 20:17)? Were Jesus’ last words, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit my
spirit’” (Luke 23:46), or were they “It is finished” (John 19:30)?
These are only a few of a long list of scriptural
inconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the New
Testament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust their
salvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answer
the question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “This, in fact, is a
supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named after Jesus
Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, which is to
say Trinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything he
taught.
I know, I know—those of you who aren’t screaming
“Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. But wait. Put down
the high-powered rifle and listen. Trinitarian Christianity claims to base its
doctrines on a combination of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. The problem is,
these teachings are anything but complementary. In fact, they contradict one
another.
Take some examples: Jesus
taught Old Testament Law; Paul negated it. Jesus preached orthodox Jewish
creed; Paul preached mysteries of faith. Jesus spoke of accountability; Paul
proposed justification by faith. Jesus described himself as an ethnic prophet;
Paul defined him as a universal prophet. Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul
set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians
constructed the Trinity.
For these reasons, many
scholars consider Paul the main corrupter of Apostolic Christianity and Jesus’
teachings. Many early Christian sects held this view as well, including the
second-century Christian sects known as “adoptionists”– “In particular, they
considered Paul, one of the most prominent authors of our New Testament, to be
an arch-heretic rather than an apostle.”
Lehmann contributes:
“What Paul proclaimed as ‘Christianity’ was sheer heresy
which could not be based on the Jewish or Essene faith, or on the teaching of
Rabbi Jesus. But, as Schonfield says, ‘The Pauline heresy became the foundation
of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate church was disowned as heretical.’ …
Paul did something that Rabbi Jesus never did and refused to do. He extended
God’s promise of salvation to the Gentiles; he abolished the law of Moses, and
he prevented direct access to God by introducing an intermediary.”
Bart D. Ehrman, perhaps
the most authoritative living scholar of textual criticism, comments:
“Paul’s view was not universally accepted or, one might
argue, even widely accepted …. Even more striking, Paul’s own letters indicate
that there were outspoken, sincere, and active Christian leaders who vehemently
disagreed with him on this score and considered Paul’s views to be a corruption
of the true message of Christ …. One should always bear in mind that in this
very letter of Galatians Paul indicates that he confronted Peter over just such
issues (Gal. 2:11-14). He disagreed, that is, even with Jesus’ closest disciple
on the matter.”
Commenting on the views
of some early Christians in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Ehrman wrote:
“Paul has corrupted the true faith based on a brief vision,
which he has doubtless misconstrued. Paul is thus the enemy of the apostles,
not the chief of them. He is outside the true faith, a heretic to be banned,
not an apostle to be followed.”
Others elevate Paul to
sainthood. Joel Carmichael very clearly is not one of them:
“We are a universe away
from Jesus. If Jesus came “only to fulfill” the Law and the Prophets; If
he thought that “not an iota, not a dot” would
“pass from the
Law,” that the cardinal
commandment was “Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one,” and
that “no one was good but God”….What would he have thought of Paul’s
handiwork! Paul’s triumph meant the final obliteration of the historic Jesus; he
comes to us embalmed in Christianity like a fly in amber.”
Dr. Johannes Weiss
contributes:
“Hence the faith in Christ as held by the primitive churches
and by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus; it was
a new type of religion.”
A new type of religion, indeed. And hence the
question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “If Christianity is the
religion of Jesus Christ, where are the Old Testament laws and strict monotheism
of the Rabbi Jesus’ Orthodox Judaism? Why does Christianity teach that Jesus is
the son of God when Jesus called himself the “son of Man” eighty-eight times,
and not once the “son of God?” Why does Christianity endorse confession to
priests and prayers to saints, Mary and Jesus when Jesus taught his
followers:
“In this manner, therefore, pray: ‘Our Father …’” (Matthew 6:9)?
And who appointed a pope? Certainly not Jesus.
True, he may have called Peter the rock upon which he would build his
church (Matthew 16:18-19). However, a scant five verses later, he called Peter
“Satan” and “an offense.” And let us not forget that this “rock” thrice denied
Jesus after Jesus’ arrest—poor testimony of Peter’s commitment to the new
church.
Is it possible that
Christians have been denying Jesus ever since? Transforming Jesus’ strict
monotheism to the Pauline theologians’ Trinity, replacing Rabbi Jesus’ Old
Testament law with Paul’s “justification by faith,” substituting the concept of
Jesus having atoned for the sins of mankind for the direct accountability Jesus
taught, discarding Jesus’ claim to humanity for Paul’s concept of Jesus having
been divine, we have to question in exactly what manner Christianity respects
the teachings of its prophet.
A parallel issue is to
define which religion does respect Jesus’ teachings. So let’s see: Which
religion honors Jesus Christ as a prophet but a man? Which religion adheres to
strict monotheism, God’s laws, and the concept of direct accountability to God?
Which religion denies intermediaries between man and God?
If you answered, “Islam,”
you would be right. And in this manner, we find the teachings of Jesus Christ
better exemplified in the religion of Islam than in Christianity. This
suggestion, however, is not meant to be a conclusion, but rather an
introduction. Those who find their interest peaked by the above discussion need
to take the issue seriously, open their minds and then … read on!
Copyright © 2007 Laurence B.
Brown.
About the author:
Laurence B. Brown, MD, can be
contacted at BrownL38@yahoo.com. He is
the author of The First and Final Commandment (Amana Publications) and
Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam). Forthcoming books are a historical
thriller, The Eighth Scroll, and a second edition of The First and
Final Commandment, rewritten and divided into MisGod'ed and its
sequel, God’ed.
|
Back to top 
Print 
Save 
E-mail 
PDF Format
Add a comment
View
comments(1 comment) 
Site favorites
Explorer favorites
