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.[1] 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.”[2]
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.”[3]
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.”[4]
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.”[5]
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.”[6]
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.”[7]
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.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. 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
Footnotes:
[1] Jesus Christ was one more prophet in
the long line of prophets sent to the astray Israelites. As he so
clearly affirmed, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) When Jesus sent the disciples out in the
path of God, he instructed them, “Do not go into the way of the
Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6) Throughout his
ministry, Jesus was never recorded as having converted a Gentile, and in
fact is recorded as having initially rebuked a Gentile for seeking his
favors, likening her to a dog (Matthew 15:22-28 and Mark 7:25-30). Jesus
was himself a Jew, his disciples were Jews, and both he and they
directed their ministries to the Jews. One wonders what this means to us
now, for most of those who have taken Jesus as their ‘personal savior’
are Gentiles, and not of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” to whom
he was sent.
[2] Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A
Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2004. Oxford
University Press. P. 3.
[3] Lehmann, Johannes. 1972. The Jesus Report. Translated by Michael Heron. London: Souvenir Press. pp. 128, 134.
[4] Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press. Pp. 97-98.
[5] Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press. P. 184.
[6] Carmichael, Joel, M.A. 1962. The Death of Jesus. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 270.
[7] Weiss, Johannes. 1909. Paul and Jesus. (Translated by Rev. H. J. Chaytor). London and New York: Harper and Brothers. p. 130.
