|
 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 Dr. Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
Dr.
Brown is the author of The Eighth Scroll, described by North Carolina State Senator
Larry Shaw as, "Indiana Jones
meets The Da Vinci Code. The Eighth Scroll is
a breath-holding, white-knuckled, can't-put-down thriller that
challenges Western views of humanity, history and religion. Bar none,
the best book in its class!" Dr. Brown is also the author of three
scholastic books of comparative religion, MisGod'ed, God'ed, and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam).
His books and articles can be found on his websites, www.EighthScroll.com
and www.LevelTruth.com, and are
available for purchase through amazon.com.
|
