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 thatpassage.  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.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.

“[The Bible] has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.”

                              —Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth, Vol. II

Let’s begin by putting “two of every sort (of animal) into the ark,” and then … Oh, wait.  Was that “two of everysort,” as per Genesis 6:19, or seven of clean and two of unclean animals, as per Genesis 7:2-3?

Hmm.  Well, we’ve got up to 120 years to think about it, because that’s the limit of the human lifespan, as per God’s promise in Genesis 6:3.  So, just like Shem …

Oops.  Bad example.  Genesis 11:11 states, “Shem lived five hundred years…”

Oookay, forget Shem.  So, just like Noah … Double Oops.  Genesis 9:29 teaches, “So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.”  So let’s see, Genesis 6:3 promised a lifespan limited to a hundred and twenty years, but a few verses later both Shem and Noah broke the rule?

Whoa, time out.

Let’s look at Old Testament dates from a different angle.  Here’s Genesis 16:16: “Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.”  Genesis 21:5 tells us, “Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.”  So let’s see, one hundred minus eighty-six, subtract the six from the first ten, nine minus eight … I get fourteen.  So Ishmael was fourteen when Isaac was born.

A bit later, in Genesis 21:8, we read, “So the child (Isaac) grew and was weaned.”  Now, weaning in the Middle East takes two years, according to ethnic custom.  So tack two onto fourteen, and Ishmael was sixteen before Sarah ordered Abraham to cast him out (Genesis 21:10).

Fine.

So far.

A couple more verses, and Genesis 21:14-19 portrays the outcast Ishmael as a helpless infant rather than an able-bodied, sixteen-year-old youth, as follows:

So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away.  Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba.  And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs.  Then she went and sat down across from him at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, “Let me not see the death of the boy.”  So she sat opposite him, and lifted her voice and wept.

And God heard the voice of the lad.  Then the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, “What ails you, Hagar?  Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.  Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.”

Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water.  And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.”

A sixteen-year-old youth described as a “boy” or a “lad?”  In a time and place when sixteen year-olds were commonly married and awaiting their second or third child while supporting a growing family?  In addition to being hunters, soldiers and, albeit rarely, even kings on occasion?  Sixteen years equated to manhood in Ishmael’s day.  So how exactly did his father give the sixteen year-old “boy,” Ishmael, to Hagar?  And how did she leave him crying (i.e., “the voice of the lad”) like a helpless baby under a shrub?  And how, precisely, did his mother lift him up and hold him with her hand?  Lastly, are we truly expected to believe that Ishmael was so frail that his mother had to give him a drink, because he was unable to get it himself?

Uh, yes, that’s the gist of it.  That’s what we’re supposed to believe.

But wait, there’s more.

2 Chronicles 22:2 teaches that “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king….” Hunh.  Forty-two years old.  Hardly seems worthy of mention.  Unless, that is, we note that 2 Kings 8:26 records, “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king …” So which was it?  Forty-two or twenty-two?

Let’s take a hint from the Bible.  2 Chronicles 21:20 teaches that Ahaziah’s father, King Jehoram, died at the age of forty.

Ahem.

King Jehoram died at the age of forty and was succeeded by his son, who was forty-two?  In other words, King Jehoram fathered a child two years older than himself?  Arithmetic, according to Mickey Mouse, is “Being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.”  But between the reader’s toes and all appendages of the family cat, there’s no way to make sense of these figures.  And while the logical conclusion approaches ramming speed, 2 Chronicles 22:1 points out that Ahaziah was King Jehoram’s youngest son, for raiders had killed all Jehoram’s older sons.

So if Ahaziah was two years older than dear departed Dad, how many years did his older brothers have on their father?

Obviously, 2 Chronicles 22:2 can’t be trusted and 2 Kings 8:26, which teaches that Ahaziah was twenty-two when he became king, must be the correct version.

So King Jehoram died at forty (2 Chronicles 21:20) and was succeeded by Ahaziah, who was twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).  Which means King Jehoram was eighteen when Ahaziah was born, and roughly seventeen when he was conceived.  Not only that, but Jehoram had older sons (2 Chronicles 22:1), so he must have started his family at the age of fifteen or less.  So much for Ishmael having been a helpless lad at the age of sixteen.  It was a time when teenagers were men.

But what about 2 Chronicles 22:2, which states that Ahaziah was forty-two when he assumed the throne?

A copying error, no doubt.

But that’s not the point.

Isaiah 40:8 claims that “the word of our God stands forever.”  This assertion doesn’t excuse copying errors, or any other error, regardless how slight.  In fact, according to Isaiah 40:8, any “word” which has not “stood forever” is disqualified as having been from God.

Which should make us question the authorship.

If “the word of our God stands forever,” and the “word” of Ahaziah’s age doesn’t stand the test of time, whose word is it?  God’s or Satan’s?

Don’t look now, but even the Old Testament seems uncertain on this point.

2 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,


1 Chronicles 21:1 states, “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”

Uhhh, which was it?  The Lord, or Satan?  There’s a slight (like, total) difference.

Talk about identity theft.

But seriously, the mistake is understandable.  After all, it’s pretty hard to know who you’re talking to, when you can’t put a face to revelation.  And, as God said in Exodus 33:20, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”

So there we have it.

No man can see God’s face, and live.

Well, except for Jacob, of course.  As Genesis 32:30 states, “So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: ‘For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.’”

And we mustn’t forget Moses, as per Exodus 33:11: “So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.”

So no man can see God’s face, and live.

Except for Jacob and Moses.

But God didn’t mention that exception, did He?

So maybe He changed His mind.

And then again, maybe not.