1 The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The General Problem If we took the time to carefully examine Pauls nega- tive impact, we would see that Paul is a problem for nearly everyone to come to faith in J esus, and those who do come to faith are quickly snared away from following the teachings of J esus Christ. Lets summarize by starting with the J ewish people. Paul is a problem for J ews to accept J esus because so far J esus effect on Gentiles has not been as prophesied to bring glory and more compliance with the Torah. 1
Next, Paul is a problem for good-hearted deists like Thomas J efferson because so many barriers are put up to accepting J esus words due to Pauls doctrines. 2
Next, Paul is a problem for atheists like J eremy Bentham from following J esus because he cannot rationally reconcile the two. 3
1. See J ews Would Accept J esus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting J esus Bringing Gentiles to The God of Moses on page7 et seq. 2. See How Deists Would Benefit If We Advanced J esus Words Alone on page6 et seq. 3. See Atheists Would Accept J esus Without Paul on page10 et seq. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 2 Next, Paul is a problem for Islam from fully embrac- ing Christianity because embracing Paul is made indispens- able yet Paul destroyed the Torah given to Moses which Mohammed embraced. 4 (J esus embraced it too in Matthew 5:19-21.) Finally and most important of all, Paul is a problem for professing Christians from taking seriously many state- ments by J esus because they are following contrary doctrines from Paul. We will discuss this thoroughly at page3 et seq. 5 Hence, given so much of the reason for not taking J esus seriously is Paul, doesnt this make anyone think why are we so intent on holding onto Paul? Isnt the continued holding onto Paul adverse to evangelism of a true sort? Isnt the time overdue that we change the evangelistic message to one that is focused on J esus? Shouldnt we return Christianity to the one who paid with His blood the right to establish the terms of the New Covenant? If we did make this change, it will allow us two key benefits: We Christians will be following J esus, not Paul, when there is any apparent disagreement. We shall prove below that there are many such differences; and We can then attract many atheists, deists, J ews and Muslims to consider and possibly accept a truer belief about J esus than cur- rently is accepted. If nothing else, we could spread greater awareness and trust in following J esus, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. 4. See If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Chris- tianity? on page17 et seq. We shall surprisingly find Muslims embrace J esus as Messiah, a prophet born miraculously of a virgin, and who had Gods spirit/word in Him. Their major disagreement is they say it is wrong to speak of J esus as Son-of-God when we equate the human J esus with God, as this deni- grates Gods oneness and dignity. See If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? on page17 et seq. 5. See How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Prob- lem of Paul on page3 et seq. The Problem of Paul 3 How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Problem of Paul How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Problem of Paul J esus and Paul differ substantially on numerous top- ics. In particular, they are at direct odds on the Law given Moses, the necessity of works for salvation, and initial justifi- cation by repentance as opposed to faith. This section will prove this in detail. Jesus On the Law Given Moses J esus teaches the Pharisees taught only the less weighty matters of the Law given Moses such as tithing while ignoring the weightier matters of the Law such as its princi- ples of J ustice, Mercy and Faith. (Matt. 23:23.) J esus said the Pharisees taught oral traditions that made of none effect the written commands in the Law given Moses, such as the com- mand to honor (support) your mother and father. (Matt. 15:6.) J esus said anyone who relaxes any provision of the Law given Moses in the least shall himself be least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever teaches the people to follow and obey the Law given Moses shall be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19.) Evangelical Christian scholars admit that J esus expression least in the kingdom means negators of the Law are lost from the perspective of those inside the kingdom looking out at these negators. 6
Thus, when J esus answers how to have eternal life, J esus says to enter life we must obey the commandments, which in context was the ten commandments which J esus then quoted nine of the ten. (Matt. 19:16-26.) This then makes J esus meaning plain when He says to enter the king- dom of heaven we must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Because J esus had taught the Pharisees were shallow with respect to teaching and fol- 6. See my prior book Jesus Words on Salvation (2008) at 151,172-173, 555-556, and 561. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 4 lowing the Law given Moses, J esus clearly meant that revival of respect for the obedience to the Law given Moses was the pathway to enter the kingdom of heaven, which is what J esus expressly said anyway in Matthew 19:16-26. Incidentally, I read the Law applicable to Gentiles as a narrow and far more limited command set than applies to J ews. J ames read the command in Leviticus 17 which says J ews are to be circumcised as not applying to Gentiles. Read that way, the commands on Gentiles (sojourners/foreigners) are predominantly the Ten Commandments which are repeated as applying to them and several chapters in Leviti- cus (sexual conduct, etc.) Paul on the Law given Moses Paul teaches the opposite. The Law given Moses is abolished, done away with, nailed to a tree, has faded away, See, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:13 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. 7 If we were to cite Pauls condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See 2 Cor. 2:14 (old covenant); Gal. 5:1 (yoke of bondage); Rom. 10:4 (Christ is end of the law); 2 Cor. 3:7 (law of death); Gal. 5:1 (entangles); Col. 2:14-17 (a shadow); Rom. 3:27 (law of works); Rom. 4:15 (works wrath); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 (cannot justify); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 (wiped out exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (given by angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements). Jesus on Works J esus taught every tree without good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire. (Matt. 7:19.) J esus taught a branch in me that does not bear fruit is cut off from the 7. These are extensively discussed in my book, Jesus Words Only (2007) at 73 et seq. The Problem of Paul 5 How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Problem of Paul vine, thrown outside and burned. (J ohn 15:2,6.) J esus says those whose works are lukewarm He (J esus) will spew out of My mouth. (Rev. 3:15-18.) J esus taught the seed that believes for a while, but later falls into temptation, then withers away becomes thereby dead. (Luke 8:13.) But the seed that guards the word, and produces fruit with endurance shall live. (Luke 8:15.) The servant who produces nothing on the talent given him is a useless servant who is for that reason cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 25:30.) J esus says this place of weeping and gnashing is the fiery furnace where all evildoers are sent on judgment day. (Matt. 13:42,49-50.) J esus says those who call Him Lord but do not give charity to the brethren shall suffer eternal fire but those who call Him Lord and do charity for the brethren shall be resurrected to eternal life. (Matt. 25:30-46.) Those who do good things resurrect to eternal life, J esus says, but those who do evil things shall suffer eternal damnation. (J ohn 5:28-29.) Paul on Works Paul says we are saved by faith not works. (Eph. 2:8-9.) For he who works not his faith is accounted to him for righteousness. (Rom. 4:3-5.) Paul is actually afraid for persons who are Christians who then try to obey the Law given Moses to be justified in Gods eyes that they thereby are severing themselves from Christ. See the entire epistle to the Galatians. Jesus on Initial Justification by Repentance J esus taught the repentant about sin goes home justi- fied. Luke 18:9-14. The one beating his breast repenting to God goes home justified. J esus tells us likewise that the sin- ning son who repents and returns home to his father goes The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 6 from being dead and lost to being alive again born again. Luke 15:17-24. This impacts salvation for J esus taught that to enter heaven one must be born again. (J ohn 3:3.) Paul on Initial Justification by Faith without Repentance Paul teaches in the manner in which he interprets the story of Abraham that a man goes from sinner to justified saint by means of faith alone, without working. (Romans 4:3- 5.) All Christian scholars who read that passage are clear that Paul dispenses with the requirement of repentance, even though Paul used the same Greek word for justification that J esus used dikaio. (Luke 8:14; Romans 4:5.) How Deists Would Benefit If We Advanced Jesus Words Alone J efferson biographer J aroslav Pelikan wrote: Like other Enlightenment rationalists, J efferson was convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul, who had corrupted the religion of Jesus...[and] pro- duced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priest- craft, which were the essence of Christian orthodoxy. (J aroslav Pelikan, J efferson And His Contemporaries, The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (Boston: Beacon Hill, 1989) at 149-67.) J efferson made his own version of the New Testa- ment. He reproduced the words of J esus from the New Testa- ment almost fully intact. All that was deleted was the reference to the virgin birth in the Greek Matthew chapter one and the Luke account, J esus miracles and any statement that J esus was Messiah, Son of God or implicitly Divine. There is no doubt of the J efferson text because the U.S. Con- gress ordered it published as The Jefferson Bible in 1904. The Problem of Paul 7 Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing Could it be, however, that J effersons contempt for the doctrines of Paul, unlike his admiration for J esus teachings, led J efferson to blame Paul too much for corrupting the Scripture? In other words, had Paul not been so contemptuous in J effersons eyes, then J efferson could have examined more objectively whether J esus was Messiah, etc. J efferson had a plausible reason to remove the the virgin birth account. It indeed was not present in the original Hebrew Matthew, as I discuss elsewhere, 8 and does not appear in Mark or J ohns Gospels. It solely appeared initially in Pauls companions gospel that is the Gospel of Luke. This is not to say that there was no virgin birth. I believe in it because I trust Luke on this score. But the fact remains that if there was any addi- tion to Scripture by Paul or his friends, it was solely the virgin birth account, but not the attributions of Messiah-ship to J esus. Hence, Pauls contemptibility in J effersons eyes is what caused J efferson to exaggerate what J efferson regarded as Pauline corruptions. Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing Gentiles to The God of Moses J ewish academics have been on a trend for some time to regard J esus as one of us. As Brown notes in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Baker Books: 2007) Vol. IV, the J ewish opinion now is rather than viewing [J esus] in hostile, alien terms, more and more J ewish leaders have sought to reclaim him as a brother. (Id., Ch. 5:26 at pages 188-189.) While this trend does not accept J esus as Messiah or Son of God, it has been positive in many ways, Brown notes. 8. See my prior book Jesus Words Only (2007) at 294 n2. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 8 Brown tries to answer the objection that J esus was really alright...It was Paul who messed everything up and founded Christianity. Brown notes that J ewish scholars actu- ally see more authenticity in the New Testament than liberal Christian scholars. They recognize the ancient threads of argument that J esus was addressing, thus validating the authenticity and brilliance of J esus words. Thus, the J ewish academics portray Paul as a culprit who turned a valid J ewish movement into a pagan reli- gion..., Brown notes. (Id., at 190). Beth Moshe says Paul stripped the movement of all links to J udaism and cursed it at the same time, as Brown describes. Id. Brown quotes Moshe as insisting upon the unreliability of Paul, who actually formulated the break away from J udaism by the early Church. Id. Moshe cites the embarrassing remark that Paul admits he used trickery and deception to gain his ends which are indeed Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 9:20. Moshe then comments: We can wonder whether his missionary effort was flawed with fiction throughout as well. Id., quoted at 191. Brown then recounts the recent work of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (Doubleday 2006) by David Klinghoffer. This book claims, as did Moshe, that Paul turned a J ewish move- ment into a Gentile religion that was pagan, abandoning Gods Law. Jesus could not be the Messiah, says Klinghof- fer because of this primary flaw. For the prophesies of the Messiah never came true in J esus in this respect. The Proph- ets said the true Messiah would cause the Gentiles to recog- nize God and respect His Law. See Isaiah 42:21 (Gods servant should increase Torah [the Law] and glorify it. Klinghoffer says this could not possibly be by reject- ing the biblically commanded way of life. What J esus fol- lowers led by Paul did is seek to free both Gentiles and J ews from the precious, immutable, and eternal Laws given Moses. For the Law of Moses says it is eternal for all gener- ations. (Ex. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15.) The Problem of Paul 9 Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing Thus, Klinghoffer is opening a door (subtly) that if Christians abandoned Paul and Gentiles dispensed with their pagan ways in honor of J esus teachings on the Law, J ews could accept Christ. This is because then J esus would have fulfilled the key characteristic of Messiah He would have caused the increase and glory to the Torah in fulfillment of Isaiah 42:21. But Brown will not hear anything of that olive branch. Rather, Brown insists that Klinghoffer and J ews generally have misunderstood Paul. He cites the fact Messianics (largely a Christian-J ewish movement) embrace Paul as Rav Shaul. Yet, this is disingenuous. As I established in chapter five of Jesus Words Only (2007), the effort of Messianics to insist Paul did not abrogate Torah is an exercise in self-decep- tion. When one balances all the positive verses against all the negative remarks by Paul about the Law, all the positive remarks are crushed by the negative remarks. Indeed, the overwhelming opinion among Catholic and Protestants is that Paul abrogated Torah. No one disputes though that J esus in Matthew 5:19-21 said the opposite and in fact warned that anyone seeking to negate the Law given Moses would be least in the kingdom of heaven, but anyone elevating Torah would be the greatest. Brown also claims that Klinghoffers opinion flies in the face of scholarship that now sees Paul as thoroughly J ewish in thought. Id., at 191. But it is Brown who misses the point. Paul indeed is J ewish in thought, but he uses that knowledge of Scripture to twist it to create a view of the Law that it was pregnant with its own abolition. In this, Paul was highly creative. He created in Galatians chapter four amazingly bizarre analogies that made Israel now comparable to Ishmael, and subject to a curse of bondage to the Law. Any fair reading of Galatians chapter four reveals a Jewish argument being used to destroy the Law and the blessing of God on Israel. 9 Yet, the fact it is a J ewish argument does not disprove Klinghoffer or The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 10 Moshes opinions. It is a J ewish argument indeed that was used to create a pagan Gentile religion from what started as a J ewish movement emphasizing Torah in Matthew 5:19-21. Again, we see Paul is the barrier to J ews to accept Christ, just like Paul was a barrier to men of good will such as J efferson from accepting all the claims of Christ. Atheists Would Accept Jesus Without Paul The one group we need to be most concerned about are those who have no faith in God and would come to J esus but for Paul being insisted upon by the Christian world. There is a website, and it is not an isolated trend, called Atheists for Jesus. You can find it at http://www.athe- ists-for-jesus.com. This website provides an excellent synopsis of the Sermon on the Mount. It says surely to be a Christian must mean to follow those principles. It says: Be righteous, be meek, be pure of heart, be a peace- maker, be merciful; when given the chance to instruct a great number of people, this is what J esus felt to be important. Should it not be expected that all people who wish to follow J esus, should also agree with Him that these ideas are the most important part of the religion of J esus? But this atheist says this is not what one finds is taught to be a Christian life. This atheist would find no home within modern Christianity if he simply wanted to follow J esus teachings. He writes: While I would like to believe that the teachings of J esus should form the backbone of any religion that claims J esus as its head, it seems that this view is not universally held. Those who haveheld with Pauls 9. See my prior book, Jesus Words Only (2007) at 86-93. The Problem of Paul 11 Atheists Would Accept Jesus Without Paul view that it is faith and not works that lead to salva- tion have found it necessary to denigrate the value of Jesus teaching. They claim that since J esus teachings about moral action are impossible for any- one (other than J esus) to comply with perfectly, that His teachings are nothing more than an example meant to show us how imperfect we all are and how salvation for such imperfect beings is impossible except through the saving grace of faith. 10
This atheist is able to cite many such proofs of the denigration of J esus words by mainstream Christians. He cites the theologian Carl Stange: Fellowship with God is not achieved through ethical performance. From an ethical standpoint, it is a dero- gation of the idea of the good to seek its realization by imitating J esus. The teaching about the ideal.... only serves to make plain the reprehensibility of the human condition... The meaning of the moral demand is not that it gives us the power for the good but rather that it shows us our impotence for the good. Id. 11 Stange [is] quite representative of those who back Pauls view of faith over works, the atheist adds. This atheist provides you many similar proofs of a reaction against Paul by other atheists. Many are dead now, but one wonders if modern Christianity had embraced J esus instead of Paul doctrinally whether many more souls would have been saved. Here are some more notable quotes which he references come from Kenneth Scheis Christianity Betrayed (Synthesis, 1989). 12 1. Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) 10.http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/sermon.php (accessed 3/23/2008). 11.Quoting from Clarence Bauman, The Sermon on the Mount, The Mod- ern Quest for its Meaning, at 177. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 12 My long-time view about Christianity is that it repre- sents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible partsthe religion of J esus and the religion of Paul. Thomas J efferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document. (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed and An Atheist for Jesus]). 13 2. Thomas J efferson Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of J esus. 3. Wil Durant Paul created a theology of which none but the vagu- est warrants can be found in the words of Christ....Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ. 4. Carl J ung Paul hardly ever allows the real J esus of Nazareth to get a word in. (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, at 55.) Jeremy Bentham In a work entitled Not Paul But Jesus, J eremy Bentham (1748-1832) 14 the famous British philosopher tried to rescue J esus from Paul. This work is now available 12.A critical review of this book appears at J ames Patrick Holding, Its Paul the Perverter Yet Again, at http://www.tektonics.org/qt/ scheik01.html (accessed 3/23/2008). Holding does not dispute the accuracy of the quotes from atheists and agnostics about favoring J esus but abhorring Paul. Nor does Holding ever ask the big question: if a skeptic like Schei is saying atheists would be willing to come to Christ without Paul, then why are we sticking with Paul? 13.http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/paul.php (accessed 3/23/2008). The Problem of Paul 13 Atheists Would Accept Jesus Without Paul through books.google.com. Here we provide some quotes to gather the flavor and the indignation that Bentham felt at J esus doctrine being tossed aside in favor of Paul: One thorn still remained, to be plucked out of the side of this so much injured religion,and that was, the addition made to it by Saul of Tarsus: by that Saul, who, under the name of Paul, has(as will be seen) without warrant from, and even in the teeth of, the history of J esus, as delivered by his companions and biographers the four evangelists,been digni- fied with the title of his apostle: his apostle, that is to say, his emissary [J : his emissary, that is to say, sent out by him: sent out,] by that J esus, whose immediate disciples he so long persecuted and destroyed, and whose person, unless dreaming of a person after his death, or professing to have dreamt of him, is see- ing him,he never saw. Id., at iv. Bentham then says if one reviews Christian history, never is there any serious dissension over a doctrine of J esus. The greater part of all mischief and all the dissensions within Christianity turn on teachings from Paul, e.g., original sin, predestination of the lost, woman being silent in church and only asking questions at home, etc. These words, of whom have they been the words? Of J esus? No: this has not been so much as pretended. Of Paul, and of Paul alone: he giving them all along not as the words of J esus, but as his own only:he all along preaching (as will be seen) in declared opposition to the eleven who were undisputedly the apostles of J esus: thus, of Paul only have they been the words. Id., at v. 14.Gamaliel Smith [pseudonym for J eremy Bentham], Not Paul But Jesus (London: J ohn Hunt, 1823). This is a clearly recognized catalogued work of J eremy Bentham. See J eremy Bentham, http://en.wikipe- dia.org/wiki/J eremy_Bentham (accessed 3/23/2008). The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 14 Bentham then points out that Christians act unawares that most of the opposition to Christianity is focused not on J esus but upon Pauls teachings: That, by these words, and, consequently, by him whose words they were and are, all the mischiefs, which have been imputed to the religion of Jesus, have been produced,in so far as the dissensions, from which these mischiefs flowed, have had these words for their subjects,cannot be denied. But, moreover, in these same words, that is to say, in the doctrines delivered by them, cannot but be to be found the origin, and the cause, of no small part perhaps of the greatest partof the opposition, which that religion, with its benevolent system of morals, has hitherto experienced. If this be so, then, by the clearing it of this encumbrance, not only as yet unexampled purity, but additional extent, may not unreasonably be expected to be given to it. Id. at vi. Bentham sees that Christianity might actually grow if it dispensed with this encumbrance that Paul represents. Bentham then says he sat down to figure out if Pauls doctrine came from J esus. After careful study, and the pro- duction of a book long study, Bentham said the answer is no. Pauls doctrine was his own invention: It was by the frequent recurrence of these observa- tions, that the author of these pages was led to the inquiry, whether the religion of Paul,as contained in the writings ascribed to Paul, and with a degree of propriety which the author sees no reason to dispute, whether the religion of Paul has any just title to be considered as forming a part of the religion of Jesus. The result was in the negative. The consider- ations, by which this result was produced, will form the matter of the ensuing pages. Id., at vi. The Problem of Paul 15 Atheists Would Accept Jesus Without Paul Bentham foresees that by cutting off this useless appendage that what is good in J esus teachings will be ele- vated and more generally followed. He explains: If, by cutting off a source of useless privations and groundless terrors, comfort and inward peace should be restored or secured;if, by cutting off a source of bitter animosity,good - will, and peace from without, should be restored or secured;if, by the removal of an incongruous appendage, accep- tance should be obtained for what is good in the reli- gion commonly ascribed to J esus;obtained at the hands of any man, much more of many, to whom at present it is an object of aversion;if, in any one of these several ways, much more if in all of them, the labours of the author should be crowned with suc- cess,good service will, so far, and on all hands, be allowed to have been rendered to mankind. Id., at vi- vii. Bentham then asks his reader to put aside all biases, and look objectively at the question. One then can see Paul does not say the same things as J esus. Paul is the source of all confusion and ill doctrine that has caused hesitancy to follow J esus. Whosoever, putting aside all prepossessions, feels strong enough in mind, to look steadily at the origi- nals, and from them to take his conceptions of the matter, not from the discourses of others,whoso- ever has this command over himself, will recognise, if the author does not much deceive himself, that by the two persons in question, as represented in the two sources of informationthe Gospels and Pauls Epistles, two quite different, if not opposite, reli- gions are inculcated: and that, in the religion of Jesus may be found all the good that has ever been the result of the compound so incongruously and unhappily made, in the religion of Paul, all the mischief, which, in such disastrous abundance, has so indisputably flowed from it. Id., at vii. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 16 Bentham then tells his reader what are his conclusions in no uncertain terms: 1. That Paul had no such commission as he professed to have;2. that his enterprize was a scheme of per- sonal ambition, and nothing more;3. that his sys- tem of doctrine is fraught with mischief in a variety of shapes, and, in so far as it departs from, or adds to, those of J esus, with good in none;and that it has no warrant, in any thing that, as far as appears from any of the four gospels, was ever said or done by Jesus;such are the conclusions, which the author of these pages has found himself compelled to deduce, from those materials with which history has furnished us. The grounds of these conclusions he proceeds to submit to the consideration of his read- ers. Id., at vii-viii. My latest book Jesus Words on Salvation (2008) abundantly confirms these conclusions. Bentham then concludes his opening preface with a stirring call to follow J esus! This from a man whom I catalog among atheists only because if I called him a Christian the debate would change from whether Paul is a problem for non- believers into debate whether Bentham was saved. Thus, this atheist as I catalog him gives this stirring call to follow J esus: In respect of doctrine, the conclusion isthat no point of doctrine, which has no other authority than that of Pauls writings for its support, can justly be regarded as belonging to the religion of Jesus, any more than if, at this time of day, it were broached by any man now living: that thus, in so far as he is seen to have added any thing to the religion of Jesus, he is seen to set himself above it and against it: that, therefore, if this be true, it rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus, to settle with him- self, to which of the two religions, that of J esus and that of Paul, he will adhere: and, accordingly, either to say, Not Jesus but Paul,or, in the words of the title to this work, Not Paul but Jesus. Id., at xvi. The Problem of Paul 17 If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? This is an amazing writing. Yet, there it is. A liberal philosopher fighting to hold onto J esus. If that does not prove Paul is a problem for those outside the Church from coming inside, what more proof do you need? This puts the pressure directly on Christians to explain and defend why is Paul revered to the extent that he is revered? Why do we insist to become a Christian we must accept Paul, whom the three accounts of J esus vision of Paul never utters words to say Paul is an Apostle of J esus Christ? If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? Perhaps the most surprising discovery after writing my book Jesus Words Only (2007) is that Islam has a highly positive opinion of J esus, while they reject Paul. Again, if others can see there is a major difference, one must wonder why most Christians do not see Paul is a barrier to others tak- ing J esus as seriously and deeply as He deserves? How I Encountered the Issue I wrote a book in 2007 entitled Jesus Words Only that a couple of Islamic authors cited as confirming their religious views of Paul. I had no anticipation of their views. 15
15.See http://islamic-answers.com/jesus__words_only (still posted as of 3/15/2008). Another separate Islamic website that endorses Jesus Words Only is http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/e_books (still listed of recommended reading as of 3/15/2008). I should point out that J ewish websites likewise cite my book as demon- strating to Christians that they need to leave Babylon, and come back to Torah. See http://www.judaismrediscovered.com/Links.html (linked as of 3/15/2008). There are others who are completely syncretic who are open to Islam, Christianity and J udaism who also endorse my book Jesus Words Only (2007). See www.youtube.com/user/Ecothearcy. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 18 In Jesus Words Only, I contended from an evangeli- cal Christian and Biblical-perspective that Paul was a false apostle and false prophet. I suggested that J esus in Revelation 2:2 actually said so when you piece it together with other pas- sages. Two websites that are Islamic (but not radical) have enjoyed parts of my book, and promoted it on the Internet. The citation of my work by sincere Muslims caused me to discover, much to my surprise, that Islam holds views very compatible with Christianity on (a) the New Testament except they reject Paul; (b) J esus as miraculously born of a virgin (but this does not mean Son of God) and prophet; (c) the Old Testament; and (d) the oneness of God, even though Allah is His name. 16 A Christianity Today article from 2001 concedes: Christians and Muslims share a lot of similar beliefs. Moses, J acob and David are influential in both faiths. And Muslims have enormous respect for J esus, seeing him... [as a] prophet. Muslims also believe in J esus virgin birth and his miracles. Furthermore, the Quran (or Koran), which Muslims believe documents the visions Mohammed received, is the most important text, although our Old and New Testaments are also significant in Islam. 17
Did Mohammed Say Jesus Was Messiah, Born of a Virgin By Gods Hand, and Gods Word Was In Jesus? Most interestingly, Lonsdale Ragg, in The Gospel of Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) at xi says that the Quran by Mohammed never denies J esus is Messiah, nor claims such a post for Mohammed. Ragg mentions this while dis- cussing the Gospel of Barnabas published in 1709. This Gos- 16.Below I will explain that Allah is merely the Arabic name for the same name of God in the Hebrew Scripture we know as El or Elohim in Hebrew. Allah is not meant to signify a wholly different God. 17.Whats The Difference, Campus Life, Nov-Dec. 2001, reprinted at http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2001/006/5.44.html (accessed 2/ 9/2008). The Problem of Paul 19 If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? pel purports to be the long lost Gospel of Barnabas banned at Nicea in 325 A.D., and discovered by a Christian monk in the 1500s who then converted to Islam upon reading it. Here is Lonsdale Raggs analysis on the Quran by Mohammed while he contrasts it with the Gospel of Barnabas: A more crucial point of divergence [between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Quran] is that of the Messiah. If there is any Messiah in the Quran, it is Christ (al-ifarih) J esus, Son of Mary... the Word proceeding from God. [Ragg cites Sur. iii, sub init.].... Mohammed...never claims for himself [the title Messiah] in the Quran. Id., at xi. There does appear to be passages where even Mus- lims quote the Quran as saying J esus was Messiah, born by God through a virgin, but we are not to call J esus the Son of God for to do so is to detract from Gods centrality. I must preface these quotes by noting that we must be as sensitive of citing an appropriate text as we would expect if someone were discussing Christian doctrine. None of us accept the J ehovah Witness New Testament. There are similar issues in Islam with respect to the Quran. Thus, while Khal- ifas version of the Quran is available online via books.goo- gle.com, do not use it, for it is rejected by standard Islam. 18
Islam also regards the Arabic original the only authentic version, and translations are not ever definitive. As one Islamic author comments: [F]or this [Quran] is literally the last word of God to man. The human language medium is Arabic, and as each several word is an Act of God, the very words are sacred. There cannot, therefore, be any autho- rized translation of the Quran.... 19 18.Khalifas version of the Quran (2001) is considered corrupted and heretical by most Muslims for it deletes passages in order to advance a theory that Khalifas name is found in Quran. 19.Annie H. Small, Islam (E.P. Dutton, 1905) at 26. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 20 To stay on safe ground, I will quote only obvious Muslim sources who quote the Quran on the topic of J esus. Hence, with that ground rule and prefatory warning, it appears to be in the Quran that J esus is Messiah, born by God of a virgin, yet we are not to call J esus the Son of God for reasons of respecting God. The first passage is quoted by someone who certainly is a Muslim: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, J esus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers... (Quran 4:171; see also 66:12). 20 This Muslim then notes all the positives about J esus in this quote and goes into another significant quote which he then explains is a teaching against calling J esus the Son of God: In the above passage J esus is called by four noble titles. He is the Messiah, the Messenger of Allah, a Word from Allah, and a Spirit from Allah. In the same passage, it is clear that the Quran seeks to dis- courage exaggeration in religion. Further in the same passage, Allah says: Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender (Quran 4:171). Refusing to call Jesus son of God is not done with a view to belittle Jesus. No! On the contrary, it is done to Glorify God, to magnify His name, and to pro- claim His transcendent majesty. 21 20.http://haram.wordpress.com/jesus-in-the-glorious-quran/the-messiah- jesus-son-of-mary/ (accessed 3/23/2008). The Problem of Paul 21 If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? This denial that J esus is to be called the Son of God is still held despite believing God directly caused Mary to miraculously give birth to J esus. The same Muslim evangelist explains: The Quran confirms that J esus was born of a virgin. When the angel announced to Mary, on whom be peace, that she will bear a child, she said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me? She received the following reply: So (it will be). Allah creates what He will. If He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is. (Quran 3: 45, 47). Thus, the basis for many Christians thinking the Word was made flesh (and hence J esus was divine) the virgin birth is in Islam admitted factually without admitting this means we should call J esus the Son of God. The rationale is explained by the same Muslim, quoting the Quran: It befits not (the majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When he decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is. (Quran 19:35). Thus, while this Muslim quotes Mohammeds state- ments that J esus is Messiah, the Messenger of God, born miraculously by God of a virgin, a spirit from God, yet they deny J esus should be given the title Son of God so as not to detract from the glory and centrality of God Almighty. This makes one think. Another explanation in the Quran is that J esus as Son of God was truly human in that title. The same Muslim quotes the Quran, Allah (God) speaking: 21.http://haram.wordpress.com/jesus-in-the-glorious-quran/the-messiah- jesus-son-of-mary/ (accessed 3/23/08). The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 22 Lo! the likeness of J esus with Allah is as the like- ness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said unto him: Be! and he is (Quran 3:59). In other words, these passage combined appear to acknowledge a divine origin of J esus spirit and words, but the man J esus was a man. If I am reading these Quranic statements correctly, how far off is this my Christian friends actually from correct Christology? We discuss this in an Appendix.
Did Mohammed Say Jesus Prophesied of Mohammeds Appearance? According to Ragg, Mohammed in the Quran also sees himself as a prophet prophesied in turn by J esus. Mohammed recounts that J esus prophesied of Mohammeds coming: In a celebrated passage in the middle of the short Surah entitled Battle Array, Mohammed, having... [from] J esus, Son of Mary a prediction of himself, in the following terms: Verily I am the apostle of God sent unto you, confirming the Law which was delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an apostle who shall come after me, and whose name shall be Ahmed. (Ragg, supra, at xxx, citing Sur 61.) Mohammed is paraphrasing J esus promise of a com- forter of the gospel who is yet to come. Rather than the para- clete, as we render it, Mohammed was saying J esus meant Ahmed is his name, which means praised (in Arabic, muham- mad) which compares with Periclete =famous. (Ragg, supra, at xxxi,xxxii.) Hence, Mohammed is viewed by many Mus- lims as the promised comforter that J esus said would comfort many about the gospel. If we look more closely at the passage that Ragg is identifying (Quran 61:6), it proves that Mohammed would come to reinforce the same Torah given Moses that J esus was The Problem of Paul 23 If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity? sent to enforce. Now we can see why Islam is so opposed to Paul. The Torah, of course, was the very thing that Paul extraodinarily claimed that God annulled. We read from Quran 61:6: Recall that J esus, son of Mary said: Oh Children of Israel. I am Gods messenger to you, confirming Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be even more praised (Ahmad). I asked a Muslim friend Kevin Kec to corroborate that I am reading this correctly. He said that indeed J esus came to confirm Torah, just as J esus says in Matthew 5:17-19, and this is why Paul is a barrier for Muslims to accept modern Christianity. My friend Kevin writes: So both Bible and Quran agree here that Prophet J esus came to the children of Israel to confirm the Law [the Torah], and not to forsake it as Paul did. I think this will be a good thing to point out in your booklet it shows that both Biblical and Quranic texts report that Jesus words arecontrary to Pauls words and teachings. Kevin Kec as a Muslim then quotes for me the pas- sages that Mohammed says he came to confirm the Torah given Moses: .It was We who revealed thelaw (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the J ews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Gods book, and they were witnesses thereto: there- fore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. [Quran 5:44] And before this, was the Book of Moses (the Torah as a guide and a mercy: And this Book (the The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 24 Quran) confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right. [Quran 46:12] Thus, while I assumed Islam hated everything J ewish, I was apparently wrong. They believe Israel safeguarded the Law even though Israel did not always follow it. Paul destroyed the Torah, Islam teaches, and thus Paul is an apos- tate in Islamic studies. Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti- Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of Islam I further traced that Muslims have a version of the New Testament that they say is ancient called the Gospel of Barnabas. This gospel account has a primary thrust which treats Paul as Christs enemy. Muslims claim this Gospel vin- dicates their beliefs that J esus came to confirm Torah and Paul to destroy it. This is the primary Gospel used in Muslim religious instruction to identify the true Gospel of J esus Christ, so it bears more examination. The British scholar Lonsdale Ragg in his The Gospel of Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) points out that the Gos- pel of Barnabas professed purpose [is] to combat the erroneous teaching of Paul. Id., at xviii. The Gospel of Barnabas begins by saying Paul has been deceived to repu- diate circumcision ordained of God forever, and permitting even unclean meat. Id., at 3. Barnabas says J esus taught the directly contrary truths. History of the Gospel of Barnabas There was indeed an ancient version of the Gospel of Barnabas. A Gospel according to Barnabas is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum Gelasianum (no later than the 6th century), as well as a 7th- century List of the Sixty Books. 22 There also was an Epistle The Problem of Paul 25 Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti-Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of of Barnabus with 22 chapters which was canon in the Codex Sinaiticus the very last book of the New Testament. Since the Epistle of Barnabas rejects circumcision and is directed against the J ews claiming they were never a covenant peo- ple 23 it cannot have formed a significant basis to what we see in the Gospel of Barnabas that emerged in the 15th cen- tury. In the 1500s, there was a claim to a rediscovery of the Gospel of Barnabas. That version reads in most respects identical to the four gospels but woven into one story with many new side-stories. The most serious variation is that J udas is crucified in place of His master. Yet, J esus is por- trayed in every other respect as He is in the standard four gos- pels except it is denied J esus should be called the Son-of-God. In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are many parentheti- cal references to Mohammed whose story is appended at the end. The 15th century discoverer claims to have converted to Islam by making the discovery. The theories of the origin of the Gospel of Barnabas are that the version recovered in the 1500s is either (a) wholly a fabrication; (b) a mixture of the original Gospel of Barnabas with fabrications; or (c) wholly authentic. 24 Whether ancient or not, it was certainly published in Italian a short time after the Islamic-evangelistic reign of Mehmed IV (1648-87) the Sultan of Turkey. Its Italian publication date was 1709. 25 It has all the words of J esus nearly verbatim from the New Testament (only attributing prophecies to J esus which are consistent with the appearance later of Mohammed), but then omits and combats Paul, and 22.Earlier Occurrences of the Gospel of Barnabas, in Gospel of Barna- bus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/ 23/2008). 23.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/23/08). 24.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/23/ 2008). 25.Another copy existed in Spanish but it has become lost. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 26 next has Mohammeds story and words. J esus and Moham- med are thus seemlessly interwoven into one Christian Gos- pel. It clearly portrays Mohammed as a prophet whose coming was prophesied by J esus Christ. Thus, the Gospel of Barnabas forms a complete J esus-Mohammed Scripture. Rather than Being Flattered, Christians Are Angry Christians denounce this Gospel of Barnabas. For example, one article is entitled: 32 Reasons why the Gospel Of Barnabas is a 16th Century Forgery written by Mus- lims. 26 This Christian critic is outraged: Since that time [i.e., the 1700s], Muslims have claimed that the Gospel of Barnabas is an authentic Gospel, perhaps even the original one. 27 Islamic students study the Arabic and Urdu transla- tions. It was translated into English in 1905 and again in 1973. Id. This same Christian critic continues in more angry tones: The Gospel of Barnabas has been extensively used by Muslims to demonstrate that the Bible has been corrupted, when measured against a Gospel that was hidden away for nearly two millennia. Needless to say, the G.o.B. [i.e., the Gospel of Barnabas] largely confirms the teaching of Islam concerning J esus. Id. 28 Yet, these same Christians never stop and admire that if what he claims happened is true then this means Muslims went to all this effort to preserve Jesus writings, exclude Pauls and merge Jesus words with Mohammeds words. Nor do any such Christian critics ever ask why would Mus- lims go to such trouble. Evidently, even if this was a literary forgery, it is clear that the problem of Paul was the key issue. 26.http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm (accessed 3/15/2008) 27.http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm (accessed 3/15/2008). The Problem of Paul 27 Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti-Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of Christians who learn this core issue with Islam rebel at abandoning Paul in preference for the J esus of the four Gospels: Let me add that it is a common Islamic tactic to try and contrast Paul with the gospels. Pauls letters often predate the gospels. Paul was an apostle and the others didnt say he got off track. Do NOT allow Muslims to play this game and try to denigrate Paul. 29 My dear Christian brother, please open your ears. This is no game. Paul is never mentioned by J esus or the twelve apostles as an apostle. This is true in the four gospels, the book of Acts, and every apostolic letter among the original twelve. If Paul does indeed contradict J esus in the Gospels, as even evangelical dispensational writers acknowledge, then this is no game. It appears everyone but Christians sees Paul as a problem or a barrier to following J esus. Because we wont give Paul up, others will not come any closer to J esus. Who is our King? Paul or J esus? 28.This is not to say this Gospel of J esus from a Muslim perspective has every element of J esus life even as it preserves the entirety of J esus teachings. This Christian critic in the prior footnote points out the cru- cifixion is missing. Instead, it recounts that J esus ascends into heaven in the company of four angels. J udas instead is portrayed as killed in J esus place. There are other differences. However, the issue here is not whether there is a 100% consistency between this Gospel of Barnabas and the four gospels of the orthodox canon. Rather, we are examining the commonality between the Muslim Gospel of J esus and our Gos- pel. 29.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=56543 (accessed 3/23/ 2008). The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 28 Conclusion on the Problem of Paul We have established that J esus and Paul have directly contrary doctrines on (1) the Law given Moses; (2) the rele- vance of works in salvation; and (3) justification by repen- tance. Rather than accept J esus teachings, most Christians dispense with the contrary views of J esus from Paul, dismiss- ing J esus teachings as part of an earlier dispensation and now no longer applicable due to Pauls explanations. Thus, Pauls doctrines are rationalized to have superseded those of J esus. The dispensational argument or the many other ways to torture J esus words to comply with Pauls doctrine all end up divorcing Christ from Christianity. Bonhoeffer said in 1937 that we have ended up with a Christianity without Christ. (Cost of Discipleship (1937)(reprinted 1995) at 59.) As Bonhoeffer also said, the cheap grace substitute on salva- tion doctrine has obliterated J esus gospel to the point if He returned and preached the same gospel today that He taught 2000 years ago, many/most in the church would reject J esus teachings. Paul is thus not only a problem to deists like J effer- son, atheists like Bentham, J ews like Moshe and Klinghoffer, Muslims like Mohammed, but also to Christians like you and me. We desperately need to re-examine Paul. This is what my first book Jesus Words Only (2007) is all about. I urge everyone to read it. It is free online to download in PDF, as it always will be, at www.jesusword- sonly.com. Appendix: Why Islamists Call God Allah Again, I confess I know next to nothing about Islamic doctrine or teachings. But I was curious about one issue: why do Muslims call God by the name Allah? It seemed to make the Islamic God different from our God. The Problem of Paul 29 Appendix: Why Islamists Call God Allah But it turns out that I received a very cordial and respectful answer that demonstrates the name Allah traces to the same root word as the Hebrew word for God as well as the Aramaic word, except Allah is the Arabic version. Hence, Allah is indeed really the same name as the El, and Elohim that we read in the Hebrew Bible, and which we translate as Almighty God or God. Here below is the answer I received to the question from my Islamic friend Kevin Kec from the Netherlands. Please note the tone is kind, helpful as well as academic unlike some of the Christian writings I have seen on such top- ics which claim Muslims worship a Moon God. 30 I excerpt the key portion of his letter. Salaam dear brother Douglas, I am very happy to read about your good experiences with Muslims [due to your positive comments I feel honored as a Mus- lim]. I also feel honored by your request of including my letter into your new upcoming book Islam and the Problem of Paul. You may use my letter, website and full name.... as a reference and/or source in your new upcoming work (I feel honored by it). Of course I would love to review your book and inform you about the Islamic Beliefs. I truly admire your sincere intentions.... I truly recognize a truthseeker inside you and a man whose heart is devoted to God. I also realize that many Christians are god-fearing people whose main goal is to please God. Every religion has its good and bad people. The Good ones are those whose main goal is to please and serve God. Further I would like to thank you about your questions, below are my answers: 1: Why Do Muslims Call God Allah? Answer: 30.See, e.g., Islam: Truth or Myth?, http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam- moon-god.htm (accessed 3/23/2008). The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 30 The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexi- cons, means the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection, i.e., the Being Who is per- fect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imagin- able in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says: His are the best (or most beautiful) names. [Quran 17:110; 20:8; and 7:180]. The word Allah is also used by Arab Christians: Allh is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arab Christians, as well as by Muslims. (Britannica, 1990 Edition - vol. 1, p. 276.). More proof for this can be found in the next article: http:// www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/ BibAllah.html Moreover, it is interesting to note that one of the basic Hebrew words for God, Eloh, can easily be pro- nounced alah without the diacritical marks. Not sur- prisingly, the Aramaic word for God is alah. This word, in the standard script or the Estrangela script is spelled alap-lamad-heh (ALH), which are the exactly corresponding letters to the Hebrew eloh. The Ara- bic word for God, Allah, is spelled in a very similar way. It is even related to the more generic word for deity, ilah. One can notice here the obvious linguistic and etymological connections between the respective words for God, in these closely related Semitic lan- guages. We have, as clear examples: Allah, Alah, and Eloh being related to ilah, Eel, and El, respec- tively. The Problem of Paul 31 Appendix: Why Islamists Call God Allah Lets Examine Christian Rebuttals Christian apologists reply and dispute this lexical affinity between Allah and El, Elohim, Ellah, etc. 31 They chal- lenge the pronunciation, the spelling, the etymology, etc., and so on. But if the Muslim is saying that is the connection, and their God is the God of the Bible, why quibble! The Arab speaker says they are worshipping the same God as the God of the Bible, simply pronounced in Arabic. Do any Christians know Arabic that well that they can deny this? Furthermore, Christian apologists claim Mohammed was a false prophet because he did not call Allah by the name Yahweh: I have pointed out that Mohammed called on a god by the name of Allah, and therefore he was a false prophet for not pointing people toward YHWH, the true, living God of the Bible....[Muslims claim] Allahs affinity... to elohim, elah, and el prove that Allah is in the Bible as Gods name. While these words are used with reference to the Creator, they are descriptive titles (like missionary or apol- ogist), not the name of the Supreme Being, which is YHWH. 32
My Christian friend has committed a serious blunder. Neither did J esus even once call the Father or God by the name Yahweh. My Christian friend has just offered up a proof that J esus was a false prophet. One must be very careful! Our Christian friends proposition is wrong. Neither is Mohammed or J esus a false prophet for not using Yahweh to refer to God. In fact, most J ews of J esus era avoided using the name Yahweh for fear it would be used in vain, and vio- late the second commandment not to take the name of God in 31.http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Perez/ name_of_god3.html (accessed 3/23/2008). 32.http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Perez/ name_of_god3.html (accessed 3/23/2008). The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 32 vain. Apostle Matthew in quoting J esus never says kingdom of God even though the parallels in Luke and Mark do so. Apostle Matthew reflected that J esus was more cautious than Luke or Mark suggest. J esus always says the kingdom of heaven. See Matt. 13:24,31,33,44,45,47 (kingdom of heaven in each verse).Cfr. Mark 1:14 (kingdom of God); Luke 13:20-21 (kingdom of God). J esus, Matthew and evidently Mohammed had a good reason for not using Yahweh. The name Yahweh is a sacred name. Among J ews then and still now, it is considered almost forbidden to utter for fear it might be used in vain, i.e., for an empty purpose just like Oh my God uses God in an empty way. Even as I write this, I must be careful. J ews historically merely show this word by the four consonants that comprise Yahwehs name in what is called the tetragon. It was so rarely pronounced or spoken, it became eventually unknown among Gentiles how to pronounce it. The King J ames thought it was Yehova. Only due to the discovery of an old cuneiform text prior to 20th Century were we recently able to recover the vowel sounds, and re-learn the personal name of God is Yah- weh. We must be fair to another mans faith or else by being unfair we destroy our own. Continuity in a Biblical Faith within Islam Thus, while it bears further investigation, it does appear that Islam does not purport to have ripped itself away from the God of the Bible, as most Christians assume. I always thought the name Allah meant to convey that they worshipped a different God than the God of the Bible. Rather, it appears that Islam believes it worships the God of the Bible, and Allah is how our Gods name translates into Ara- bic. This is key. J ust as Christians who call J esus by the name Jesus rather than His Hebrew name of Yahshua (or pos- sibly Yeshua) are not thereby proclaiming a different Yahshua than the Yahshua known in Israel in 33 A.D., then the Islamic The Problem of Paul 33 Appendix: Correct Christology believer is not intending by the name Allah to reject the God El or Elohim identified in the Bible in whom we all believe and trust. Is it not interesting how misconceptions grow from lack of dialogue? Appendix: Correct Christology Word Made Flesh versus This Day I Have Begotten Thee Apostle J ohn teaches us the Word became flesh (J ohn 1:14-18) hence the Word indwelled J esus. When did this happen? The flesh-and-body J esus only became Son of God at his baptism when God spoke these words this day I have begotten thee. (Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 quoting Luke 3:23 in its oldest text form.) 33 In fact, Apostle J ohn taught the most dangerous doc- trine was to think the human J esus only appeared to be human but did not actually share a human nature. The way many Christians describe J esus as the divine Son-of-God, there is no room left for any humanity to J esus. For if J esus was not only the divine Word but also the divine Son-of-God, where is there any room for a human nature to Jesus? Apostle J ohn teaches us that any doctrine which says J esus had no true human nature, but only appeared to come in the flesh, is the teaching of the Anti-Christ: 1 J ohn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that J esus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1 J ohn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that J esus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 34 2 J ohn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that J esus Christ is come in 33.There was later transparent tampering with NT Scripture to erase what Yahweh said from heaven at J esus baptism This day I have begot- ten thee. This alteration was made to deflect the Arian doctrine which exploited this begotten passage and Pauls words in Col. 1:15-16. The Arians sought to prove J esus was only human, and had no divinity dwelling in him. Psalm 2:7 says: Yahweh says unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee. (Psa 2:7.) The Arians argued that since the Son did not exist until God had begotten J esus on the day of J esus baptism, then J esus could not have had been a pre-existing Deity as taught by some Catholic authorities. No one realized the solu- tion was simple: the spirit/Word in J esus was eternal and pre-existent, but the Son-of-man came into existence by God begetting the Son at His baptism at the inception of J esus ministry. The churchs solution in the 300s was, instead, to literally obliterate this key verse in the gos- pels that originally said God spoke at J esus baptism from heaven this day I have begotten thee. The late 4th Century church replaced these words with This is my son in whom I am well pleased. The problem with the 4th century solution was three-fold. First, the Christian com- mentators in the prior three centuries many times quoted the original this day I have begotten thee, and these writings survived the obliter- ation of the verse in the gospels. For example, we find the original lan- guage in orthodox works such as First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, First Apology of Justin, and The Banquet of the Ten Vir- gins. Second, the original Lucan version was not destroyed, and sur- vived, so we read the begotten language in Luke 3:22 in various ancient manuscripts. See Hope University, http://www.hope.edu/aca- demic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/LUK/LUK3.HTM). Finally, and most convincingly, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 of our New Testament each quote the original gospel account of God speaking from heaven this day I have begotten thee. See Heb. 1:5 (For unto which of the angels said He [i.e., God-the-Father] at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?); Hebrews 5:5: So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but He [i.e., God-the-Father] that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. (Heb 5:5.) Thus, the correct solution is to see J esus divinity is from the spirit in Him and the Word made flesh, and the nature of J esus as Son-of-God was begotten at J esus baptism. Thus, no longer would Son-of-God imply God-hood as Christians early on taught J esus was God-the-Son alongside God-the-Father, and thus the main reason for Moham- meds dissent from applying the term Son-of-God to J esus may dis- appear. Mohammed was concerned evidently that making the Son-of- God aspect of J esus a Deity-component that it destroys the unity and hence dignity of God. The Problem of Paul 35 Appendix: Correct Christology the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. One can study this topic further under its historical label of the heresy of docetism. The early church recognized that all those who claimed J esus was divine went too far when they said J esus only appeared to be human. This is docetism built on a Greek word meaning appear. Docetism was a gnostic teaching, popular among the Mar- cionites. It was treated universally in early Christianity (pre- Roman Catholicism) as heresy. Modern Protestants Inherit The Confusion of 1415 A.D. From the Roman Catholic Trial of John Hus The distinction of J esus being divine as the eternal- word-made flesh versus the begotten-son is consistent with the Nicene Creed. It was the Catholic church only in 1415 A.D. which effectively abrogated that point of the Nicene Creed in its trial of J ohn Hus, and favored the Athanasian Creed of the Ninth Century which spoke for the first time of the eternal son. In the Roman Catholic charge of the thirty errors of Hus, the Roman Church now claimed the Son, not just the Word, was eternal. This fundamental switch in what aspect of J esus was divine has survived into Protestant consciousness, so it now appears startling to suggest J esus had a human nature as Son-of-God but a divine nature as the Word- made-flesh. J ohn Hus was a philosophy professor turned preacher. He led many in Bohemia to Christ. Hus is often credited as the first Protestant Reformer. In 1415 A.D., the Roman Catholic church accused J ohn Hus of heresy because he said that J esus represents both human and divine in one Christ. 34 The Catholic concern was Hus idea implied the human part of J esus was itself not divine, and hence not eternal. (Which means Hus obviously The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 36 taught the only divine element in J esus was the Word and hence was the source of the eternal nature dwelling within J esus.) However, Cranmer (1489-1556), a Protestant Angli- can Archbishop who was later martyred by a Catholic ruler 35
pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church thereby used novel principles to convict Hus. The Catholic church was insisting that Hus recant. The Catholics wanted Hus to say J esus as Son did not have a distinct human nature and thus demanded Hus say J esus nature as Son was also eternal. 36
But Cranmer pointed out that the Athanasian Creed of the ninth century was self-conflicted. Besides the eternal son, it recognized J esus had a totally human nature besides His divine nature. (Consequently, the human-J esus was not an eternal being; only the Word made flesh in J esus was eter- nal and God.) Hence, Cranmer said the affirmation which the Roman Catholic church now wanted from Hus even contra- dicted the Athanasian Creed. Thus, Cranmer said the execu- tion of Hus for this alleged error was a stark departure from the Catholic churchs prior teaching that J esus had two natures in one Christ. 37 One was human and one was eternal and divine. As one can see, Mohammeds offense at giving J esus the title Son-of-God is that it ascribes a divinity to an aspect of J esus which is truly human. Mohammed is correct in objecting on how this title is misused. Yet, that is not the 34.The Catholics accused Hus of an error by insisting Two natures, divinity and humanity, are one Christ. See Proposition 4 of 30 that Hus would not recant. See Standford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Serve- tus, Appendix V: J ohn Hus First Reformer Burned At the Stake, 1415 on page 436 et seq. 35.Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) had written a legal defense of Englands church separating from Roman Catholicism, which is how Henry broke England away from Catholicism. Upon Mary I taking the thrown, and seeking to restore Roman Catholicism as the state church, she had Cranmer burned at the stake for heresy in 1556 for his role in separating England from Catholicism. The Problem of Paul 37 Appendix: Gospel of Barnabas claim of historic Christianity that Mohammed was battling. Mohammed was battling the Marcionite docetic heresy (which still was circulating near Medina in Mohammeds day) that said even in his human nature J esus was divine. Marcionites claimed J esus was supposedly divine in every aspect of His nature, hence depriving J esus of a truly human nature in any respect. Hence, Mohammed is battling docetism a recognized heresy within Christianity. But Mohammed does not appear to have a problem accepting God divinely caused Mary to have a child, and the Divine Word was in J esus from inception. Appendix: Gospel of Barnabas The story goes that the Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexan- dria until 325 A.D. In 325 A.D., the Nicene Council was held, 36.The Catholic view in 1415 A.D. had fallen into the old heresy of docetism. Thomas Cranmer, D.D. (1489-1556), noticed this departure by the Catholic prosecution in 1415 of Hus. The Catholic church was now denying J esus had a human nature at all. Cranmer explained how this overturned the traditional view of J esus Sonship as a human aspect of one Christ: The Council of Constance, among other articles of J ohn Hus...unjustly...condemned also this article for heresy, That thetwo natures, that is, the divinity and humanity, be one Christ; which is a necessary article of our faith, expressed in the Creed of Athanasius...where it is read, The right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord J esus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. And a little after, Like as the reasonable soul and the flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. The same is also decreed by the Council of Nicea and divers other catholic Councils, and it is the doc- trine of the Church at this time....Yet these malicious clergy were not ashamed to condemn the same for an heresy. (Thomas Cranmer, The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (The Univer- sity Press, 1833) at 193.) Cranmer is the one who made the legal case for England to break from the church of Rome in a book entitled The Sufficiently Abundant Collection (1530). Cranmer was executed as a heretic in 1556 when Queen Mary I reunited the English Church to the church of Rome. (Cranmer, Wikipedia.) The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 38 and that council ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death. How was it preserved? The story goes that in 383 A.D., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library. In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 A.D.), the story continues that the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. The citation is to Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 to 450 Antwerp 1698, which is made by Borge B. N. Blatind, Evangeliet til Barnabas (n.d.) at 14 albeit an Islamic source. 38 Yet, Ragg, the English editor of the 1907 edition of the Gospel of Barnabas, and who approaches this with schol- arly dispassion, has some evidence consistent with Blatinds claim. While confessing we have no certain traces going back prior to the 1700s, Ragg mentions there is an ambigu- ous reference to the (now lost) copy of the Spanish ver- sion,...[which] may possibly indicate that our Italian Ms. was once in the library of Pope Sixtus V (1585-9). (Lonsdale Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) at xi.) Ragg points out that the Spanish preface gave the account of its origin as discovered by a Christian monk named Fra Marino. There indeed was a Franciscan monk of a similar name alive in 1549 who was in charge of indexing prohibited books. Marino explained that he accidentally met with a writing of Irenaeus (among others) wherein he 37.See Standford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus, in Footnote 319 on page 229. 38.Blatind is obviously a sympathizer with Islam, although the citations are thorough and appear to be accurate. In the same vein, he wrote another book entitled Jesus En Profet i Islam (n.d.) The Problem of Paul 39 Appendix: Gospel of Barnabas speaks against St. Paul, alleging for his authority the Gospel of Barnabas, [and] he became exceeding desirous to find this gospel. Id., at xi-xii. Ragg continues: and that GOD, of His mercy, having made him very intimate with Pope Sixtus V, one day, as they were together in that Pope's library, his Holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved to be the very gospel he wanted. Overjoyed at the dis- covery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve; and, on the Pope's awaking, took leave of him, carry- ing with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Mohammedanism. The Spanish version of the Gospel of Barnabas repre- sented itself as a translation of an earlier Italian work. Ragg suggests that indeed the Italian translation may be the book that Fra Marino so piously filched (or fabricated)..... Id., at xii. The critics of the eighteenth century dated the Italian text to 1470-1480, explains Ragg. For his part, Ragg did a minute analysis and concluded it was written on the paper from the Vienna manuscript in the mid-1500s. The style and diction would put it to an earlier prototype unless they are marks of an elaborate literary hoax. Id., at xv. While there were claims of an Arabic original version, none has ever been found, Ragg points out. Id., at xv-xvi. The Gospel of Barnabas shows a thorough knowledge of both New and Old Testament. Id., at xvi. The writer has a first-hand knowledge of the Scriptures. Id., at xxii. His occasional inaccuracies are outweighed by a very general and intelligent knowledge of the Old Testament and the New. Id., at xxii. Ragg notes that Barnabas even has traces of Pauls teachings even though Barnabas professed purpose [is] to combat the erroneous teaching of Paul. Id., at xviii. The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus The Problem of Paul 40 Ragg believes the many references to the epistles, including second Peter, constitutes another of the conclu- sive arguments against the Barnaban authorship of this Gospel. Id., at xviii. Ragg outlines that this Gospel has integrated into one story the four gospels, including the narrative of the virgin birth, J esus miracles, parables, the Passover supper, the betrayal, trial and crucifixion. Id., at xix. It tracks very closely the gospels of Matthew and Mark. One notable dif- ference is that J udas agrees to be crucified in place of J esus. Id. at xxvii. Ragg agrees that the writer of this Gospel has no ani- mus...against the fourth gospel as the record par excellence of Christs divinity. Id., at xix.