Where is the "Christ" in
"Christianity?"
Laurence B. Brown
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.”1
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.2
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.3
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.4
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.5
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.6
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
Permission
granted for free and unrestricted reproduction if reproduced in entirety
without omissions, additions or alterations.
A
graduate of Cornell University, Brown University Medical School and George
Washington University Hospital residency program,
Laurence B. Brown is an ophthalmic surgeon, a retired Air Force officer,
and the medical director and chief ophthalmologist of a major eye center. He is
also an ordained interfaith minister with a doctorate in divinity and a PhD in
religion, and the author of a number of books of comparative religion and
reality-based fiction. His works can be found on his website, www.LevelTruth.com.
_____________________________________________________________________________
*
Jesus Christ was one more prophet in the long line of prophets sent to the astray Israelites. As he so clearly affirmed, “I was not
sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) When
Jesus sent the disciples out in the path of God, he instructed them, “Do not go
into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go
rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6) Throughout
his ministry, Jesus was never recorded as having converted a Gentile, and in
fact is recorded as having initially rebuked a Gentile for seeking his favors,
likening her to a dog (Matthew 15:22-28 and Mark 7:25-30). Jesus was himself a
Jew, his disciples were Jews, and both he and they directed their ministries to
the Jews. One wonders what this means to us now, for most of those who have
taken Jesus as their ‘personal savior’ are Gentiles, and not of the “lost sheep
of the house of Israel” to whom he was sent.
1.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical
Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2004. Oxford
University Press. p. 3.
2.
Lehmann, Johannes. 1972. The Jesus Report. Translated by
Michael Heron. London: Souvenir Press. pp. 128, 134.
3.
Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University
Press. pp. 97-98.
4.
Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University
Press. p. 184.
5.
Carmichael, Joel, M.A. 1962. The Death of Jesus. New
York: The Macmillan Company. p. 270.
6.
Weiss, Johannes. 1909. Paul and Jesus. (Translated by Rev. H.
J. Chaytor). London and New York: Harper and
Brothers. p. 130.
Posted 1/15/13. This article is copyrighted and posted here with the
author's permission. For more information, visit www.LevelTruth.com.