With the discovery of "The Gospel of Judas", perhaps it is time we had a look at other gospels as well. There were literally hundreds of gospels available before the Nicene Council of 325 AD convened by Constantine to work out differences between the two main Christian movements at the time, those who adhered to the Athanasian Creed ("Trinitarian") and the Arian Creed ("Unitarian", and which believed that Jesus (pbuh) was a human being).
Constantine for political reasons sided with the Trinitarians and a successful state-sponsored pogrom was then launched by the Trinitarians to eliminate the Unitarians and their "heretic" gospels. Needless to say, most of these gospels were destroyed and the Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John became the orthodoxy of present-day Trinitarian Christianity (though not of all).
It is therefore important to see what Paul, widely regarded as the founder of "Trinitarian Christianity" had to say, although Paul himself never actually formally set out the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was also not set out in the 4 main gospels, except by extrapolation from certain of their verses (some of which were later proven false and denounced as "pious forgeries", whether most Christians today accept it or not).
It will at once be obvious that Paul taught a different gospel from that of Jesus's immediate disciples and followers, even from his own words. So who should be believed?
Paul, the apostle who never knew or met Jesus, has claimed many things about the Gospel which he taught. Let us examine his claims objectively.
He claimed that the "super-apostles" (he does not say exactly who they are, but we can guess that they were Jesus's original disciples) whom he criticized preached a Jesus other than the Jesus he preached, and that his congregation received (from them) a different spirit other than the one they received (from him) and that they also received a different gospel from the one which they accepted (from him) (he never said which one exactly but there is evidence to surmise that it was a figment of his own feverish imagination) (2 Corinthians 11:4-5).
Who were these "super-apostles"? Although Paul is not specific about them, yet we know from his own words that like him they were also Hebrews, israelites, Abraham's descendants and "servants of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:22-23).
In all likelihood they were the original apostles of Jesus. The fact that Paul calls them "super-apostles" probably means that they could be seen as having a higher status than him among the "servants of Christ" (but nevertheless he did not regard himself as inferior to them).
This of course contradicts what he said in 1 Corinthians 15:9, where he admitted that he was the least of the apostles and did not even deserve to be called an apostle, while in the same breath claiming that he worked harder than all of them ("yet not him, but the grace of God that was with him"). Paul was of course a bundle of contradictions.
Paul also calls them "false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ". He also said that it was no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).
What is surprising here is that Paul has forgotten his own "vision" of "a light from heaven" which "flashed around him" (Acts 9:3). It is apparent that he did not actually see anything in this vision but only heard what purported to be the voice of Jesus. The Acts makes it clear that Paul was temporarily blinded by this light. He probably had an epileptic fit, if it wasn't Satan himself who caused this "vision".
In all his "visions" of "Jesus" and "revelations" from him, it is also apparent from the internal evidence that Paul never actually saw Jesus. This is quite important.
We all know that Jesus had long hair (or we assume from the images we normally associate with him that he did - I stand to be corrected on this). Paul apparently was unaware of this, as he had no qualms about saying that the very nature of things taught that if a man had long hair, it was a disgrace to him. (1 Corinthians 11:14).
Yet Paul also claimed that the "gospel" he preached was not something that man made up, that he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it, but rather he received it by revelation from "Jesus Christ" himself. (Galatians 1:11-12).
This (together with his complete and blatant disregard for the Mosaic law) appears to be the major cause of the differences between him and the "super-apostles".
His congregation were aware of his claims and demanded proof that Christ was speaking through him. (2 Corinthians 13:3). Why would they have needed such proof, unless the other apostles were preaching a different Jesus?
Paul, after receiving his revelations of the gospel direct from Jesus (pbuh) (by this time already in Heaven), did not think it necessary to consult any man or go to see the apostles in Jerusalem. By his own admission, he went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus and only after three years did he go to Jerusalem to "acquaint" himself with the apostles, staying a mere 15 days with Peter. He did not see any of the other apostles, except for James. (Galatians 1:16-19).
It was only 14 years later that he went to Jerusalem again (to set before those who appeared to be the "leaders" the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:1-2). Paul therefore appears to have developed a different gospel from that of the apostles and was adamant in defending it.
If Paul is to be believed (and we shall see why this may not be so), those who "seemed to be important" (which whatever they were didn't make any difference to him) didn't add anything to his message. Here again we have Paul apparently looking down on the other apostles, rather strange, considering that they were the original disciples of Jesus.
This account by Paul himself is perhaps also not consistent with the account found in the Acts, where it appears he went to Jerusalem after only a matter of (many) days in Damascus. (See Acts 9:19-30).
At the beginning of Galatians (1:1 and 6-7), he (calling himself "an apostle, sent not from men nor by man" - thereby distancing himself from the other apostles again) expressed his astonishment that his congregation are turning towards a "different gospel" which he called "really no gospel at all".
Apparently, "some people" (again he doesn't clearly say who) were perverting "the gospel of Christ".
By this time it is apparent that Paul had thrown all caution to the wind and burned all his bridges, as he goes on to say that even if he (himself) or an angel from heaven were to preach a gospel other than the one he had already preached to them, he would be "eternally condemned". (Galatians 1:8). This is clearly an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of anyone whose teachings of Jesus contradicted that of Paul's. Who could that possibly be, so early in the days of "Christianity"?
When Paul opposes Peter "to his face" it becomes very apparent what differences in teaching there were between Paul and the other apostles. Paul makes Peter appear to be a man unsure of himself (Peter eats with the Gentiles but withdraws from them when certain men who came from James arrive). Paul calls them "the circumcision group" and said that Peter was afraid of them. He calls this "hypocrisy" which the other Jews joined in and by which even Barnabas was led "astray". (Galatians 2:11-13).
The question here of course is who was leading whom "astray", Paul or the other apostles?
Jesus (pbuh) had not authorized nor taught the other apostles to do away with circumcision, and they still held fast to this Jewish "custom", a custom which in fact had all the weight of law. Paul however had taught otherwise, and was prepared to do away with such Jewish "customs" and even the law, as he makes clear (probably in order to make it easier for him to convert the Gentiles to his teachings of "Christ").
Paul had by this time developed a theology based on "faith in Jesus Christ" as opposed to one based on "observing the law". As he said, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:14-21).
It is also at once apparent that the other apostles were teaching that righteousness could be gained through the law (or rather through observance of it).
Doing away with the law had by then become a central theme in Paul's gospel, one apparently not supported by the other apostles whom Paul had to take upon himself to remind of the "truth of the gospel" - his own interpretation or concoction. [One of course may doubt that Paul knew better than them].
Peter and the men who came from James were apparently silenced by Paul's diatribe, since he does not record their response (or perhaps Paul just did not wish to have their response on the record, since it would not have served his purpose - his purpose being to establish the truth of his teachings and his gospel rather than theirs).
Bearing in mind that the context of Letter to the Galatians is Paul's response to the "perversion of the gospel" which he had preached to them, it is also apparent that the "different" gospel did not preach that Christ had been crucified, since Paul goes on next to defend his clear portrayal "before their very eyes" that Jesus Christ had been crucified.
He asked them whether they received the Spirit by observing the law or by believing what they heard (from him, presumably). In context, it would appear that in Paul's gospel observance of the law was akin to denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Galatians 3:1-5).
An internal inconsistency also becomes apparent in Paul's line of thought (and teaching) when he tries to rely on the Scriptures (the Old Testament) to justify his denial of the law.
He said (referring to Deuteronomy 27:26): "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law"."
This Scriptural reference in fact flatly contradicts the point Paul was trying to make, but he does not appear to realise this! What it says of course is NOT that if you continue to observe the law you are under a curse, but rather if you do not continue to observe the law you are under a curse.
[Just as a matter of interest, the actual words (NIV) are: "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out"].
Paul also tried to show by (partially) quoting Habakkuk 2:4 that "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." (Galatians 3:11) and also (quoting Leviticus 18:5) that "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:12).
In my (humble) opinion he merely succeeds in revealing either another facet of his internal inconsistency, an ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation, of Scripture.
This becomes all too apparent when one reads Habakkuk 2:4 completely and in its full context [i am not setting the full context out - those who are interested may read it for themselves]: "See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous will live by his faith - ...". This appears to be a parody of "faith" of the (purportedly) "righteous" rather than a justification for it.
Leviticus 18:5 (NIV) on the other hand states: "Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD." This sounds more like a justification for the law rather than a refutal of it, and a sounder basis for faith (though perhaps not of the kind which Paul envisaged and preached - in his different gospel).
Paul of course had to persist no matter how inconsistent he became, since he had already burned his bridges...
To the extent that he is prepared even to say that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13) and referring to another Scriptural quote: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree". (Deuteronomy 21:23).
Perhaps it may be that God wanted to curse Himself by allowing Himself (His "Son") to be hung on a tree, but we would be entitled to doubt the veracity of such a claim as nothing more than a feeble attempt by Paul to justify a presupposition which he had already made.
Why should Jesus become a curse anyway, and why should God allow it? In any event logic was not one of Paul's strong points. Nor was truth for that matter. All that mattered to him was that he be different, even to the extent of preaching a different gospel from that which Jesus' own closest disciples taught.
If Paul was really the founder of present-day Christianity, Christians should really start taking stock of what exactly it is that Paul taught and whether the same was consistent with what Jesus and his original disciples taught. Were the teachings of Jesus really meant for the non-Jews (Gentiles), for it was Paul that actually brought his different gospel to the Gentiles?
No comments:
Post a Comment