In my opinion, Paul's writings should not qualify as Scripture. They are the purported writings of Paul. Scripture is the Word of God conveyed through a Prophet (Messenger). Nothing else can qualify as Scripture. Man's interpretation of Scripture or commentary on it is not Scripture. This should be obvious. The other 4 "gospels" also fall into this category. There is no known "Gospel of Jesus" in existence being entirely his own sayings as revealed to him by God.
The context of Paul's "Letter to the Galatians" is Paul's admonition to his followers who appeared to be turning towards a 'different gospel' (although, in reality, as I have pointed out, it would seem that it was Paul's gospel that was the different gospel), and were being 'misled' (or being led back to the right path, depending on your viewpoint) by certain people who were throwing them into confusion (or perhaps enlightening them, again depending on your viewpoint) and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ (here one can of course query who was doing the real perverting, Paul or his opponents).
It is clear from the context that Paul's opponents were calling his congregation to come back to the Law. It has always been the context that righteous Jews (and I do not mean the Sadduccees or the Pharisees) when referring to the Law to talk about zealousness for it. Paul uses the word 'zealous' no less than 3 times almost immediately preceding the verses below (Galatians 4:17-18).
With regard to Galatians 4:21-4:31 "21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" Paul's purpose here seems to be to dissuade his congregation from going back to the Law, which previously he has stated God sent His 'Son' to redeem those under from (Gal. 4:5), being under slavery (Gal. 4:3) and going back to which he deemed to be to 'weak and miserable principles' (Gal. 4:9).
Paul showed his full contempt for the Law and those who were zealous for it. He went on to attempt to justify his contempt of the Law by citing the case of Abraham and his 2 wives and sons.
"22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
23. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar."
[If we follow the 'slave' imagery which Paul uses in the previous verses, the children of Hagar are therefore supposed to be under the Law (slaves to it).
This of course is an amazing 'prophecy' by Paul, since it did indeed come to be with the advent of Muhammad, a descendant of Ishmael, son of Hagar and Abraham. How did Paul know that Hagar's descendants would come to be called 'slaves' of God, i.e. 'Muslims' or 'those who have submitted' (to God and His Law)? Quite extraordinary.
But then again perhaps he was only letting his slip show, since he would certainly have been aware of the prophecies relating to 'that Prophet', the one who would come with a fiery law.
Or he could merely have been trying to deprecate those he terms as "slaves" to the Law, which in all certainty is what Jesus and his followers were. But Paul, not having known Jesus in the flesh, had a different "Jesus" he wanted to teach people about. Those who fell from it of course deviated from the original teachings of the Law, which Jesus came to fulfil not abrogate.]
"25. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
26. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother."
[This is probably an allusion either to Jesus in Heaven or the Kingdom of God in Heaven (or in Spirit), free from the Law. This is merely Paul's deliberate and calculated way of looking at things, to bolster which he had absolutely no qualms about misquoting or quoting the OT out of context.]
"27. For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband".
[This refers to Isaiah 54:1 and to the future glory of Zion, or so it is believed, but appears in the whole context of Isaiah to be more an expression both of despair and hope than of prophecy. The words are rather ambiguous and do not refer to any specific person as Paul would have us believe.
I do not intend to go now into a study of Isaiah, but all I will say for the time being of its purported Messianic prophecies is that either a large part remains unfulfilled or was fulfilled in a different person from that whom the Jews expect(ed) or the Christians avow.]
"28. Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. It is the same now."
[There is no evidence for such an assertion, but Paul has no trouble at all in twisting facts to enable his conclusions to bear a semblance of logic as well as 'scriptural' authenticity.]
"30. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son".
It is not God who says this, but Sarah. Does what Sarah says qualify as Scripture? Anyway, the actual wording is: "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."
[As a side note, is this where the israeli/Zionist/Judaists get the justification for their treatment of Ishmael's decendants? Whatever the case, it certainly has been their attitude since at least the time of Sarah, and even Paul is of the same attitude. Do we wonder then that some if not most of the Christians are no different?]
It certainly gets very difficult to trust Paul when he quotes 'Scripture' to make his point:
"31. Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."
Personally, I would say that it is better to be a righteous (and zealous) slave than a free man with no Law, for the latter is what most Jews and Christians have become.
In the verses following the above we get more ideas of one of Paul's pet bug-bears: circumcision. If, as Paul himself said, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" (Gal 5:6) what was he making such a big fuss about it for then?
He even went to the extent of saying that "Christ will be of no value" (at all) to those who allowed themselves to be circumcised, that they would be "alienated from Christ" and have "fallen away from grace". (Gal. 5:2,4).
But then he must have forgotten that Jesus was himself circumcised.
Could Jesus who, as we have seen according to Paul's teaching in Part 1 previously, has become a curse, also become of no value, alienated from himself and fallen away from grace because he was circumcised? Obviously Paul must have been teaching a completely different "gospel".
He also said with regard to those whom he called "those agitators" that he wished "they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal. 5:12). In Phillipians 3:2 he calls them "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh".
This does not quite sound like a holy man speaking. He seems to have become not only anti-Nazarene but also a rabid anti-Semite, in spite of being a Semite himself (but then of course he was also a Roman citizen, and the equivalent of being Roman in those days is what being American is today, except that the Romans expelled the Jews while now the Americans keep them in).
I think it is quite clear by now that Paul taught a different gospel to the Gentiles and that he was never really accepted into the community of the early followers of Jesus who probably regarded him with some suspicion, since he was one of those who had earlier persecuted them.
And so it became that "Christianity" left its original roots among the Jews, especially of the Nazarene sect, and became a completely different religion that Jesus and his immediate followers never knew or taught. This was almost all of it due to Paul's teachings and his different gospel.
The Nazarenes who were also dispersed after the fall of Jerusalem abided in the deserts of Arabia until the time of the coming of the Prophet when most if not all of them became Muslims.
Because of Paul, the purported founder of Christianity, Christians today are as far away from the real teachings of Jesus as they can be. These teachings were not even supposed to be for them, but for the Jews and to prepare the way for the last Prophet.
It is rather unfortunate that there is no extant copy of Paul's original "Gospel" (the one which he claimed he received by direct revelation from "Jesus Christ" himself). All we have to go on are his letters (which are possibly only a small portion of those he actually wrote).
In any event, Christians should perhaps critically re-assess the teachings that they have allowed themselves to be misled by all these centuries.
Only then will they be able to find the truth and real salvation in submission to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment