Paul's Different Gospel Part 7

 Paul's Different Gospel 7

Jesus came to reform Judaism and would therefore have come into conflict with its priests and leaders. Yet he never preached against the Mosaic Law, only how it was being (wrongly) implemented. Jesus gave it the spiritual dimension that was lacking. And he also had another mission.

Judaism had by that time also become polluted by paganism, particularly of Roman and Greek origin and the Essenes and Nazarenes under Jesus were intent on purging it of these influences, yet all still within the context of Mosaic Law, which Jesus himself never abrogated or taught that it had to be done away with.

Today's Christians may say that Paul didn't bring anything new to this antagonism toward Judaism of his day, which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament by the promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34 of a new covenant and a new law written in the heart to supersede the law of Moses:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." - Jeremiah 31:31-34

For good measure they could throw in Daniel as well and many other "unfulfilled" prophecies. These prophecies which the Jews expected to be fulfilled in the real sense and not merely spiritual, never did happen.

We must be aware of the "pesher" process of reworking of biblical passages whereby the scroll writer studies or examines a book of the Bible, usually a prophetic work, and reinterprets it in terms of the events of his own time.

Using such a technique, what you propose can also be reinterpreted to refer to the Prophet Muhammad rather than Jesus or perhaps even to both of them.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us even more ample material for this purpose, what with their references to The Messiah who was both Ruler and Priest and the Two Messiahs who will appear towards the end of time, one the Messiah of Israel (the Royal or King Messiah) and the other the Messiah of Aaron (the Priest Messiah)* (See note below).

Are these to be found in Christianity? The answer is "No". Are they to be found in Islam? The answer is "Yes". But that is perhaps another subject entirely, although perhaps connected in a way to Paul's different gospel.

Yes, indeed, and this New Covenant which God made with them would only be fulfilled in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. And part of Jesus's mission was to prepare the way for the coming of "that Prophet".

During the time of Jesus, the division was not only between the righteous (Jews) and unrighteous (Pagans) but more between the Jews and the different Jewish sects themselves.

Jesus was to reform Judaism and thereby restore the Divine link between Creator and Created.

In this context, the Pauline doctrine about overcoming the very nature of sin "which is death itself" and for which he had to die and be resurrected sounds a bit convoluted.

How can death be the very nature of sin, unless Pauline Christians mean it in a metaphorical way like sin being "spiritual" death? But surely this is not a sufficient reason or method for God to require the death and resurrection of Jesus? What would that prove?

No "sacrifice" of anything by God can in any sense be a real "sacrifice" since God has nothing to "sacrifice" anything for nor should He need to, being above all needs or wants.

The relationship between God and His Creation was not limited only to Israel, although the Jews would have liked to believe so, and perhaps still like to believe so. The Jews were God's "Chosen People" only in so far as they obeyed His Commandments and His Law and they lost that birthright because of their own arrogance, hard-heartedness and disobedience, as Jeremiah himself makes very clear.

They were supposed to be the examples for the rest of the world, but does this mean that the rest of the world was left entirely without guidance until Jesus came? Christians may like to believe so, but that is not the case.

There were of course zealots at the time who desired Jesus to lead them against Roman occupation.

But they were not at war all the time. There were relative periods of calm and peace when a certain level of co-existence and tolerance had to be in place until some spark lit another flame. Obviously the Jews did not think that Jesus was the Messiah who would lead them against the Romans or were disappointed when he didn't. Either way he could not play that role.

Pauline Christianity had to find a reason for this and this is where the Messiah became merely a spiritual concept and the "Kingdom of God" became merely the "Church of God".

Jesus's followers' presence in the Temple was generally tolerated and James their leader had access even to the Holy of Holies. Because to them there was only One Law. Any Jew would know what it meant when speaking of the Law. Any follower of Jesus would too. 

Paul also knew what Law it was he was accused of speaking against. The fact that Paul denied it, in spite of all evidence to the contrary (even his own letters, as we know later), while the Apostles insisted on it showed just how different their teachings were.

Or was it merely fate in the form of the Romans that changed everything, leading to the complete marginalization of Jesus's original disciples and their substitution by the Roman Catholic Church.

Discussing something like "Paul's Different Gospel", will inevitably draw in many elements of how the entire basis of Christianity itself came about and its relationship with the original disciples of Jesus.

On one hand, we have assertions by Paul himself that he got his gospel not through or from the original disciples, but by direct revelation from Jesus and he makes it very clear just how different his gospel was by arguing with Peter and the other disciples over the enforcement of the Mosaic Law, which it was then agreed did not apply to the Gentiles whom Paul was preaching to.

On the other hand we have Jesus's disciples still praying in the Temple and continuing to adhere to the Mosaic Law. Unfortunately not much remains of the teachings of the original disciples and what remains are the present 4 gospels which may represent more Pauline teaching than Nazarene teaching.

We may never be able to reconcile the two, but I believe that a fairly objective study of whatever evidence we have, placed in the historical context and without the baggage of any theology, can reveal to a great extent the truth of the matter.

Paul really did go to extraordinary lengths to "deny" the Law and to be as offensive as he could to those who adhered to it (including Jesus' s original followers) and who still kept to its dietary and other requirements? What was Paul trying to show here?

*Note:

https://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a023.html

"The men of Qumran fervently believed in a doctrine of "last things." They had fled to the desert and were readying themselves for the imminent judgment when their enemies would be vanquished and they, God's elect, would be given final victory in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. It was in connection with these end-time events that one of the most fascinating teachings of the sect emerges. The messianic hope loomed large in the thought of the brotherhood. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that they actually believed in three messiahs -- one a prophet, another a priest and the third a king or prince.

In the document mentioned earlier called the "Manual of Discipline" or the "Rule of the Community," it is laid down that the faithful should continue to live under the rule "until the coming of a prophet and the anointed ones [messiahs] of Aaron and Israel" (column 9, line 11). These three figures would appear to usher in the age for which the community was making preparation.

In another document found in Cave Four and referred to as the "Testimonia," a number of Old Testament passages are brought together which formed the basis for their messianic expectations. The first is the citation from Deuteronomy 18:18-19 where God says to Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee." Next comes a quotation from Numbers 24:15-17, where Balaam foresees the rise of a princely conqueror: "a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab," etc. The third passage is the blessing pronounced by Moses upon the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) in Deuteronomy 33:8-11. The way in which these three quotations are brought together suggests that the writer looked forward to the advent of a great prophet, a great prince and a great priest.

There were three individuals in the Old Testament writings that were referred to as "my anointed ones" -- the prophet, the priest and the king (refer to Ex 29:29; 1 Sam 16:13, 24:6; 1 Kg 19:16; Ps 105:15). Each of these was consecrated to his work by an anointing with oil. The Hebrew word for "anointed" is meshiach, from which we get the word Messiah."

However, they then come to the absurd and contrived conclusion that "The marvelous truth of the New Testament doctrine of the Messiah is that each of these three offices found fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth!"

In reality, throughout history up to this day, it is a well-known fact that only the Prophet of Islam has been known as "The Prophet" (the Messiah in whom were combined the offices of King and "Priest"), while there is a belief in Islam that Jesus (the King Messiah) will come towards the end of the world to rule as a just ruler (King) around the same time as the Imam Mahdi (the "Priest" Messiah).

Paul's Different Gospel Part 6

Paul's Different Gospel 6

What can we make of Peter's commendation of Paul in 2 Peter 2:14-18:

14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Also of John's failure to correct Paul's different gospel?

It is said that the apostle John outlived Paul by 20-25 years, and wielded enormous authority in the church as the last living apostle. He was one of the people closest to Jesus. If Paul had perverted the message of Jesus, it was within John's power to correct it, and rather easily. John did not. The easiest explanation for this would be that John agreed with Paul.

Firstly with regard to 2 Peter. Most scholars are of the opinion that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph (i.e. author unknown and not Peter) and date it between 100-160 CE, out of range of Peter's lifetime.

Much of its material has been copied or is literarily dependent on Jude, which itself belongs in the post-apostolic age. It is also highly Hellenistic in concept and (rhetorical) language as is 1 Peter, something one would not expect from an unlettered Galilean fisherman (Acts 4:13).

Secondly, it is even more strange that John never mentioned Paul at all. It is as if he didn't even know of Paul or did not want to acknowledge his existence. Furthermore, would the Apostle John have become so anti-Jewish as the "Gospel of John" makes out?

 

John was dated at a time when the Gentile Christians were breaking loose from the Jewish origins of "Christianity" and developing their own theology and also possibly facing much opposition from "Jewish Christians" as well as trying to cope with a potentially if not actually hostile Roman regime.

The fact that the early followers under the leadership of James - after Jesus's ascension - were still allowed to pray in the Temple somehow vitiates against any charges of blasphemy against Judaism in Jesus's teachings - and obviously they still adhered to Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20 "...they are all zealous of the law:"), for the other Jews to continue to tolerate them.

There were incidents of persecution and Paul was of his own admission said to have been one of the persecutors, yet the puzzling thing is that they still managed to stay on in Jerusalem and even worshiped in the Temple with the other Jews. Why were they persecuted then by the priests and were not persecuted later?

The Acts seem to reveal a fair bit about how even James and the other elders of the "Jewish Christian" community who were "zealous for the law" differed from Paul. While in the Acts Paul denies going against the law, yet as we have seen from his own words in his letters that this is exactly what he has done.

Acts "[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

[22] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

[23] Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

[24] Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

[25] As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

[26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

[27] And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

[28] Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place."

What the Jews of Asia were complaining about of course were the very essence of Paul's different teachings, in accordance with his own "different gospel", such as we can glimpse from the Acts and his letters.

 

Paul's Different Gospel Part 5

Paul's Different Gospel 5

It will be obvious by now from the previous analysis that Paul did in fact teach a different gospel from that taught by the other apostles, one which depended entirely on faith - since he couldn't prove any of it - and not the (Mosaic) Law which Jesus had come to fulfill.

He could not prove any of it because as he claimed he had received it by direct revelation from Jesus, who had by then already left the earthly world. The fact that it contradicted Jesus's teaching while still alive did not stop Paul from expounding and expanding on his newly-found theology, especially among the non-Jews or Gentiles.

This is where Christianity stumbles and becomes something that Jesus never taught, the moment Paul preaches his different gospel and distances himself from Jesus's original disciples.

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 at once apparent that the other apostles were teaching that righteousness could be gained through the law (or rather through observance of it).

An example perhaps of the fairly original teachings of Jesus and his disciples (as far as can be ascertained) can be found in James:

"JAS 2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"* you are doing right. [9] But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. [10] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. [11] For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"* also said, "Do not murder."* If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker."

This of course was a very stringent doctrine and one which could hardly have found favour with the more relaxed Gentiles. If Paul wished to be "successful" in his mission to the Gentiles, obviously he had to tone down this doctrine of "strict adherence to the Law".

Paul in fact did more than that - he did away with the whole requirement to follow the Law and instituted a far easier belief of "faith in Christ" - which practically guaranteed salvation to the believer, even without any necessity to do good deeds. This peculiar theology also led to the development of the concept of "original sin" which it was said Jesus saved those who "had faith" from.

Actually the point that Paul makes in Galatians is that the curse of the law is the fact that it is impossible to keep perfectly, hence Paul's statement that no-one is justified by the Law. What Paul tells the Galatians is simply that they are free to try to keep the letter of the Law if they like, but they will fail, and so they should therefore rely on faith in Christ. If the whole of Galatians is read thoroughly, it will be seen that this is what this letter is about.

"JAS 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, [13] because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"

JAS 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? [15] Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. [16] If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? [17] In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

This is a direct refutation of Paul's teachings.

"JAS 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. [19] You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

"JAS 2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless*? [21] Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? [22] You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. [23] And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"* and he was called God's friend. [24] You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

Could James have been addressing Paul without mentioning his name? It would appear so.

"JAS 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? [26] As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

"JAS 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. [2] We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

JAS 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. [12] There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?"

And who is Paul to judge the Law? Or teach something which Jesus and his disciples never taught?

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).

Those who still think that it shows that faith is the basis for keeping God's Law, not the other way round, and that this is the point Paul made in Galatians have to be faced with the fact that by doing away with the Law, Paul has therefore demonstrated his lack of faith.

Either way, Paul's different gospel cannot be supported by the teachings of the scriptures and of Jesus and his original disciples and must therefore be dismissed as an innovation.

Paul's Different Gospel Part 4

Paul's Different Gospel 4

The Trinitarian-Unitarian dispute need not be glossed over. The whole of Christianity was split by it and Constantine feared that it would cause grave problems to his rule.

The "heretical" teaching of Arius depends on where the different Christians stood. It is obvious that Arius had his supporters and he was also right in stating that the "Son" is not of one nature or substance with "God the Father", etc.

The teaching of Arius was based not only on Judaism but the teaching of Jesus himself that "God is One". What could be more straightforward than that? Those who disputed this assertion were the real heretics.

Any dilution of this central assertion and truth must certainly be treated as suspect and could have been due to a few factors, not the least among which was forgery, interpolation and misinterpretation.

The fact that the heretical teaching of the Trinity prevailed with the might of Constantine behind it does not mean that it was the right teaching.

It would really be very difficult for Muslims to do any great violence to the integrity of the "scriptures" that has not already been done by the Trinitarian Christians themselves.

I'm not at all saying that Trinitarian Christians misunderstand their own message. I am quite sure that they understand their own message. But do they understand the real message of Jesus?

When I say "Trinitarian Christians" I use this term to distinguish them from the original followers of Jesus, who were Nazarenes of the Judaic-Essenic sect or movement (i.e. all of whom were Jews) and also from the "Unitarian Christians" such as Arius and others of his persuasion (who were essentially, though not all, non-Jews).

As all will note, I have not made a single reference to the so-called "Qur'anic view" of "Christian" scriptures, as I believe that "Christian" scriptures or what the Christians (both Trinitarian and Unitarian) accept as "scriptures" can and should be looked at on their own merit.

Indeed we must look at all Christian scriptures as a whole, not just those accepted by the Trinitarian Christians.

If the Trinitarian Christians do not accept the Qur'an being imposed upon them, then likewise they should not insist upon their version of the Bible, especially the New Testament, being imposed upon others, including Christians of other persuasions (and thus ignoring those who disagree with their Bible as well).

Paul wasn't able to pull a fast one over the other Apostles. Far from it. While they all at first continued to pray and preach in the Temple of the Jews, there is doubt the others were interested in spreading the word of Jesus outside of the Jewish community, and they were only too happy to let Paul say what he liked to the Gentiles.

It only concerned them when he tried to impose his clearly different teachings on Jewish communities outside of Israel and many times they sent emissaries to correct him, which upset Paul no end, as we can see from his letters. And this is where he came into conflict with them, as his letters also clearly indicate.

Peter and the other apostles of course knew exactly who Jesus was, but Paul did not.

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus the Nazarene was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22 NIV).

As for the Council of Nicea, it was called by Constantine to settle once and for all the differences between the warring Unitarian Christians (Arians) and the Trinitarian Christians (Athanasians) so that he could preserve the political integrity of his Empire.

This interference by civil authority in the affairs of the Church was not merely over doctrinal differences, but because those differences had become violent and threatened the stability of the Empire.

Origen just 50 years earlier had taught that the "Son" was chosen not by superiority of nature but by virtue of his self-effort. This was also Arian teaching.

It is also known that Origen had access to many of the lost words of Jesus, and quotes from the disciples not recorded in the NT. Origen knew the real nature of Jesus was that of an extremely holy man. And all can become holy men, as evident from the teachings of Jesus himself recorded in writing by those of the first century, but now lost - probably destroyed in the aftermath of the Council of Nicea.

"And we recall the words of St. John in his epistle: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...." (1 John 3: 2).

The Trinitarians looked down on Arius, who to them was a mere priest of Alexandria. He was not a Bishop, nor did he have any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the Church.

Arius being "simply a Priest" is immaterial, as well as whether he had any authority to elaborate in the teachings of the "Church". The Trinitarian "Church" of course denounced and disowned his teachings since they were not the teachings of the Trinitarians, so it really was of no relevance whether he had its authority or not.

Obviously there was more than one movement in Christianity at that time and even till today. So it is rather disingenous when Trinitarian Christians refer to the "Church" as if theirs was the only authentic "Church", especially when the original followers of Jesus only had the Temple.

There was absolutely no reason for Arius to submit to their authority. In fact he was putting forward a totally different creed/doctrine of his own, one which he thought was closer to the truth - and comparatively speaking he was right.

Paul's "different" gospel makes it very clear who were the real heretics or blasphemers, and they were the ones, including Paul himself, who taught anything which was contrary to the Mosaic Law, which Jesus had come to fulfill, not to destroy as Paul did.

Just because they now claim to be "orthodox" Christianity does not make Athanasius's explanation of the "Logos" or his defence of the personality and deity of the "Holy Spirit" right and Arius wrong.

While most of the Christian priests and bishops signed the Nicene Creed, affirming that "Jesus Christ" - whom none of them had known - was "Very God of Very God" and "of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made," they did so under threat of banishment.

Obviously and for some reason (which probably had nothing to do with the truth), Constantine sided with the Trinitarians on the issue of the nature of Jesus, i.e. whether he was one with God and therefore God Himself, or a human being - one of those closest to God.

In "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity", by David W. Bercot, there were 5 who did not agree with the Nicene Creed.

"...Constantine himself chaired the two-month long conference and actively participated in the discussions... Constantine persuaded the group to draw up a church-wide creed that specifically addressed the Divine nature of the Son. This was something quite new, for in the past each congregation used its own individual creed. (pp. 131-132)

Constantine himself proposed the wording of the new church-wide creed. To exclude the viewpoints of Arius, Constantine argued that the Greek term homoousios should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus and His Father. This term is usually translated into English by the phrase, "being of the same substance." ... In fact, several pre-Nicene Christian writers had used that term to describe the Deity of the Son. However, the term doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture, and it had never been included in any of the early congregational creeds... (p. 132)

Nevertheless, as a result of Constantine's persuasive skills, all but five of the church representatives at Nicaea eventually signed the newly-established creed. Constantine then banished into exile the five who wouldn't sign, one of whom was Arius. Constantine also decreed: "... If anyone shall be detected in concealing a book written by Arius, and does not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."... (p. 132)

Subsequently, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, as they said in a letter to Constantine written by Eusebius of Nicomedia: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."

And a blasphemy it was that rules most of Christendom to this day, even though Constantine did change his mind about Arius and brought him back from banishment in an effort to unify the Empire which was still in grave danger of being torn apart by the warring factions of "Christianity", even after the Nicene Council.

For his efforts Constantine, in collusion with the conniving bishops who supported him, rewarded himself with the office of Messiah - an office previously reserved only for Jesus. It was Constantine, not Jesus, who became the embodied Messiah, Saviour and Head of the "Church" - the Trinitarian Church of course.

What had Jesus have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, for the Nicene Creed had transformed him into something else entirely and that he had never ever claimed to be - God.

The very human Jesus of history had been transformed beyond redemption by the bishops of the Trinitarian Church with the backing of the very secular Emperor Constantine into God Himself and Constantine had himself become transformed into the Messiah.

Paul's Different Gospel Part 3

Paul's Different Gospel 3

The truth of the matter is that many early "Christians" themselves did not believe in the "Trinity". The truth is that such a doctrine did not even exist in early "Christianity", which was essentially a Jewish Essenic-Nazarene movement.

The further truth is that, even after the "Christian" movement outgrew its Jewish Essenic-Nazarene (the so-called "Judaic-Christian") roots and spread amongst the non-Jews, there were many who still believed that Jesus was an ordinary human being.

On what basis did they believe so and how did the truth of the Unity of God become heresy and the heresy of the "Trinity" become the truth?

Any claim that the 4 Gospels being the "earliest" is disputable and itself unsubstantiated.

As Peter Novak put it in his book, "Original Christianity- A New Key to Understanding the Gospel of Thomas and other Lost Scriptures" 

https://www.amazon.com/Original-Christianity-Understanding-Gospel-Scriptures/dp/1571744452

"Thousands of books were destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of "heretics" with them. Less than 100 years after Constantine's conversion, the church burnt down the famous Library of Alexandria in Egypt. It continued to launch similar campaigns for the next 1,000 years. It massacred tens of thousands of Christian "heretics" in France in the Albigensian crusade of 1209-1255, and possibly hundreds of thousands more during the Inquisition. Like George Orwell's fictional "Big Brother", the official church sought complete control over public and private opinion. When the printing press was invented in the fifteenth century, the church demanded the right to approve all manuscripts before publication. The church even refused to let people read its own book. As unlikely as it seems today, it was actually illegal to possess the Bible, and simply reading it was considered proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were actually burned at the stake for reading the Roman Catholic Bible."

and

"A great many of these lost scriptures have been dated to the first or second century, making them some of the earliest Christian literature. Despite that, these teachings were erased from the church's legacy; we never inherited them because the church didn't want us to. For 1,500 years, from Constantine's conversion in the fourth century until the end of the Spanish Inquisition in 1834, the church burned these books and killed their owners. It was the longest censorship campaign in human history.

There is no way to calculate how much we lost. Although a few listings of titles of missing early Christian scriptures still exist, we know these listings aren't inclusive. They are just the only listings that managed to survive the editing process of the church. Still, they are enough. They make it clear that many more early Christian scriptures once existed. In the first centuries of the church, the faithful once read the following, alongside the familiar titles in today's Bible:

listing omitted

Today's official New Testament only offers its readers the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with a handful of letters from Paul, Peter, James, and Jude. Early congregations also read dozens of gospels and holy scriptures that no longer exist. All we have left today are a few of the titles, which stand as witness to the power and thoroughness of the church's censorship campaign. Although only eight authors are represented in the official New Testament, in the earliest years of Christianity the faithful read the work of at least 38 additional authors that we know of. The earliest disciples spent their lives teaching a literate culture about Christ, and, as Luke himself testifies, a great many written works emerged from their passionate commitment to that mission:

Many have taken pen in hand to draw up an account of the things that have taken place among us, just as they were handed down to us from the first eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Since I have perfectly followed all these things from the very beginning, it therefore seemed good for me to also write you an orderly account. (Luke 1:1-3)

Before Luke got around to writing his version of events, many others had already done so. The official church, however, condemned all of those early reports, all except the 27 books that made it into the New Testament. In making those decisions, the church demonstrated favoritism toward one author in particular: Paul, who wrote 14 of the 27 books in the New Testament and never even met Jesus in the flesh. Today the official church embraces Paul's letters as the standard by which all other Christian scripture is to be judged, primarily because his work, before the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, seemed to be the oldest surviving Christian literature. Paul's writings were given preference over a great many other scriptures, including many allegedly written by some of the actual Twelve Apostles, such as Peter, James, Andrew, Thomas, and Philip. The church's only possible defense of this would be if all those writings were falsely attributed and were not actually written by the true Twelve; for if they were authentic, then the testimony of those who spent a year or more being instructed by Christ during His ministry would surely be preferred over someone who had only had visions of Him after His Resurrection.

The church does deny that these scriptures were written by members of the original Twelve. There are two things wrong with this position, however. First, if these scriptures were not originally written by the apostles, then where are the scriptures they wrote? Luke says that a sizable percentage of the apostles wrote their recollections or teachings. If these recently discovered scriptures are not the ones they wrote, then where are the ones they did write? Second, a very good case can be made that both the Gospel of Thomas (found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945) and the Gospel of Peter (found in Akhmim, Egypt, in 1886) actually date from the mid-first century, which is exactly when the Twelve would have been most likely to produce written works.

We know our lists of lost works are incomplete, because the Nag Hammadi find contained no fewer than 41 early Christian scriptures that we'd never heard of. Their titles had previously appeared in no list, no correspondence, no surviving document of any kind. These scriptures were considered so dangerous to the church that not one mention of them was allowed to survive. In the last century, for example, we discovered that there had once been a Gospel of Mary. We never knew that because the church didn't want us to. If the church had wanted that text to survive, no power on earth could have erased it from our heritage.

These texts and all trace of them were to be rooted out, the church decided. History was wiped clean of any memory or mention of the ideas in these works, until their texts were unearthed in Egypt.

How many more were there? Were there another 41 scriptures written in the earliest years of the church that we still don't know anything about? Were there a hundred? Two hundred? There doesn't seem to be any way to know. If the church could successfully erase all memory of these 41 scriptures, it could do anything; 1,500 years is a long time to get a story straight.

Truth through Censorship

The official church openly admits this censorship. It claims that all these lost texts were erroneous representations of Christianity and so deserved to be destroyed; and in support of that position, it points to some extant writings of early church figures that say as much. This argument is disingenuous, however, for the church is arguing its case with evidence it has admitted tampering with. For all we know, the vast majority of Christians in the first two centuries preferred these forbidden scriptures over those the official church canonized. But now that all evidence that might have reflected this has been erased, we will never know. As soon as the official church began tampering with the evidence, it lost all credibility."

Partial List:

o The Prayer of the Apostle Paul

o The Apocryphon of James (also known as the Secret Book of James)

o The Gospel of Truth

o The Apocryphon of John

o The Gospel of Thomas a sayings gospel

o The Gospel of Philip a sayings gospel

o The Book of Thomas the Contender

o The Apocryphon of John

o The Gospel of the Egyptians

o The Sophia of Jesus Christ

o The Dialogue of the Saviour

o The Gospel of the Egyptians

o The Apocalypse of Paul

o The First Apocalypse of James

o The Second Apocalypse of James

o The Apocalypse of Adam

o The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles

o Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

o The Letter of Peter to Philip

o Melchizedek

o The Testimony of Truth

o The Interpretation of Knowledge

o A Valentinian Exposition, On the Anointing, On Baptism and On the Eucharist

The Gospel of the Apostles

The Gospel of Basilides

The Gospel of Matthias

The Gospel according to the Hebrews

The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

The Gospel of the Nazareans

The Gospel of the Ebionites

etc.

Definitely and quite obviously, Paul wasn't the only one with a "different" Gospel and there were many more Gospels - other than the 4 Gospels - in existence at the time.

Paul's Different Gospel Part 2

Paul's Different Gospel 2

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.

Paul's Different Gospel Part 1

Paul's Different Gospel 1

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?