Thread: Where is the “Christ” in “Christianity”?

Where is the “Christ” in “Christianity”?
(English)
أين تعاليم المسيح في المسيحية ؟
(إنجليزي)

Laurence B. Brown. MD
لورنس ب براون إم دي



http://www.islamhouse.com/d/data/en/ih_articles/single/en_Where_is_the_Christin_Christianity.doc


http://www.islamreligion.com

Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets ofChristian faith more to Paul’s teachings than to those of Jesus. But asmuch as I would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up andtake a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament teaches that Jacobwrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not onlywrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bearin mind, we’re talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator ofa universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over abillion 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 acodex when they scribed that passage. The point is, however, thatthis passage leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish concept of Godor 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 OldTestament is not to be trusted). In fact, thistextual difficulty has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have triedto cover it up by changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What theycannot change, however, is the foundational scripture from which the JewishBible is translated, and this continues to read “God.”Unreliability is a recurring problem in the OldTestament, the most prominent example being the confusion between God andSatan! II Samuel 24:1 reads:“Again the anger of the LORD wasaroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, numberIsrael and Judah.’”However, I Chronicles 21:1 states: “Now Satanstood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”Uhhh, which was it? The Lord or Satan? Bothverses describe the same event in history, but one speaks of God and the otherof Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference.Christians would like to believe that theNew Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. Infact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to thissubject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over whetherJesus’ family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4differ over the wording of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 andJohn 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah.Things get worse when we enter the arenaof the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew27:32, 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 beforethe third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did Jesusascend 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 scripturalinconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the NewTestament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust theirsalvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answerthe question, “Where is the ‘Christ’ in ‘Christianity?’ “This, in fact,is a supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named afterJesus Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, whichis to say Trinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything hetaught.I know, I know—those of you who aren’t screaming“Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. Butwait. Put down the high-powered rifle and listen. TrinitarianChristianity claims to base its doctrines on a combination of Jesus’ and Paul’steachings. The problem is, these teachings are anything butcomplementary. 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.[1] 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.”[2]
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.”[3]
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.”[4]
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.”[5]
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.”[6]
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.”[7]
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

---

[1] 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.

[2] Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2004. Oxford University Press. P. 3.

[3] Lehmann, Johannes. 1972. The Jesus Report. Translated by Michael Heron. London: Souvenir Press. pp. 128, 134.

[4] Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press. Pp. 97-98.

[5] Ehrman, Bart D. 2003. Lost Christianities. Oxford University Press. P. 184.

[6] Carmichael, Joel, M.A. 1962. The Death of Jesus. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 270.

[7] Weiss, Johannes. 1909. Paul and Jesus. (Translated by Rev. H. J. Chaytor). London and New York: Harper and Brothers. p. 130.

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

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.[1] Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians constructed the Trinity.

Jesus knocked Paul off his high horse to get his attention; he chose Paul to be an Apostle. Paul consented to the killing of Christians. Jesus ask Paul "Why are you persecuting me?" Paul used to resemble more a follower of Islam that didn't exist at that time.

Paul preached accountability such as whether you obey sin which is unto death or righteousness which is unto life. You are a servant to whom you obey whether it is sin or righteousness. Paul clarifies the gospel. Without Jesus ordaining Paul, Christianity would be like a ship lost out at sea. God allowed Paul's letters to stick in the Bible for a reason. Paul shows that Abraham was justified by faith. Paul shows us that without faith it is not possible to please God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of what we don't see.

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

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.”[2]
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.”[3]
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.”[4]....
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?

Paul was not declared a heretic by true followers of Jesus. Jesus was declared a heretic by the Jews; so, of course Paul who clarified the message who is Jesus would suffer as he did by being stoned and left for dead and beaten, put in prison. There are many dangers and snares God delivered him from including ship wrecked. God wanted Paul's message out there, and we got it, and no one can destroy it, because it is from God. Bart Erhman is not respected and has been debunked by other Christian scholars; he is a drifting wave in the ocean who cannot rest. Besides, if he cuts up Christianity, what do you think he would do to Islam? Is he a Muslim? No, why is that?

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

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.

Jesus calls himself the son of man, because he is, but He is also the son of God as he says and God said: "This is my beloved son...." Your argument is with Jesus and God not Christianity or Paul. Christianity is a teaching on the purest form of monotheism God has given us. Christians believe God is one with no partners or associates. We don't have to confess the name of a slave messenger with God to be Christians. Jesus is not a messenger; He is the Message. That is what Paul learned and tried to tell his hearers. If they persecute Jesus they did Paul as well and those who follow Paul and Jesus like is happening to Christians in Iraq today and many other parts of the world.

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

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

Then if God would forgive sin without the shedding of blood, why did God have the children of Israel make blood sacrifice in the torah? Did you know that Jesus predicted his death three times in the Bible?
Jesus is the word of God, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Without the shedding of His blood, we remain and die in our sin, but now that He came and died for us, He is our justification by faith that works through love and God's grace, but we have to accept His gift by faith. That doesn't mean we can live as we please, but it means we are free to live the way God wants us to live. Until we are set free by the blood of Christ, we are prisoners or slaves of sin and death. Jesus said, "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He...No one comes to the father (God) except through me. Let's see which religion believes that more? If you say Christianity, you would be correct.

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

---

[FONT=traditional arabic][1] 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.

Jesus came to the Jew first but His message was menat to be for all the world. The Jews were suppose to spread the word, but they rejected their Savior. Besides, all none Jews were considered gentiles. Jesus is more than just a prophet. He is seated at the right hand of God and has been given all authority to where all things are His. That includes all prophets. god will not judge anyone, but has left all judge to His son that we should honor Him the same as the father. If we don't honor him the same, we are not honoring God. Now what religion follows that concept the most? if you say Christianity, you would be correct!

Peace and blessing to you

I hope that you are honest with yourself, if only for once

Christianity (after distortion) model of the trap and paganism, each Locked very superficial

You need a little bit of seriousness and logical to support your point of view

As usual

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

I hope that you are honest with yourself, if only for once

Christianity (after distortion) model of the trap and paganism, each Locked very superficial

You need a little bit of seriousness and logical to support your point of view

As usual

I am as honest as I know and dead set serious. You know I am. What have I shared with you that you think is not logical? There are no distortions in the central gospel message. There are translation errors and variances, but nothing that detracts from the central gospel message. That is that Jesus died on the cross for our sin and we can be saved by repentance, and God's grace through faith that works by love. There is nothing we can do to merit or earn salvation from God. It is a gift that can only be received on God's terms not ours. Did you think Jesus saying "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am He" was a joke? Did you think Jesus saying "No one comes to the father except through me" was not logical or serious?

If you can be honest with yourself for one minute, you might come to know Jesus. To know Jesus is to have eternal life!!!

Know Jesus; Know life
No Jesus; No life

You think you're in the time of the tyranny of the church and fight for science and logic

This only slogans

Quote

Originally Posted by شمائل

You think you're in the time of the tyranny of the church and fight for science and logic

This only slogans

This comment of yours doesn't address the issues I brought up or answer any of my questions. It seems you cut and past other people's ideas and studies that are weak arguments instead of your own. Please don't send me one line comments of your own that make no sense.

peace be unto you.

Quote

Originally Posted by Burninglight

I am as honest as I know and dead set serious. You know I am. What have I shared with you that you think is not logical? There are no distortions in the central gospel message. There are translation errors and variances, but nothing that detracts from the central gospel message. That is that Jesus died on the cross for our sin and we can be saved by repentance, and God's grace through faith that works by love. There is nothing we can do to merit or earn salvation from God. It is a gift that can only be received on God's terms not ours.

The variations in the bible is actually central very central in fact and hits the core of christianity , here is one example :

3.The oldest COMPLETE NEW TESTEMENT Codex SinaiticuDating to almost 350 AD conatains multiple multiple variations , such as the resurection story in mark ends at :
”8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The rest Does not exist , Check it out for yourself :
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...16&version=ESV

That was for ressurection

Another example of simple addition and dishonesty in adding certain passages and senteces in the bible

Mark 11: 26:But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

does not exist in the earliest manuscripts of mark and was added later :
This verse, which reads, “But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions,” is omitted in the best manuscripts. It was probably added by copyists under the influence of Mt 6:15.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...&version=NABRE

These are two examples : one central and the other minor

Quote

Originally Posted by Burninglight

This comment of yours doesn't address the issues I brought up or answer any of my questions. It seems you cut and past other people's ideas and studies that are weak arguments instead of your own. Please don't send me one line comments of your own that make no sense.

peace be unto you.

This is my objective, do not ask me not to comment