The Problem of Paul

The Problem of Paul 1
The General Problem

1 The Problem of Paul For
Everyone Wanting To Follow
Jesus
The General Problem
If we took the time to carefully examine Pauls nega-
tive impact, we would see that Paul is a problem for nearly
everyone to come to faith in J esus, and those who do come to
faith are quickly snared away from following the teachings of
J esus Christ.
Lets summarize by starting with the J ewish people.
Paul is a problem for J ews to accept J esus because so far
J esus effect on Gentiles has not been as prophesied to
bring glory and more compliance with the Torah.
1

Next, Paul is a problem for good-hearted deists like
Thomas J efferson because so many barriers are put up to
accepting J esus words due to Pauls doctrines.
2

Next, Paul is a problem for atheists like J eremy
Bentham from following J esus because he cannot rationally
reconcile the two.
3

1. See J ews Would Accept J esus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting J esus
Bringing Gentiles to The God of Moses on page7 et seq.
2. See How Deists Would Benefit If We Advanced J esus Words Alone
on page6 et seq.
3. See Atheists Would Accept J esus Without Paul on page10 et seq.
The Problem of Paul For Everyone Wanting To Follow Jesus
Next, Paul is a problem for Islam from fully embrac-
ing Christianity because embracing Paul is made indispens-
able yet Paul destroyed the Torah given to Moses which
Mohammed embraced.
4
(J esus embraced it too in Matthew
5:19-21.)
Finally and most important of all, Paul is a problem
for professing Christians from taking seriously many state-
ments by J esus because they are following contrary doctrines
from Paul. We will discuss this thoroughly at page3 et seq.
5
Hence, given so much of the reason for not taking
J esus seriously is Paul, doesnt this make anyone think why
are we so intent on holding onto Paul? Isnt the continued
holding onto Paul adverse to evangelism of a true sort? Isnt
the time overdue that we change the evangelistic message to
one that is focused on J esus? Shouldnt we return Christianity
to the one who paid with His blood the right to establish the
terms of the New Covenant? If we did make this change, it
will allow us two key benefits:
We Christians will be following J esus, not Paul, when there is
any apparent disagreement. We shall prove below that there are
many such differences; and
We can then attract many atheists, deists, J ews and Muslims to
consider and possibly accept a truer belief about J esus than cur-
rently is accepted. If nothing else, we could spread greater
awareness and trust in following J esus, and let the Holy Spirit
do the rest.
4. See If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Chris-
tianity? on page17 et seq.
We shall surprisingly find Muslims embrace J esus as Messiah, a prophet
born miraculously of a virgin, and who had Gods spirit/word in Him.
Their major disagreement is they say it is wrong to speak of J esus as
Son-of-God when we equate the human J esus with God, as this deni-
grates Gods oneness and dignity. See If It Was Not for Paul How Far
Away Are Muslims From Christianity? on page17 et seq.
5. See How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Prob-
lem of Paul on page3 et seq.
How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Problem of Paul
How Most Christians Would Benefit If We
Overcame The Problem of Paul
J esus and Paul differ substantially on numerous top-
ics. In particular, they are at direct odds on the Law given
Moses, the necessity of works for salvation, and initial justifi-
cation by repentance as opposed to faith. This section will
prove this in detail.
Jesus On the Law Given Moses
J esus teaches the Pharisees taught only the less
weighty matters of the Law given Moses such as tithing while
ignoring the weightier matters of the Law such as its princi-
ples of J ustice, Mercy and Faith. (Matt. 23:23.) J esus said the
Pharisees taught oral traditions that made of none effect the
written commands in the Law given Moses, such as the com-
mand to honor (support) your mother and father. (Matt. 15:6.)
J esus said anyone who relaxes any provision of the Law
given Moses in the least shall himself be least in the kingdom
of heaven, but whoever teaches the people to follow and obey
the Law given Moses shall be the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven. (Matt. 5:19.) Evangelical Christian scholars admit
that J esus expression least in the kingdom means negators
of the Law are lost from the perspective of those inside the
kingdom looking out at these negators.
6

Thus, when J esus answers how to have eternal life,
J esus says to enter life we must obey the commandments,
which in context was the ten commandments which J esus
then quoted nine of the ten. (Matt. 19:16-26.) This then
makes J esus meaning plain when He says to enter the king-
dom of heaven we must have a righteousness that exceeds
that of the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). Because J esus had taught
the Pharisees were shallow with respect to teaching and fol-
6. See my prior book Jesus Words on Salvation (2008) at 151,172-173,
555-556, and 561.
lowing the Law given Moses, J esus clearly meant that revival
of respect for the obedience to the Law given Moses was the
pathway to enter the kingdom of heaven, which is what
J esus expressly said anyway in Matthew 19:16-26.
Incidentally, I read the Law applicable to Gentiles as a
narrow and far more limited command set than applies to
J ews. J ames read the command in Leviticus 17 which says
J ews are to be circumcised as not applying to Gentiles. Read
that way, the commands on Gentiles (sojourners/foreigners)
are predominantly the Ten Commandments which are
repeated as applying to them and several chapters in Leviti-
cus (sexual conduct, etc.)
Paul on the Law given Moses
Paul teaches the opposite. The Law given Moses is
abolished, done away with, nailed to a tree, has faded away,
See, Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17,
Romans 7:13 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq.
7
If we were to
cite Pauls condemnations of the Law in one string, the point
is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See
2 Cor. 2:14 (old covenant); Gal. 5:1 (yoke of bondage);
Rom. 10:4 (Christ is end of the law); 2 Cor. 3:7 (law of
death); Gal. 5:1 (entangles); Col. 2:14-17 (a shadow);
Rom. 3:27 (law of works); Rom. 4:15 (works wrath); 2
Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 (cannot
justify); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give life); Col. 2:14 (wiped out
exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (given by angels...who are no
gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial beings/elements).
Jesus on Works
J esus taught every tree without good fruit is cut
down and thrown in the fire. (Matt. 7:19.) J esus taught a
branch in me that does not bear fruit is cut off from the
7. These are extensively discussed in my book, Jesus Words Only (2007)
at 73 et seq.
How Most Christians Would Benefit If We Overcame The Problem of Paul
vine, thrown outside and burned. (J ohn 15:2,6.) J esus
says those whose works are lukewarm He (J esus) will
spew out of My mouth. (Rev. 3:15-18.) J esus taught the seed
that believes for a while, but later falls into temptation,
then withers away becomes thereby dead. (Luke 8:13.) But
the seed that guards the word, and produces fruit with
endurance shall live. (Luke 8:15.) The servant who produces
nothing on the talent given him is a useless servant who is
for that reason cast into outer darkness where there is
weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 25:30.) J esus says
this place of weeping and gnashing is the fiery furnace
where all evildoers are sent on judgment day. (Matt.
13:42,49-50.) J esus says those who call Him Lord but do not
give charity to the brethren shall suffer eternal fire but
those who call Him Lord and do charity for the brethren shall
be resurrected to eternal life. (Matt. 25:30-46.) Those who
do good things resurrect to eternal life, J esus says, but
those who do evil things shall suffer eternal damnation.
(J ohn 5:28-29.)
Paul on Works
Paul says we are saved by faith not works. (Eph.
2:8-9.) For he who works not his faith is accounted to him
for righteousness. (Rom. 4:3-5.) Paul is actually afraid for
persons who are Christians who then try to obey the Law
given Moses to be justified in Gods eyes that they thereby
are severing themselves from Christ. See the entire epistle to
the Galatians.
Jesus on Initial Justification by Repentance
J esus taught the repentant about sin goes home justi-
fied. Luke 18:9-14. The one beating his breast repenting to
God goes home justified. J esus tells us likewise that the sin-
ning son who repents and returns home to his father goes
from being dead and lost to being alive again born
again. Luke 15:17-24. This impacts salvation for J esus taught
that to enter heaven one must be born again. (J ohn 3:3.)
Paul on Initial Justification by Faith without Repentance
Paul teaches in the manner in which he interprets the
story of Abraham that a man goes from sinner to justified
saint by means of faith alone, without working. (Romans 4:3-
5.) All Christian scholars who read that passage are clear that
Paul dispenses with the requirement of repentance, even
though Paul used the same Greek word for justification that
J esus used dikaio. (Luke 8:14; Romans 4:5.)
How Deists Would Benefit If We Advanced
Jesus Words Alone
J efferson biographer J aroslav Pelikan wrote: Like
other Enlightenment rationalists, J efferson was convinced
that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle
Paul, who had corrupted the religion of Jesus...[and] pro-
duced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priest-
craft, which were the essence of Christian orthodoxy.
(J aroslav Pelikan, J efferson And His Contemporaries, The
Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
(Boston: Beacon Hill, 1989) at 149-67.)
J efferson made his own version of the New Testa-
ment. He reproduced the words of J esus from the New Testa-
ment almost fully intact. All that was deleted was the
reference to the virgin birth in the Greek Matthew chapter
one and the Luke account, J esus miracles and any statement
that J esus was Messiah, Son of God or implicitly Divine.
There is no doubt of the J efferson text because the U.S. Con-
gress ordered it published as The Jefferson Bible in 1904.
Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing
Could it be, however, that J effersons contempt for the
doctrines of Paul, unlike his admiration for J esus teachings,
led J efferson to blame Paul too much for corrupting the
Scripture?
In other words, had Paul not been so contemptuous in
J effersons eyes, then J efferson could have examined more
objectively whether J esus was Messiah, etc. J efferson had a
plausible reason to remove the the virgin birth account. It
indeed was not present in the original Hebrew Matthew, as I
discuss elsewhere,
8
and does not appear in Mark or J ohns
Gospels. It solely appeared initially in Pauls companions
gospel that is the Gospel of Luke. This is not to say that
there was no virgin birth. I believe in it because I trust Luke
on this score. But the fact remains that if there was any addi-
tion to Scripture by Paul or his friends, it was solely the virgin
birth account, but not the attributions of Messiah-ship to
J esus. Hence, Pauls contemptibility in J effersons eyes is
what caused J efferson to exaggerate what J efferson regarded
as Pauline corruptions.
Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not
Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing Gentiles to
The God of Moses
J ewish academics have been on a trend for some time
to regard J esus as one of us. As Brown notes in Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus (Baker Books: 2007) Vol. IV, the
J ewish opinion now is rather than viewing [J esus] in hostile,
alien terms, more and more J ewish leaders have sought to
reclaim him as a brother. (Id., Ch. 5:26 at pages 188-189.)
While this trend does not accept J esus as Messiah or Son of
God, it has been positive in many ways, Brown notes.
8. See my prior book Jesus Words Only (2007) at 294 n2.
Brown tries to answer the objection that J esus was
really alright...It was Paul who messed everything up and
founded Christianity. Brown notes that J ewish scholars actu-
ally see more authenticity in the New Testament than liberal
Christian scholars. They recognize the ancient threads of
argument that J esus was addressing, thus validating the
authenticity and brilliance of J esus words.
Thus, the J ewish academics portray Paul as a culprit
who turned a valid J ewish movement into a pagan reli-
gion..., Brown notes. (Id., at 190). Beth Moshe says Paul
stripped the movement of all links to J udaism and cursed it
at the same time, as Brown describes. Id. Brown quotes
Moshe as insisting upon the unreliability of Paul, who
actually formulated the break away from J udaism by the
early Church. Id. Moshe cites the embarrassing remark that
Paul admits he used trickery and deception to gain his ends
which are indeed Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 9:20. Moshe
then comments: We can wonder whether his missionary
effort was flawed with fiction throughout as well. Id., quoted
at 191.
Brown then recounts the recent work of Why the Jews
Rejected Jesus (Doubleday 2006) by David Klinghoffer. This
book claims, as did Moshe, that Paul turned a J ewish move-
ment into a Gentile religion that was pagan, abandoning
Gods Law. Jesus could not be the Messiah, says Klinghof-
fer because of this primary flaw. For the prophesies of the
Messiah never came true in J esus in this respect. The Proph-
ets said the true Messiah would cause the Gentiles to recog-
nize God and respect His Law. See Isaiah 42:21 (Gods
servant should increase Torah [the Law] and glorify it.
Klinghoffer says this could not possibly be by reject-
ing the biblically commanded way of life. What J esus fol-
lowers led by Paul did is seek to free both Gentiles and
J ews from the precious, immutable, and eternal Laws given
Moses. For the Law of Moses says it is eternal for all gener-
ations. (Ex. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14,
21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15.)
Jews Would Accept Jesus If Paul Would Not Be Thwarting Jesus Bringing
Thus, Klinghoffer is opening a door (subtly) that if
Christians abandoned Paul and Gentiles dispensed with their
pagan ways in honor of J esus teachings on the Law, J ews
could accept Christ. This is because then J esus would have
fulfilled the key characteristic of Messiah He would have
caused the increase and glory to the Torah in fulfillment
of Isaiah 42:21.
But Brown will not hear anything of that olive branch.
Rather, Brown insists that Klinghoffer and J ews generally
have misunderstood Paul. He cites the fact Messianics
(largely a Christian-J ewish movement) embrace Paul as Rav
Shaul.
Yet, this is disingenuous. As I established in chapter
five of Jesus Words Only (2007), the effort of Messianics to
insist Paul did not abrogate Torah is an exercise in self-decep-
tion. When one balances all the positive verses against all the
negative remarks by Paul about the Law, all the positive
remarks are crushed by the negative remarks. Indeed, the
overwhelming opinion among Catholic and Protestants is that
Paul abrogated Torah. No one disputes though that J esus in
Matthew 5:19-21 said the opposite and in fact warned that
anyone seeking to negate the Law given Moses would be
least in the kingdom of heaven, but anyone elevating Torah
would be the greatest.
Brown also claims that Klinghoffers opinion flies in
the face of scholarship that now sees Paul as thoroughly
J ewish in thought. Id., at 191.
But it is Brown who misses the point. Paul indeed is
J ewish in thought, but he uses that knowledge of Scripture to
twist it to create a view of the Law that it was pregnant with
its own abolition. In this, Paul was highly creative. He created
in Galatians chapter four amazingly bizarre analogies that
made Israel now comparable to Ishmael, and subject to a
curse of bondage to the Law. Any fair reading of Galatians
chapter four reveals a Jewish argument being used to
destroy the Law and the blessing of God on Israel.
9
Yet, the
fact it is a J ewish argument does not disprove Klinghoffer or
Moshes opinions. It is a J ewish argument indeed that was
used to create a pagan Gentile religion from what started as a
J ewish movement emphasizing Torah in Matthew 5:19-21.
Again, we see Paul is the barrier to J ews to accept
Christ, just like Paul was a barrier to men of good will such as
J efferson from accepting all the claims of Christ.
Atheists Would Accept Jesus Without Paul
The one group we need to be most concerned about
are those who have no faith in God and would come to J esus
but for Paul being insisted upon by the Christian world.
There is a website, and it is not an isolated trend,
called Atheists for Jesus. You can find it at http://www.athe-
ists-for-jesus.com.
This website provides an excellent synopsis of the
Sermon on the Mount. It says surely to be a Christian must
mean to follow those principles. It says:
Be righteous, be meek, be pure of heart, be a peace-
maker, be merciful; when given the chance to instruct
a great number of people, this is what J esus felt to be
important. Should it not be expected that all people
who wish to follow J esus, should also agree with
Him that these ideas are the most important part of
the religion of J esus?
But this atheist says this is not what one finds is
taught to be a Christian life. This atheist would find no home
within modern Christianity if he simply wanted to follow
J esus teachings. He writes:
While I would like to believe that the teachings of
J esus should form the backbone of any religion that
claims J esus as its head, it seems that this view is not
universally held. Those who haveheld with Pauls
9. See my prior book, Jesus Words Only (2007) at 86-93.
view that it is faith and not works that lead to salva-
tion have found it necessary to denigrate the value
of Jesus teaching. They claim that since J esus
teachings about moral action are impossible for any-
one (other than J esus) to comply with perfectly, that
His teachings are nothing more than an example
meant to show us how imperfect we all are and how
salvation for such imperfect beings is impossible
except through the saving grace of faith.
10

This atheist is able to cite many such proofs of the
denigration of J esus words by mainstream Christians. He
cites the theologian Carl Stange:
Fellowship with God is not achieved through ethical
performance. From an ethical standpoint, it is a dero-
gation of the idea of the good to seek its realization
by imitating J esus. The teaching about the ideal....
only serves to make plain the reprehensibility of the
human condition... The meaning of the moral
demand is not that it gives us the power for the good
but rather that it shows us our impotence for the
good. Id.
11
Stange [is] quite representative of those who back
Pauls view of faith over works, the atheist adds.
This atheist provides you many similar proofs of a
reaction against Paul by other atheists. Many are dead now,
but one wonders if modern Christianity had embraced J esus
instead of Paul doctrinally whether many more souls would
have been saved. Here are some more notable quotes which
he references come from Kenneth Scheis Christianity
Betrayed (Synthesis, 1989).
12
1. Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)
10.http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/sermon.php (accessed 3/23/2008).
11.Quoting from Clarence Bauman, The Sermon on the Mount, The Mod-
ern Quest for its Meaning, at 177.
My long-time view about Christianity is that it repre-
sents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible
partsthe religion of J esus and the religion of Paul.
Thomas J efferson attempted to excise the Pauline
parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left
when he was done, but it was an inspiring document.
(Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed
and An Atheist for Jesus]).
13
2. Thomas J efferson
Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of J esus.
3. Wil Durant
Paul created a theology of which none but the vagu-
est warrants can be found in the words of
Christ....Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over
Christ.
4. Carl J ung
Paul hardly ever allows the real J esus of Nazareth to
get a word in. (U.S. News and World Report, April
22, 1991, at 55.)
Jeremy Bentham
In a work entitled Not Paul But Jesus, J eremy
Bentham (1748-1832)
14
the famous British philosopher
tried to rescue J esus from Paul. This work is now available
12.A critical review of this book appears at J ames Patrick Holding, Its
Paul the Perverter Yet Again, at http://www.tektonics.org/qt/
scheik01.html (accessed 3/23/2008). Holding does not dispute the
accuracy of the quotes from atheists and agnostics about favoring J esus
but abhorring Paul. Nor does Holding ever ask the big question: if a
skeptic like Schei is saying atheists would be willing to come to Christ
without Paul, then why are we sticking with Paul?
13.http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/paul.php (accessed 3/23/2008).
through books.google.com. Here we provide some quotes to
gather the flavor and the indignation that Bentham felt at
J esus doctrine being tossed aside in favor of Paul:
One thorn still remained, to be plucked out of the
side of this so much injured religion,and that was,
the addition made to it by Saul of Tarsus: by that
Saul, who, under the name of Paul, has(as will be
seen) without warrant from, and even in the teeth of,
the history of J esus, as delivered by his companions
and biographers the four evangelists,been digni-
fied with the title of his apostle: his apostle, that is to
say, his emissary [J : his emissary, that is to say, sent
out by him: sent out,] by that J esus, whose immediate
disciples he so long persecuted and destroyed, and
whose person, unless dreaming of a person after
his death, or professing to have dreamt of him, is see-
ing him,he never saw. Id., at iv.
Bentham then says if one reviews Christian history,
never is there any serious dissension over a doctrine of J esus.
The greater part of all mischief and all the dissensions
within Christianity turn on teachings from Paul, e.g., original
sin, predestination of the lost, woman being silent in church
and only asking questions at home, etc.
These words, of whom have they been the words? Of
J esus? No: this has not been so much as pretended.
Of Paul, and of Paul alone: he giving them all along
not as the words of J esus, but as his own only:he
all along preaching (as will be seen) in declared
opposition to the eleven who were undisputedly the
apostles of J esus: thus, of Paul only have they been
the words. Id., at v.
14.Gamaliel Smith [pseudonym for J eremy Bentham], Not Paul But Jesus
(London: J ohn Hunt, 1823). This is a clearly recognized catalogued
work of J eremy Bentham. See J eremy Bentham, http://en.wikipe-
dia.org/wiki/J eremy_Bentham (accessed 3/23/2008).
Bentham then points out that Christians act unawares
that most of the opposition to Christianity is focused not on
J esus but upon Pauls teachings:
That, by these words, and, consequently, by him
whose words they were and are, all the mischiefs,
which have been imputed to the religion of Jesus,
have been produced,in so far as the dissensions,
from which these mischiefs flowed, have had these
words for their subjects,cannot be denied. But,
moreover, in these same words, that is to say, in the
doctrines delivered by them, cannot but be to be
found the origin, and the cause, of no small part
perhaps of the greatest partof the opposition,
which that religion, with its benevolent system of
morals, has hitherto experienced. If this be so, then,
by the clearing it of this encumbrance, not only as
yet unexampled purity, but additional extent, may
not unreasonably be expected to be given to it. Id. at
vi.
Bentham sees that Christianity might actually grow if
it dispensed with this encumbrance that Paul represents.
Bentham then says he sat down to figure out if Pauls
doctrine came from J esus. After careful study, and the pro-
duction of a book long study, Bentham said the answer is no.
Pauls doctrine was his own invention:
It was by the frequent recurrence of these observa-
tions, that the author of these pages was led to the
inquiry, whether the religion of Paul,as contained
in the writings ascribed to Paul, and with a degree of
propriety which the author sees no reason to dispute,
whether the religion of Paul has any just title to
be considered as forming a part of the religion of
Jesus. The result was in the negative. The consider-
ations, by which this result was produced, will form
the matter of the ensuing pages. Id., at vi.
Bentham foresees that by cutting off this useless
appendage that what is good in J esus teachings will be ele-
vated and more generally followed. He explains:
If, by cutting off a source of useless privations and
groundless terrors, comfort and inward peace
should be restored or secured;if, by cutting off a
source of bitter animosity,good - will, and peace
from without, should be restored or secured;if, by
the removal of an incongruous appendage, accep-
tance should be obtained for what is good in the reli-
gion commonly ascribed to J esus;obtained at the
hands of any man, much more of many, to whom at
present it is an object of aversion;if, in any one of
these several ways, much more if in all of them, the
labours of the author should be crowned with suc-
cess,good service will, so far, and on all hands, be
allowed to have been rendered to mankind. Id., at vi-
vii.
Bentham then asks his reader to put aside all biases,
and look objectively at the question. One then can see Paul
does not say the same things as J esus. Paul is the source of all
confusion and ill doctrine that has caused hesitancy to follow
J esus.
Whosoever, putting aside all prepossessions, feels
strong enough in mind, to look steadily at the origi-
nals, and from them to take his conceptions of the
matter, not from the discourses of others,whoso-
ever has this command over himself, will recognise,
if the author does not much deceive himself, that by
the two persons in question, as represented in the
two sources of informationthe Gospels and Pauls
Epistles, two quite different, if not opposite, reli-
gions are inculcated: and that, in the religion of
Jesus may be found all the good that has ever been
the result of the compound so incongruously and
unhappily made, in the religion of Paul, all the
mischief, which, in such disastrous abundance, has
so indisputably flowed from it. Id., at vii.
Bentham then tells his reader what are his conclusions
in no uncertain terms:
1. That Paul had no such commission as he professed
to have;2. that his enterprize was a scheme of per-
sonal ambition, and nothing more;3. that his sys-
tem of doctrine is fraught with mischief in a variety
of shapes, and, in so far as it departs from, or adds to,
those of J esus, with good in none;and that it has no
warrant, in any thing that, as far as appears from
any of the four gospels, was ever said or done by
Jesus;such are the conclusions, which the author
of these pages has found himself compelled to
deduce, from those materials with which history has
furnished us. The grounds of these conclusions he
proceeds to submit to the consideration of his read-
ers. Id., at vii-viii.
My latest book Jesus Words on Salvation (2008)
abundantly confirms these conclusions.
Bentham then concludes his opening preface with a
stirring call to follow J esus! This from a man whom I catalog
among atheists only because if I called him a Christian the
debate would change from whether Paul is a problem for non-
believers into debate whether Bentham was saved. Thus, this
atheist as I catalog him gives this stirring call to follow J esus:
In respect of doctrine, the conclusion isthat no
point of doctrine, which has no other authority than
that of Pauls writings for its support, can justly be
regarded as belonging to the religion of Jesus,
any more than if, at this time of day, it were broached
by any man now living: that thus, in so far as he is
seen to have added any thing to the religion of
Jesus, he is seen to set himself above it and against
it: that, therefore, if this be true, it rests with every
professor of the religion of Jesus, to settle with him-
self, to which of the two religions, that of J esus and
that of Paul, he will adhere: and, accordingly, either
to say, Not Jesus but Paul,or, in the words of the
title to this work, Not Paul but Jesus. Id., at xvi.
If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are Muslims From Christianity?
This is an amazing writing. Yet, there it is. A liberal
philosopher fighting to hold onto J esus. If that does not prove
Paul is a problem for those outside the Church from coming
inside, what more proof do you need? This puts the pressure
directly on Christians to explain and defend why is Paul
revered to the extent that he is revered? Why do we insist to
become a Christian we must accept Paul, whom the three
accounts of J esus vision of Paul never utters words to say
Paul is an Apostle of J esus Christ?
If It Was Not for Paul How Far Away Are
Muslims From Christianity?
Perhaps the most surprising discovery after writing
my book Jesus Words Only (2007) is that Islam has a highly
positive opinion of J esus, while they reject Paul. Again, if
others can see there is a major difference, one must wonder
why most Christians do not see Paul is a barrier to others tak-
ing J esus as seriously and deeply as He deserves?
How I Encountered the Issue
I wrote a book in 2007 entitled Jesus Words Only that
a couple of Islamic authors cited as confirming their religious
views of Paul. I had no anticipation of their views.
15

15.See http://islamic-answers.com/jesus__words_only (still posted as of
3/15/2008). Another separate Islamic website that endorses Jesus
Words Only is http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/e_books (still
listed of recommended reading as of 3/15/2008).
I should point out that J ewish websites likewise cite my book as demon-
strating to Christians that they need to leave Babylon, and come back
to Torah. See http://www.judaismrediscovered.com/Links.html (linked
as of 3/15/2008).
There are others who are completely syncretic who are open to Islam,
Christianity and J udaism who also endorse my book Jesus Words
Only (2007). See www.youtube.com/user/Ecothearcy.
In Jesus Words Only, I contended from an evangeli-
cal Christian and Biblical-perspective that Paul was a false
apostle and false prophet. I suggested that J esus in Revelation
2:2 actually said so when you piece it together with other pas-
sages. Two websites that are Islamic (but not radical) have
enjoyed parts of my book, and promoted it on the Internet.
The citation of my work by sincere Muslims caused
me to discover, much to my surprise, that Islam holds views
very compatible with Christianity on (a) the New Testament
except they reject Paul; (b) J esus as miraculously born of a
virgin (but this does not mean Son of God) and prophet; (c)
the Old Testament; and (d) the oneness of God, even though
Allah is His name.
16
A Christianity Today article from 2001 concedes:
Christians and Muslims share a lot of similar beliefs. Moses,
J acob and David are influential in both faiths. And Muslims
have enormous respect for J esus, seeing him... [as a] prophet.
Muslims also believe in J esus virgin birth and his miracles.
Furthermore, the Quran (or Koran), which Muslims believe
documents the visions Mohammed received, is the most
important text, although our Old and New Testaments are
also significant in Islam.
17

Did Mohammed Say Jesus Was Messiah, Born of a Virgin By
Gods Hand, and Gods Word Was In Jesus?
Most interestingly, Lonsdale Ragg, in The Gospel of
Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) at xi says that the Quran
by Mohammed never denies J esus is Messiah, nor claims
such a post for Mohammed. Ragg mentions this while dis-
cussing the Gospel of Barnabas published in 1709. This Gos-
16.Below I will explain that Allah is merely the Arabic name for the same
name of God in the Hebrew Scripture we know as El or Elohim in
Hebrew. Allah is not meant to signify a wholly different God.
17.Whats The Difference, Campus Life, Nov-Dec. 2001, reprinted at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2001/006/5.44.html (accessed 2/
9/2008).
pel purports to be the long lost Gospel of Barnabas banned at
Nicea in 325 A.D., and discovered by a Christian monk in the
1500s who then converted to Islam upon reading it. Here is
Lonsdale Raggs analysis on the Quran by Mohammed while
he contrasts it with the Gospel of Barnabas:
A more crucial point of divergence [between the
Gospel of Barnabas and the Quran] is that of the
Messiah. If there is any Messiah in the Quran, it is
Christ (al-ifarih) J esus, Son of Mary... the Word
proceeding from God. [Ragg cites Sur. iii, sub
init.].... Mohammed...never claims for himself [the
title Messiah] in the Quran. Id., at xi.
There does appear to be passages where even Mus-
lims quote the Quran as saying J esus was Messiah, born by
God through a virgin, but we are not to call J esus the Son of
God for to do so is to detract from Gods centrality.
I must preface these quotes by noting that we must be
as sensitive of citing an appropriate text as we would expect
if someone were discussing Christian doctrine. None of us
accept the J ehovah Witness New Testament. There are similar
issues in Islam with respect to the Quran. Thus, while Khal-
ifas version of the Quran is available online via books.goo-
gle.com, do not use it, for it is rejected by standard Islam.
18

Islam also regards the Arabic original the only authentic version,
and translations are not ever definitive. As one Islamic author
comments:
[F]or this [Quran] is literally the last word of God to
man. The human language medium is Arabic, and as
each several word is an Act of God, the very words
are sacred. There cannot, therefore, be any autho-
rized translation of the Quran....
19
18.Khalifas version of the Quran (2001) is considered corrupted and
heretical by most Muslims for it deletes passages in order to advance a
theory that Khalifas name is found in Quran.
19.Annie H. Small, Islam (E.P. Dutton, 1905) at 26.
To stay on safe ground, I will quote only obvious
Muslim sources who quote the Quran on the topic of J esus.
Hence, with that ground rule and prefatory warning, it
appears to be in the Quran that J esus is Messiah, born by
God of a virgin, yet we are not to call J esus the Son of God
for reasons of respecting God. The first passage is quoted by
someone who certainly is a Muslim:
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your
religion, and do not say anything concerning Allah
except the truth. The Messiah, J esus son of Mary,
was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which
He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So
believe in Allah and His messengers... (Quran
4:171; see also 66:12).
20
This Muslim then notes all the positives about J esus
in this quote and goes into another significant quote which he
then explains is a teaching against calling J esus the Son of
God:
In the above passage J esus is called by four noble
titles. He is the Messiah, the Messenger of Allah, a
Word from Allah, and a Spirit from Allah. In the
same passage, it is clear that the Quran seeks to dis-
courage exaggeration in religion. Further in the same
passage, Allah says:
Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His
transcendent majesty that He should have a son.
His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the
earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender (Quran
4:171).
Refusing to call Jesus son of God is not done with a
view to belittle Jesus. No! On the contrary, it is done
to Glorify God, to magnify His name, and to pro-
claim His transcendent majesty.
21
20.http://haram.wordpress.com/jesus-in-the-glorious-quran/the-messiah-
jesus-son-of-mary/ (accessed 3/23/2008).
This denial that J esus is to be called the Son of God is
still held despite believing God directly caused Mary to
miraculously give birth to J esus. The same Muslim evangelist
explains:
The Quran confirms that J esus was born of a virgin.
When the angel announced to Mary, on whom be
peace, that she will bear a child, she said:
My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal
has touched me?
She received the following reply:
So (it will be). Allah creates what He will. If He
decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is.
(Quran 3: 45, 47).
Thus, the basis for many Christians thinking the Word
was made flesh (and hence J esus was divine) the virgin
birth is in Islam admitted factually without admitting this
means we should call J esus the Son of God. The rationale is
explained by the same Muslim, quoting the Quran:
It befits not (the majesty of) Allah that He should
take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When he
decrees a thing, He says unto it only: Be! and it is.
(Quran 19:35).
Thus, while this Muslim quotes Mohammeds state-
ments that J esus is Messiah, the Messenger of God, born
miraculously by God of a virgin, a spirit from God, yet they
deny J esus should be given the title Son of God so as not to
detract from the glory and centrality of God Almighty. This
makes one think.
Another explanation in the Quran is that J esus as Son
of God was truly human in that title. The same Muslim quotes
the Quran, Allah (God) speaking:
21.http://haram.wordpress.com/jesus-in-the-glorious-quran/the-messiah-
jesus-son-of-mary/ (accessed 3/23/08).
Lo! the likeness of J esus with Allah is as the like-
ness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said
unto him: Be! and he is (Quran 3:59).
In other words, these passage combined appear to
acknowledge a divine origin of J esus spirit and words, but
the man J esus was a man. If I am reading these Quranic
statements correctly, how far off is this my Christian friends
actually from correct Christology? We discuss this in an
Appendix.

Did Mohammed Say Jesus Prophesied of Mohammeds
Appearance?
According to Ragg, Mohammed in the Quran also
sees himself as a prophet prophesied in turn by J esus.
Mohammed recounts that J esus prophesied of Mohammeds
coming:
In a celebrated passage in the middle of the short
Surah entitled Battle Array, Mohammed, having...
[from] J esus, Son of Mary a prediction of himself,
in the following terms: Verily I am the apostle of
God sent unto you, confirming the Law which was
delivered before me, and bringing good tidings of an
apostle who shall come after me, and whose name
shall be Ahmed. (Ragg, supra, at xxx, citing Sur 61.)
Mohammed is paraphrasing J esus promise of a com-
forter of the gospel who is yet to come. Rather than the para-
clete, as we render it, Mohammed was saying J esus meant
Ahmed is his name, which means praised (in Arabic, muham-
mad) which compares with Periclete =famous. (Ragg, supra,
at xxxi,xxxii.) Hence, Mohammed is viewed by many Mus-
lims as the promised comforter that J esus said would comfort
many about the gospel.
If we look more closely at the passage that Ragg is
identifying (Quran 61:6), it proves that Mohammed would
come to reinforce the same Torah given Moses that J esus was
sent to enforce. Now we can see why Islam is so opposed to
Paul. The Torah, of course, was the very thing that Paul
extraodinarily claimed that God annulled.
We read from Quran 61:6:
Recall that J esus, son of Mary said: Oh Children of
Israel. I am Gods messenger to you, confirming
Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to
come after me whose name will be even more praised
(Ahmad).
I asked a Muslim friend Kevin Kec to corroborate that
I am reading this correctly. He said that indeed J esus came to
confirm Torah, just as J esus says in Matthew 5:17-19, and
this is why Paul is a barrier for Muslims to accept modern
Christianity. My friend Kevin writes:
So both Bible and Quran agree here that Prophet
J esus came to the children of Israel to confirm the
Law [the Torah], and not to forsake it as Paul did. I
think this will be a good thing to point out in your
booklet it shows that both Biblical and Quranic
texts report that Jesus words arecontrary to Pauls
words and teachings.
Kevin Kec as a Muslim then quotes for me the pas-
sages that Mohammed says he came to confirm the Torah
given Moses:
.It was We who revealed thelaw (to Moses):
therein was guidance and light. By its standard have
been judged the J ews, by the prophets who bowed (as
in Islam) to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors
of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of
Gods book, and they were witnesses thereto: there-
fore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs
for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the
light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better
than) Unbelievers. [Quran 5:44]
And before this, was the Book of Moses (the
Torah as a guide and a mercy: And this Book (the
Quran) confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to
admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those
who do right. [Quran 46:12]
Thus, while I assumed Islam hated everything J ewish,
I was apparently wrong. They believe Israel safeguarded the
Law even though Israel did not always follow it. Paul
destroyed the Torah, Islam teaches, and thus Paul is an apos-
tate in Islamic studies.
Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti-
Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of Islam
I further traced that Muslims have a version of the
New Testament that they say is ancient called the Gospel of
Barnabas. This gospel account has a primary thrust which
treats Paul as Christs enemy. Muslims claim this Gospel vin-
dicates their beliefs that J esus came to confirm Torah and
Paul to destroy it. This is the primary Gospel used in Muslim
religious instruction to identify the true Gospel of J esus
Christ, so it bears more examination.
The British scholar Lonsdale Ragg in his The Gospel
of Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) points out that the Gos-
pel of Barnabas professed purpose [is] to combat the
erroneous teaching of Paul. Id., at xviii. The Gospel of
Barnabas begins by saying Paul has been deceived to repu-
diate circumcision ordained of God forever, and permitting
even unclean meat. Id., at 3. Barnabas says J esus taught the
directly contrary truths.
History of the Gospel of Barnabas
There was indeed an ancient version of the Gospel of
Barnabas. A Gospel according to Barnabas is mentioned in
two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the Decretum
Gelasianum (no later than the 6th century), as well as a 7th-
century List of the Sixty Books.
22
There also was an Epistle
Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti-Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of
of Barnabus with 22 chapters which was canon in the Codex
Sinaiticus the very last book of the New Testament. Since
the Epistle of Barnabas rejects circumcision and is directed
against the J ews claiming they were never a covenant peo-
ple
23
it cannot have formed a significant basis to what we
see in the Gospel of Barnabas that emerged in the 15th cen-
tury.
In the 1500s, there was a claim to a rediscovery of the
Gospel of Barnabas. That version reads in most respects
identical to the four gospels but woven into one story with
many new side-stories. The most serious variation is that
J udas is crucified in place of His master. Yet, J esus is por-
trayed in every other respect as He is in the standard four gos-
pels except it is denied J esus should be called the Son-of-God.
In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are many parentheti-
cal references to Mohammed whose story is appended at the
end. The 15th century discoverer claims to have converted to
Islam by making the discovery. The theories of the origin of
the Gospel of Barnabas are that the version recovered in the
1500s is either (a) wholly a fabrication; (b) a mixture of the
original Gospel of Barnabas with fabrications; or (c) wholly
authentic.
24
Whether ancient or not, it was certainly published in
Italian a short time after the Islamic-evangelistic reign of
Mehmed IV (1648-87) the Sultan of Turkey. Its Italian
publication date was 1709.
25
It has all the words of J esus
nearly verbatim from the New Testament (only attributing
prophecies to J esus which are consistent with the appearance
later of Mohammed), but then omits and combats Paul, and
22.Earlier Occurrences of the Gospel of Barnabas, in Gospel of Barna-
bus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/
23/2008).
23.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/23/08).
24.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas (accessed 3/23/
2008).
25.Another copy existed in Spanish but it has become lost.
next has Mohammeds story and words. J esus and Moham-
med are thus seemlessly interwoven into one Christian Gos-
pel. It clearly portrays Mohammed as a prophet whose
coming was prophesied by J esus Christ. Thus, the Gospel of
Barnabas forms a complete J esus-Mohammed Scripture.
Rather than Being Flattered, Christians Are Angry
Christians denounce this Gospel of Barnabas. For
example, one article is entitled: 32 Reasons why the Gospel
Of Barnabas is a 16th Century Forgery written by Mus-
lims.
26
This Christian critic is outraged: Since that time
[i.e., the 1700s], Muslims have claimed that the Gospel of
Barnabas is an authentic Gospel, perhaps even the original
one.
27
Islamic students study the Arabic and Urdu transla-
tions. It was translated into English in 1905 and again in
1973. Id. This same Christian critic continues in more angry
tones:
The Gospel of Barnabas has been extensively used
by Muslims to demonstrate that the Bible has been
corrupted, when measured against a Gospel that was
hidden away for nearly two millennia. Needless to
say, the G.o.B. [i.e., the Gospel of Barnabas] largely
confirms the teaching of Islam concerning J esus.
Id.
28
Yet, these same Christians never stop and admire that
if what he claims happened is true then this means Muslims
went to all this effort to preserve Jesus writings, exclude
Pauls and merge Jesus words with Mohammeds words.
Nor do any such Christian critics ever ask why would Mus-
lims go to such trouble. Evidently, even if this was a literary
forgery, it is clear that the problem of Paul was the key issue.
26.http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm
(accessed 3/15/2008)
27.http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm
(accessed 3/15/2008).
Gospel of Barnabas: Confirmation of Anti-Paul and Pro-Jesus Position of
Christians who learn this core issue with Islam rebel
at abandoning Paul in preference for the J esus of the four
Gospels:
Let me add that it is a common Islamic tactic to try
and contrast Paul with the gospels. Pauls letters
often predate the gospels. Paul was an apostle and the
others didnt say he got off track. Do NOT allow
Muslims to play this game and try to denigrate
Paul.
29
My dear Christian brother, please open your ears. This
is no game. Paul is never mentioned by J esus or the twelve
apostles as an apostle. This is true in the four gospels, the
book of Acts, and every apostolic letter among the original
twelve. If Paul does indeed contradict J esus in the Gospels, as
even evangelical dispensational writers acknowledge, then
this is no game. It appears everyone but Christians sees Paul
as a problem or a barrier to following J esus. Because we
wont give Paul up, others will not come any closer to J esus.
Who is our King? Paul or J esus?
28.This is not to say this Gospel of J esus from a Muslim perspective has
every element of J esus life even as it preserves the entirety of J esus
teachings. This Christian critic in the prior footnote points out the cru-
cifixion is missing. Instead, it recounts that J esus ascends into heaven
in the company of four angels. J udas instead is portrayed as killed in
J esus place. There are other differences. However, the issue here is not
whether there is a 100% consistency between this Gospel of Barnabas
and the four gospels of the orthodox canon. Rather, we are examining
the commonality between the Muslim Gospel of J esus and our Gos-
pel.
29.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=56543 (accessed 3/23/
2008).
Conclusion on the Problem of Paul
We have established that J esus and Paul have directly
contrary doctrines on (1) the Law given Moses; (2) the rele-
vance of works in salvation; and (3) justification by repen-
tance. Rather than accept J esus teachings, most Christians
dispense with the contrary views of J esus from Paul, dismiss-
ing J esus teachings as part of an earlier dispensation and
now no longer applicable due to Pauls explanations. Thus,
Pauls doctrines are rationalized to have superseded those of
J esus.
The dispensational argument or the many other ways
to torture J esus words to comply with Pauls doctrine all end
up divorcing Christ from Christianity. Bonhoeffer said in
1937 that we have ended up with a Christianity without
Christ. (Cost of Discipleship (1937)(reprinted 1995) at 59.)
As Bonhoeffer also said, the cheap grace substitute on salva-
tion doctrine has obliterated J esus gospel to the point if He
returned and preached the same gospel today that He taught
2000 years ago, many/most in the church would reject J esus
teachings.
Paul is thus not only a problem to deists like J effer-
son, atheists like Bentham, J ews like Moshe and Klinghoffer,
Muslims like Mohammed, but also to Christians like you and
me. We desperately need to re-examine Paul.
This is what my first book Jesus Words Only (2007)
is all about. I urge everyone to read it. It is free online to
download in PDF, as it always will be, at www.jesusword-
sonly.com.
Appendix: Why Islamists Call God Allah
Again, I confess I know next to nothing about Islamic
doctrine or teachings. But I was curious about one issue:
why do Muslims call God by the name Allah? It seemed to
make the Islamic God different from our God.
But it turns out that I received a very cordial and
respectful answer that demonstrates the name Allah traces to
the same root word as the Hebrew word for God as well as
the Aramaic word, except Allah is the Arabic version. Hence,
Allah is indeed really the same name as the El, and Elohim
that we read in the Hebrew Bible, and which we translate as
Almighty God or God.
Here below is the answer I received to the question
from my Islamic friend Kevin Kec from the Netherlands.
Please note the tone is kind, helpful as well as academic
unlike some of the Christian writings I have seen on such top-
ics which claim Muslims worship a Moon God.
30
I excerpt
the key portion of his letter.
Salaam dear brother Douglas, I am very happy to
read about your good experiences with Muslims [due
to your positive comments I feel honored as a Mus-
lim]. I also feel honored by your request of including
my letter into your new upcoming book Islam and
the Problem of Paul. You may use my letter, website
and full name.... as a reference and/or source in your
new upcoming work (I feel honored by it). Of course
I would love to review your book and inform you
about the Islamic Beliefs. I truly admire your sincere
intentions.... I truly recognize a truthseeker inside
you and a man whose heart is devoted to God. I also
realize that many Christians are god-fearing people
whose main goal is to please God. Every religion has
its good and bad people. The Good ones are those
whose main goal is to please and serve God. Further I
would like to thank you about your questions, below
are my answers:
1: Why Do Muslims Call God Allah?
Answer:
30.See, e.g., Islam: Truth or Myth?, http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-
moon-god.htm (accessed 3/23/2008).
The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexi-
cons, means the Being Who comprises all the
attributes of perfection, i.e., the Being Who is per-
fect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and
possesses the best and the noblest qualities imagin-
able in the highest degree. This meaning is supported
by the Holy Quran when it says: His are the best (or
most beautiful) names. [Quran 17:110; 20:8; and
7:180].
The word Allah is also used by Arab Christians:
Allh is the standard Arabic word for God and is
used by Arab Christians, as well as by Muslims.
(Britannica, 1990 Edition - vol. 1, p. 276.). More
proof for this can be found in the next article: http://
www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/
BibAllah.html
Moreover, it is interesting to note that one of the
basic Hebrew words for God, Eloh, can easily be pro-
nounced alah without the diacritical marks. Not sur-
prisingly, the Aramaic word for God is alah. This
word, in the standard script or the Estrangela script is
spelled alap-lamad-heh (ALH), which are the exactly
corresponding letters to the Hebrew eloh. The Ara-
bic word for God, Allah, is spelled in a very similar
way. It is even related to the more generic word for
deity, ilah. One can notice here the obvious linguistic
and etymological connections between the respective
words for God, in these closely related Semitic lan-
guages. We have, as clear examples: Allah, Alah,
and Eloh being related to ilah, Eel, and El, respec-
tively.
Lets Examine Christian Rebuttals
Christian apologists reply and dispute this lexical
affinity between Allah and El, Elohim, Ellah, etc.
31
They chal-
lenge the pronunciation, the spelling, the etymology, etc., and so
on. But if the Muslim is saying that is the connection, and
their God is the God of the Bible, why quibble! The Arab
speaker says they are worshipping the same God as the God
of the Bible, simply pronounced in Arabic. Do any Christians
know Arabic that well that they can deny this?
Furthermore, Christian apologists claim Mohammed
was a false prophet because he did not call Allah by the name
Yahweh:
I have pointed out that Mohammed called on a god
by the name of Allah, and therefore he was a false
prophet for not pointing people toward YHWH, the
true, living God of the Bible....[Muslims claim]
Allahs affinity... to elohim, elah, and el prove
that Allah is in the Bible as Gods name. While
these words are used with reference to the Creator,
they are descriptive titles (like missionary or apol-
ogist), not the name of the Supreme Being, which
is YHWH.
32

My Christian friend has committed a serious blunder.
Neither did J esus even once call the Father or God by the
name Yahweh. My Christian friend has just offered up a proof
that J esus was a false prophet. One must be very careful!
Our Christian friends proposition is wrong. Neither is
Mohammed or J esus a false prophet for not using Yahweh to
refer to God. In fact, most J ews of J esus era avoided using
the name Yahweh for fear it would be used in vain, and vio-
late the second commandment not to take the name of God in
31.http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Perez/
name_of_god3.html (accessed 3/23/2008).
32.http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Perez/
name_of_god3.html (accessed 3/23/2008).
vain. Apostle Matthew in quoting J esus never says kingdom
of God even though the parallels in Luke and Mark do so.
Apostle Matthew reflected that J esus was more cautious than
Luke or Mark suggest. J esus always says the kingdom of
heaven. See Matt. 13:24,31,33,44,45,47 (kingdom of
heaven in each verse).Cfr. Mark 1:14 (kingdom of God);
Luke 13:20-21 (kingdom of God).
J esus, Matthew and evidently Mohammed had a good
reason for not using Yahweh. The name Yahweh is a sacred
name. Among J ews then and still now, it is considered almost
forbidden to utter for fear it might be used in vain, i.e., for an
empty purpose just like Oh my God uses God in an empty
way. Even as I write this, I must be careful. J ews historically
merely show this word by the four consonants that comprise
Yahwehs name in what is called the tetragon. It was so rarely
pronounced or spoken, it became eventually unknown among
Gentiles how to pronounce it. The King J ames thought it was
Yehova. Only due to the discovery of an old cuneiform text
prior to 20th Century were we recently able to recover the
vowel sounds, and re-learn the personal name of God is Yah-
weh.
We must be fair to another mans faith or else by
being unfair we destroy our own.
Continuity in a Biblical Faith within Islam
Thus, while it bears further investigation, it does
appear that Islam does not purport to have ripped itself away
from the God of the Bible, as most Christians assume. I
always thought the name Allah meant to convey that they
worshipped a different God than the God of the Bible. Rather,
it appears that Islam believes it worships the God of the
Bible, and Allah is how our Gods name translates into Ara-
bic.
This is key. J ust as Christians who call J esus by the
name Jesus rather than His Hebrew name of Yahshua (or pos-
sibly Yeshua) are not thereby proclaiming a different Yahshua
than the Yahshua known in Israel in 33 A.D., then the Islamic
Appendix: Correct Christology
believer is not intending by the name Allah to reject the God
El or Elohim identified in the Bible in whom we all believe
and trust.
Is it not interesting how misconceptions grow from
lack of dialogue?
Word Made Flesh versus This Day I Have Begotten Thee
Apostle J ohn teaches us the Word became flesh
(J ohn 1:14-18) hence the Word indwelled J esus. When did
this happen? The flesh-and-body J esus only became Son of
God at his baptism when God spoke these words this day I
have begotten thee. (Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 quoting Luke 3:23 in
its oldest text form.)
33
In fact, Apostle J ohn taught the most dangerous doc-
trine was to think the human J esus only appeared to be human
but did not actually share a human nature. The way many
Christians describe J esus as the divine Son-of-God, there is
no room left for any humanity to J esus. For if J esus was not
only the divine Word but also the divine Son-of-God, where
is there any room for a human nature to Jesus? Apostle
J ohn teaches us that any doctrine which says J esus had no
true human nature, but only appeared to come in the flesh, is
the teaching of the Anti-Christ:
1 J ohn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that confesseth that J esus Christ is come in the
flesh is of God:
1 J ohn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that
J esus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the
world.
2 J ohn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the
world, who confess not that J esus Christ is come in
33.There was later transparent tampering with NT Scripture to erase what
Yahweh said from heaven at J esus baptism This day I have begot-
ten thee. This alteration was made to deflect the Arian doctrine which
exploited this begotten passage and Pauls words in Col. 1:15-16. The
Arians sought to prove J esus was only human, and had no divinity
dwelling in him. Psalm 2:7 says: Yahweh says unto me, Thou art my
son; This day have I begotten thee. (Psa 2:7.) The Arians argued that
since the Son did not exist until God had begotten J esus on the day
of J esus baptism, then J esus could not have had been a pre-existing
Deity as taught by some Catholic authorities. No one realized the solu-
tion was simple: the spirit/Word in J esus was eternal and pre-existent,
but the Son-of-man came into existence by God begetting the Son at
His baptism at the inception of J esus ministry. The churchs solution
in the 300s was, instead, to literally obliterate this key verse in the gos-
pels that originally said God spoke at J esus baptism from heaven this
day I have begotten thee. The late 4th Century church replaced these
words with This is my son in whom I am well pleased. The problem
with the 4th century solution was three-fold. First, the Christian com-
mentators in the prior three centuries many times quoted the original
this day I have begotten thee, and these writings survived the obliter-
ation of the verse in the gospels. For example, we find the original lan-
guage in orthodox works such as First Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians, First Apology of Justin, and The Banquet of the Ten Vir-
gins. Second, the original Lucan version was not destroyed, and sur-
vived, so we read the begotten language in Luke 3:22 in various
ancient manuscripts. See Hope University, http://www.hope.edu/aca-
demic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/LUK/LUK3.HTM). Finally, and most
convincingly, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 of our New Testament each quote
the original gospel account of God speaking from heaven this day I
have begotten thee. See Heb. 1:5 (For unto which of the angels said
He [i.e., God-the-Father] at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee?); Hebrews 5:5: So also Christ glorified not himself to
be made an high priest; but He [i.e., God-the-Father] that said unto
him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. (Heb 5:5.) Thus,
the correct solution is to see J esus divinity is from the spirit in Him
and the Word made flesh, and the nature of J esus as Son-of-God was
begotten at J esus baptism. Thus, no longer would Son-of-God imply
God-hood as Christians early on taught J esus was God-the-Son
alongside God-the-Father, and thus the main reason for Moham-
meds dissent from applying the term Son-of-God to J esus may dis-
appear. Mohammed was concerned evidently that making the Son-of-
God aspect of J esus a Deity-component that it destroys the unity and
hence dignity of God.
the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
One can study this topic further under its historical
label of the heresy of docetism. The early church recognized
that all those who claimed J esus was divine went too far
when they said J esus only appeared to be human. This is
docetism built on a Greek word meaning appear.
Docetism was a gnostic teaching, popular among the Mar-
cionites. It was treated universally in early Christianity (pre-
Roman Catholicism) as heresy.
Modern Protestants Inherit The Confusion of 1415 A.D. From
the Roman Catholic Trial of John Hus
The distinction of J esus being divine as the eternal-
word-made flesh versus the begotten-son is consistent with
the Nicene Creed. It was the Catholic church only in 1415
A.D. which effectively abrogated that point of the Nicene
Creed in its trial of J ohn Hus, and favored the Athanasian
Creed of the Ninth Century which spoke for the first time of
the eternal son.
In the Roman Catholic charge of the thirty errors of
Hus, the Roman Church now claimed the Son, not just the
Word, was eternal. This fundamental switch in what aspect of
J esus was divine has survived into Protestant consciousness,
so it now appears startling to suggest J esus had a human
nature as Son-of-God but a divine nature as the Word-
made-flesh.
J ohn Hus was a philosophy professor turned preacher.
He led many in Bohemia to Christ. Hus is often credited as
the first Protestant Reformer.
In 1415 A.D., the Roman Catholic church accused
J ohn Hus of heresy because he said that J esus represents both
human and divine in one Christ.
34
The Catholic concern was
Hus idea implied the human part of J esus was itself not
divine, and hence not eternal. (Which means Hus obviously
taught the only divine element in J esus was the Word and
hence was the source of the eternal nature dwelling within
J esus.)
However, Cranmer (1489-1556), a Protestant Angli-
can Archbishop who was later martyred by a Catholic ruler
35

pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church thereby used
novel principles to convict Hus. The Catholic church was
insisting that Hus recant. The Catholics wanted Hus to say
J esus as Son did not have a distinct human nature and thus
demanded Hus say J esus nature as Son was also eternal.
36

But Cranmer pointed out that the Athanasian Creed of
the ninth century was self-conflicted. Besides the eternal
son, it recognized J esus had a totally human nature besides
His divine nature. (Consequently, the human-J esus was not
an eternal being; only the Word made flesh in J esus was eter-
nal and God.) Hence, Cranmer said the affirmation which the
Roman Catholic church now wanted from Hus even contra-
dicted the Athanasian Creed. Thus, Cranmer said the execu-
tion of Hus for this alleged error was a stark departure from
the Catholic churchs prior teaching that J esus had two
natures in one Christ.
37
One was human and one was eternal
and divine.
As one can see, Mohammeds offense at giving J esus
the title Son-of-God is that it ascribes a divinity to an aspect
of J esus which is truly human. Mohammed is correct in
objecting on how this title is misused. Yet, that is not the
34.The Catholics accused Hus of an error by insisting Two natures,
divinity and humanity, are one Christ. See Proposition 4 of 30 that
Hus would not recant. See Standford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Serve-
tus, Appendix V: J ohn Hus First Reformer Burned At the Stake,
1415 on page 436 et seq.
35.Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) had written a legal defense of
Englands church separating from Roman Catholicism, which is how
Henry broke England away from Catholicism. Upon Mary I taking the
thrown, and seeking to restore Roman Catholicism as the state church,
she had Cranmer burned at the stake for heresy in 1556 for his role in
separating England from Catholicism.
Appendix: Gospel of Barnabas
claim of historic Christianity that Mohammed was battling.
Mohammed was battling the Marcionite docetic heresy
(which still was circulating near Medina in Mohammeds
day) that said even in his human nature J esus was divine.
Marcionites claimed J esus was supposedly divine in every
aspect of His nature, hence depriving J esus of a truly human
nature in any respect. Hence, Mohammed is battling docetism
a recognized heresy within Christianity. But Mohammed
does not appear to have a problem accepting God divinely
caused Mary to have a child, and the Divine Word was in
J esus from inception.
The story goes that the Gospel of Barnabas was
accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexan-
dria until 325 A.D. In 325 A.D., the Nicene Council was held,
36.The Catholic view in 1415 A.D. had fallen into the old heresy of
docetism. Thomas Cranmer, D.D. (1489-1556), noticed this departure
by the Catholic prosecution in 1415 of Hus. The Catholic church was
now denying J esus had a human nature at all. Cranmer explained how
this overturned the traditional view of J esus Sonship as a human
aspect of one Christ: The Council of Constance, among other articles
of J ohn Hus...unjustly...condemned also this article for heresy, That
thetwo natures, that is, the divinity and humanity, be one Christ;
which is a necessary article of our faith, expressed in the Creed of
Athanasius...where it is read, The right faith is, that we believe and
confess that our Lord J esus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
And a little after, Like as the reasonable soul and the flesh is one
man, so God and man is one Christ. The same is also decreed by the
Council of Nicea and divers other catholic Councils, and it is the doc-
trine of the Church at this time....Yet these malicious clergy were not
ashamed to condemn the same for an heresy. (Thomas Cranmer, The
Remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (The Univer-
sity Press, 1833) at 193.) Cranmer is the one who made the legal case
for England to break from the church of Rome in a book entitled The
Sufficiently Abundant Collection (1530). Cranmer was executed as a
heretic in 1556 when Queen Mary I reunited the English Church to the
church of Rome. (Cranmer, Wikipedia.)
and that council ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew
script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one
in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.
How was it preserved?
The story goes that in 383 A.D., the Pope secured a
copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private
library.
In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 A.D.), the
story continues that the remains of Barnabas were discovered
and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of
Barnabas written by his own hand. The citation is to Acia
Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 to 450 Antwerp
1698, which is made by Borge B. N. Blatind, Evangeliet til
Barnabas (n.d.) at 14 albeit an Islamic source.
38
Yet, Ragg, the English editor of the 1907 edition of
the Gospel of Barnabas, and who approaches this with schol-
arly dispassion, has some evidence consistent with Blatinds
claim. While confessing we have no certain traces going
back prior to the 1700s, Ragg mentions there is an ambigu-
ous reference to the (now lost) copy of the Spanish ver-
sion,...[which] may possibly indicate that our Italian Ms. was
once in the library of Pope Sixtus V (1585-9). (Lonsdale
Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Clarendon Press, 1907) at
xi.)
Ragg points out that the Spanish preface gave the
account of its origin as discovered by a Christian monk
named Fra Marino. There indeed was a Franciscan monk of a
similar name alive in 1549 who was in charge of indexing
prohibited books. Marino explained that he accidentally met
with a writing of Irenaeus (among others) wherein he
37.See Standford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus, in Footnote 319 on
page 229.
38.Blatind is obviously a sympathizer with Islam, although the citations
are thorough and appear to be accurate. In the same vein, he wrote
another book entitled Jesus En Profet i Islam (n.d.)
speaks against St. Paul, alleging for his authority the Gospel
of Barnabas, [and] he became exceeding desirous to find this
gospel. Id., at xi-xii. Ragg continues:
and that GOD, of His mercy, having made him very
intimate with Pope Sixtus V, one day, as they were
together in that Pope's library, his Holiness fell
asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching down a
book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved to
be the very gospel he wanted. Overjoyed at the dis-
covery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve;
and, on the Pope's awaking, took leave of him, carry-
ing with him that celestial treasure, by reading of
which he became a convert to Mohammedanism.
The Spanish version of the Gospel of Barnabas repre-
sented itself as a translation of an earlier Italian work. Ragg
suggests that indeed the Italian translation may be the book
that Fra Marino so piously filched (or fabricated)..... Id., at
xii.
The critics of the eighteenth century dated the Italian
text to 1470-1480, explains Ragg. For his part, Ragg did a
minute analysis and concluded it was written on the paper
from the Vienna manuscript in the mid-1500s. The style and
diction would put it to an earlier prototype unless they are
marks of an elaborate literary hoax. Id., at xv.
While there were claims of an Arabic original version,
none has ever been found, Ragg points out. Id., at xv-xvi.
The Gospel of Barnabas shows a thorough knowledge
of both New and Old Testament. Id., at xvi. The writer has a
first-hand knowledge of the Scriptures. Id., at xxii. His
occasional inaccuracies are outweighed by a very general and
intelligent knowledge of the Old Testament and the New.
Id., at xxii.
Ragg notes that Barnabas even has traces of Pauls
teachings even though Barnabas professed purpose [is] to
combat the erroneous teaching of Paul. Id., at xviii.
Ragg believes the many references to the epistles,
including second Peter, constitutes another of the conclu-
sive arguments against the Barnaban authorship of this
Gospel. Id., at xviii.
Ragg outlines that this Gospel has integrated into one
story the four gospels, including the narrative of the virgin
birth, J esus miracles, parables, the Passover supper, the
betrayal, trial and crucifixion. Id., at xix. It tracks very
closely the gospels of Matthew and Mark. One notable dif-
ference is that J udas agrees to be crucified in place of J esus.
Id. at xxvii.
Ragg agrees that the writer of this Gospel has no ani-
mus...against the fourth gospel as the record par excellence of
Christs divinity. Id., at xix.

The Problem of Paul

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Problem of Paul

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Problem of Paul 1

The General Problem

Anda mungkin juga menyukai