 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Hebrew For "The House of Truth"
After studying the glaring differences and contradictions between the Gospel of Jesus and the Gospel of Paul we now move on. Many scholars will tell us that Paul, if not the actual originator of the Christ-myth, was certainly the author of the Christian scheme of salvation, which in every essential is the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus. This Romanized Paul had help by the Johannie writer who is definitely influenced by this earlier Pauline literature. This statement about Paul is close to the truth for the documents that carry his name today definitely give us "another gospel" different from the one taught by the "Jewish Jesus" and "the Christ" in the Synoptic Gospels but we cannot lay the total blame of this upon this Paul for we have concrete evidence that many of his writings were tampered with by Rome long after his death. This is tough medicine for the Christian to see yet acknowledge. In hope and in courage let us continue our investigation in order that our faith be grounded in truth and not in errors inherited from the Roman Church.
It will be interesting here to continue to contrast this Gospel of Paul with that of Jesus in this final article in this series.
We possess an excellent summary of the Gospel of Jesus in the Parable of the Last Judgment, which I will quote in full:—
"And before him [the King] shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." " Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: forI was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came unto me." " Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? Or when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?" "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
Answer for yourself: What should I have noticed here? Well, several things the last of which is not only the "deeds" of love done but it was not unto Jesus, that is, but unto the "King", who is the speaker, were these acts or "deeds" done. The King tells us that when we do acts of charity and righteous to these "brethren" of his it is as we did it "personally to him".
The Thayers' Greek Lexicon is interesting here when looking at the Greek word for "brethren":
80 adelphos-
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." "Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?" "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me" (Matt. 25:32-45).
Answer for yourself: Does this message agree with the Gospel of Paul? No, it does not!
As may readily be seen, in all that is essential this parable which stresses "works" and not "faith" is the very antithesis of the gospel and philosophy of Paul. On the other hand, after reading the first two articles in this series, you should not fail to note the remarkable agreement of this parable, down to the smallest detail, with the narratives already quoted; not only as regards doctrine, but also in respect of style and diction. Without a doubt Jesus speaks of "deeds" done which leads to Eternal Life and "deeds" not done which leads to Eternal judgment. You have to admit that there is not one word from the mouth of Jesus concerning if these addressed in this parable believed in or failed to believe in such things as his death, his Messiahship, his resurrection, his death as an atonement, sacraments, his divinity, etc.
A study of Paul's life will reveal to you that he was a mystic, ever following after the supernatural, the mysterious, and the miraculous. Paul's emphasis in "his" gospel concerns "cosmic salvation" and not an "earthly salvation" which merits Eternal Life when one dies. We find nothing of the king in the Gospel of Jesus. All of Jesus' utterances relate to the mundane affairs of man in "this" life and little is said about the "world to come". Jesus' emphasis, as we as his Salvation Message was always "earthly-centered"; where the rubber meets the road. Paul's Salvation Message was "other-worldly"; manly because he never knew an earthly or historical Jesus and only by a vision did he meet a "Cosmic Jesus". Jesus' parables are all centered around some familiar, some "earthly" and homely event that is manifested in some form of obedience and "works" as the fruits of one's obedience to the Laws and Commandments of God as the fruit of one's faith. Jesus spent over 95% of his time teaching his followers about how to live this life and in all of Paul's epistles he references only "two" of Jesus's teachings. If we did not have the Synoptic Gospels, which were written after Paul and his writings, then we would not know the slightest things about this Jesus, the Jewish Christ and his message to mankind, what he believed and taught as God's way to Eternal Life and Salvation and any differences when compared to this Romanized Paul and his writings. In other words, without Jesus's teachings contained in the Synoptic Gospels we would not know what this Jesus Christ believed to be God's message for all mankind. We would only be left with this Romanized Paul and the forged epistles in his name given us by Rome and we would never know that this Romanized Paul and his message of Salvation contradicted that of Jesus. This Paul, it appears, was more concerned with "his" gospel being received by the non-Jews than Jesus's message of mankinds necessary obedience to God's Laws and Commandments which James reiterates when agreeing with the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 that the "non-Jews" must keep and obey these Laws of Noah and the Covenant of Noah and writes letters containing such a command for the Pauline Gentile Churches in Asia, Minor, which were to be taken and taught to the Gentile churches in Asia Minor following the Acts 15 council.
Oh by the way Paul was given such letters in Acts 16 and one would think that if Paul was obedient to James and the first Church Council then the bulk of his letters would yet be written and one would expect them to have these Pauline epistles to contain many references to these very same Laws that James commanded of these Gentile Churches; a message by the way that agreed completely with Jesus' Gospel. They these Pauline letters denigrate the Laws and Commandments of God. Still, Paul makes both pro-law statements and anti-law statements in his letters which he never reconciles. Indeed he can't! Either God expects us to live by His Law or He doesn't. There is no in-between. But to be fair, I must make mention the fact of his pro-law statements. One reason I do this is because among the growing sect of Messianic believers, there is a small number who call themselves "observant" Messianics. They continue to believe, as Jesus taught, that the Law stands today. But in their endeavor to try and maintain some semblance of credibility with other Messianics, (who are really little more than Christians with a Jewish flair... and an umbilical cord attached directly to mainstream Christianity) these observant Messianics will engage in bend-over-backwards apologetics for Paul and do everything they can to argue he was pro-law. Apparently they continue to feel the need to embrace the picture of an infallible New Testament. We shouldn't at all be surprised about the fact that Paul made both pro, and anti-law statements because of other statements he made... like the following;
"...to the Jew I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak, I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Corinthians 9:20-22
At the very least, it is apparent that Paul was a chameleon who blended with his surroundings whatever they were at the time! Paul clearly taught contradictory messages for the purpose of making everybody happy... something you would never find "the Christ" doing. There is no simple misunderstanding about it. Even Paul's contemporaries accused him of encouraging others not to practice the law of Moses. It is the main issue in much of the book of Acts 21.
Acts 21:21 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. (KJV)
They even had him there in the flesh to explain himself and straighten out the misunderstanding if indeed it was so simple, but the obvious seems to go unnoticed that the issue is never settled in the book of Acts. James, the leader of "myriads" of Messianic Jews, never does come to Paul's rescue when everyone would naturally think he certainly would have if it all were just a simple misunderstanding of Paul's teaching. This fact I have established earlier on other of our websites. Paul was more concerned with making a reputation for himself by mass conversions of non-Jews which he figured would help with his acceptance by the Jerusalem establishment who was wary of him being a former Sadducee who persecuted their very ranks.
One of Christianity's favorite Pauline passages that clearly suggests we ought not bother trying to keep God's Law comes from the first part of the book of Romans. Right off... in chapter 1, Paul tries to establish some fundamental premises on which to continue building his doctrine. He says;
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith". Romans 1:17
This was a favorite passage of the Christian reformer Martin Luther. He believed, as Paul clearly lays out later in Romans and Galatians, this faith that the just are supposed to live by is as opposed to living by the law. Paul eventually turns it into an either-or... mutually exclusive incompatibility of faith and law. Notice again that Paul feels compelled to prove his doctrine by quoting Scripture. This observation alone should make it go without saying that the Scripture he quotes had better paint the same picture, or his premise is groundless. Here again Paul or this pro-Pauline writer misquotes Scripture albeit slightly. The passage he quotes is Habakkuk 2:4.
"Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him, but the just shall live by his faith."
In this passage's context, and more accurately translated, it is obvious that what God is saying here is that the just person (someone who is righteous) shall live (as opposed to dying) "by" (literally "because of") "his" (personal, as opposed to general) faithfulness: (literally, "steadfastness", ) to righteous living. Let me shorten this up for better understanding. It is this: The righteous person will survive if he is steadfast in his righteousness. Nowhere in this picture is the idea: If an unrighteous person wants to become righteous, he must live by the phenomenon of faith.
This one subtle abuse of Scripture by Paul is only the beginning. From here, he builds on his doctrine by continuing to make more blatant abuses that end up taking him and his doctrine into extreme error. By the end of the book of Romans, Paul is so far off the mark and from God's Revelation to mankind concerning His Law and Commandments it's hopeless! Watch where he goes from here in chapter 3.
Whenever someone suggests to a Christian (most particularly evangelical Christians) that the law of God still stands today, one of the first things out of their mouths to refute the suggestion comes from Romans 3. We are quickly informed that no one is able to keep the law according to Paul, and all are guilty of breaking it and forever remain labeled by it... unrighteous. Here is the quote we hear:
"There is none righteous, no, not one". Romans 3:10
This passage is a quote Paul makes from the Tanakh in an effort to prove his case. From verse 10 on through 18 is Paul's apparent direct quote from Scripture that is supposed to prove to us that no one is righteous, but all are full of evil. Please read all eight verses for yourself.
Answer for yourself: But is Paul honest in this quote? Were these texts quoted by Paul or this Pauline writer used in the same context as the original writer from the Hebrew Scriptures? No.
No such single passage exists in the Hebrew Bible! What Paul quotes is a compilation of no less that SIX separate passages that have been jerked out of their original context from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah... and they are all strung together in such a fashion as to appear as one. We have seen this deceptive practice of Paul's before, where in Romans 9, he pastes together two short passages from Genesis and Malachi concerning Jacob and Esau! Paul's or this pro-Pauline anti-Gnostic writer's accuracy in quoting from the Psalms in not any better. The first passage he quotes in verses 10-12 comes from Psalm 14. Here is his version first.
As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12
Now here is the passage quoted accurately, and in its context.
"The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God". They (of these atheistic fools) are corrupt, they (of these atheistic fools) have done abominable works, there is none (of these atheistic fools) who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the (corrupt) children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is non who does good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they ( these evil people who devout God's people, the unrighteous who devout the righteous) are in great fear, for God is with the generation of the RIGHTEOUS. Psalm 14:1-5
In David's picture there are no atheistic fools who do good! This passage is obviously not speaking of every human being, but of a very distinct group of people whom David describes as:
Of course, not one of them do good. And these evil people are contrasted with a second group of real people known as "my people" and "the generation of the RIGHTEOUS".
Answer for yourself: Then is Paul correct and have the churches taught this passage correctly? Did God ever say that "that there is none righteous, no not one" as we have been led to believe in Roman 3:10 and by Paul or this pro-Pauline writer? No, He did not!
Even in these very passages that Paul or this Romanized Pauline writers quotes from, there are obviously those whom God calls "righteous"! This is hardly the picture Paul wants us to get from this Psalm or from his anti-Law bias in the Book of Romans. Notice also Paul's embellishment of this passage. He would have us believe the phrase, "no, not one" is used twice when it is only used once. The first time Paul uses the phrase is where it doesn't exist, and it is coupled with the word "righteous" which Hebrew word doesn't exist in this part of the Psalm, or anywhere near the words "no, not one". Instead the Hebrew word for righteous shows up later in verse 5 and directly implies that there are those who are righteous! So much for "no, not one".
In Paul's string of quotes from Romans 3:10-18, he continues in verse 13 to take Scripture snippets out of their context from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3. In verse 14 he snips from Psalm 10:7. Verse 15,16 and 17 he yanks from Isaiah 59:7,8. And verse 18 he jerks from Psalm 36:1. In each and every case, the people spoken of in these passages are specifically evil men, and in the greater context of these passages, the evil men are contrasted with people who are called "the righteous", "the upright", and "the innocent". Please check for yourself. Not only is there no support for Paul's picture in these passages, but in each of the passage he takes out of context we find a comparison of people who are "unrighteous" and people who are "righteous". This is the very opposite of what Paul said in Roman 3 and we have been led astray. God is teaching us here that it is possible for man to make himself acceptable to God!
In Psalm 5 we find again a contrast between two different people;:
In Psalm 140 we find again a contrast between two different people:
In Psalm 10 we have again a contrast between two different people:
In Isaiah 57 we again find a contrast between two different people:
In Psalm 36 we again find a contrast between two different people: Ps 36:1 1 The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: What is this writer of the Book of Romans, the first epistle in the New Testament names "Romans" which gives conscious credibility to Rome and authority for later Church doctrine, wanting us to know and believe by misquoting and taking these Hebrew Scriptures out of context?
Antisemitic Rome, through either this Paul or a later pro-Paulinist writer, wants us to believe that no one becomes righteous through the works of the law. But there are many whom God called righteous. From Genesis 7:1 where He says to Noah, "I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation", all the way through to the New Testament where Jesus says, "many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it...", there are many references to righteous men. Take an exhaustive concordance and look for yourself under the word righteous.
After supposedly proving his premise that no one can be righteous under the law with his deceptive quoting of Scripture, Paul is forced to try and find for us a good working reason as to why God gave man the law at all in the first place! Here is his logic.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that (for this purpose) every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20
This begins to defy words to describe the profane lie that it is. But understand if you are going to destroy and nullify God's Laws given to all mankind since the beginning of time then you have to come up with some reason for the law's existence in the first place; especially after annihilating the truth!
Answer for yourself: Are we really to believe that it's God's purpose to make man guilty before Him?
Answer for yourself: If God intentionally made His law impossible for man to keep, would that not make God the author of unrighteousness and guilt?
Now for some fresh air. Here's God's version of why He gave man the law.
"Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that (for this purpose) it might be well with them and with their children forever!" Deuteronomy 5:29
"And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that (for this purpose) He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it (observance of God's Laws) will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us." Deuteronomy 6:24,25
But Paul disagrees in Romans 3:22. Instead of righteousness coming by obeying the Laws and Commandments of God we find according to Rome's antisemitism and altered Hebrew Scriptures given us in Paul's name it comes by "faith":
Rom 3:22 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (KJV)
One more example. I dare you to contrast the following two verses and not go crazy trying to figure our this schizophrenic Paul in the New Testament:
Rom 2:13 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (KJV)
Rom 3:28 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: So which is it? Do we follow this Jewish Jesus as our example of "the Christ" and his message of Eternal Life and Salvation or this Roman Paul and his message or messages since they conflict? Does this Paul breed confidence that he can be trusted let alone knows up from bottom?
There are two different Gospels here; one by a Jewish Jesus and "the Christ" and one opposing it given to us by Rome in the name of Paul or a later Pauline writer. One is a lie and one is true. Since I showed you that the Roman Pauline Gospel is a mishmash of forged Hebrew Scriptures and Hebrew texts taken out of context then a blind man can see the deception. And I only touched the surface with this Pauline Problem in this article. One of these Gospels is a lie and one it the truth. Sadly as a Christian I never was taught the truth and had to find it out on my own; but if I had never studied for myself I would have died a deceived Christian and been labeled by God after my death as one who is "wicked" like the texts above showed us because I followed the wrong message of Salvation my whole life as a typical Christian and lived without the Law in my life thinking another lie that "Christ" is the end of the Law.
I have shown you but a few of the Pauline lies in the New Testament given us by Rome which has shaped the horrible history of the world for the last 1,800 years. This blasphemous lie by itself should finish this Romanized Paul off and reveal him as a false prophet worthy of death according to the Torah. The Synoptic Gospels and the Salvation Message of God from the mouth of the "Jewish Jesus" and "the Christ" never taught anything remotely close to this.
The next time you read Paul's epistles notice how much space is devoted to his defense of his apostleship and understand he is defending himself to the Jerusalem church which knew that he "teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" of the Jews. These "customs" happened to be manifestations of obedience to the Law and Commandments of God. So before you are misled by Christian teachings about Paul understand historically why Paul was rejected by Jerusalem. We have devoted a large amount of space on another of our websites to the Paul problem and we hope you investigate it.
Now let us get to the parable at hand. Though there are many lessons crowded into the parable of the good Samaritan, but the one which, by way of contrast with the teachings of Paul, is perhaps more obtrusively manifested than any other is the parable's implied scheme of "salvation." We must look deeply at the hidden message and not the obvious context. If you contrast Paul's views on salvation, as seen in Rom. 10:13 [For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (faith only)], we find that Jesus and Paul had two completely different ideas as to what constituted God's Salvation. Because of the Gentile influence this and many other such key words, such as "salvation", have been invested with theological meanings they were not intended originally to convey. But a typical Christian would never know this unless he investigated for himself what Judaism taught about salvation. Over the years, as my studies increased, I found that on the whole one of the main fallacies of the Gentile Church and its hermeneutics (interpretation of Scriptures) was its failure to apply a rationalist interpretation but rather an allegorical or "spiritualized" interpretation to the Jewish Scriptures. Words have been mistranslated or misinterpreted on purpose by Gentile theologians in order to make them fit in with either their existing pagan doctrinal theology or its evolutionary projections. Jesus certainly did not understand by "salvation" transportation to a kingdom in the clouds, as has already been explained in prior articles on "salvation" as well as the first two in this series; and this will become abundantly clear the more you study and contrast the different views on salvation as held by Jews and Gentiles.
According to this Paul them, anybody might save himself most easily by "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ according to my Gospel". Well we saw that ain't so.
I wish something so easy was true but we stand amazed when viewing the Jews who for two thousand of years now have refused to receive the "free gift" of salvation contingent only upon mental ascent to a dogma. In place of this easy salvation, the Jews continues to observe their Covenant and endeavor to observe its Covenant stipulations which is the only guarantee of acceptance and fellowship with God under such a Covenant. This is our responsibility as non-Jewish believers as well; adhere to and observe our Covenant stipulations and responsibilities.
According to Jesus, you cannot save yourself at all, except only by saving others. Those who seek to save themselves, heedless as to what happens to their neighbors, are deceiving themselves. This is the meaning of that seeming paradox that "Whosoever will seek his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life because of me shall find it."
Answer for yourself: What does "because of me" mean? "Because of me" is understood by many scholars to mean "in consequence of my teachings, or by obeying these 'laws' which I preach unto you." The Greek words unfortunately have been translated "for my sake"; a rendering which is agreeable to Pauline theology, but quite inconsistent with the character and teachings of Jesus, and not warranted by the context.
When Jesus said "Whosoever will seek his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life because of me shall find it" is not mere sentiment, but a necessary truth. It means that you cannot save yourself by fasting, incantations, baptisms, or mental assent to an accepted dogma about Jesus or what his death was later interpreted by Gentiles to mean. Your individual safety is bound up with that of your neighbors. Therefore to save yourself you must "save others"; you must see to it that there shall be none neglected or oppressed; that there are no pitfalls (or temptations), and that none are menaced. In short, you can assure your own salvation only by making sure that none need perish within the grasp of your influence. This is true salvation.
I was never more amazed in my life when studying the word for "salvation" over ten years ago, when after looking up every one of the seventeen different meanings for the word "save, saved, and salvation" in the Strong's Concordance that sixteen of the meanings for the word "salvation", as used in both the New and the Old Testaments, refereed to this life and not the next life after death. Overwhelming God was showing me that salvation is something for this life more than the next. But the sermons I heard since a child had told me otherwise. My Christian and Pauline doctrine had focused on "other-worldly" salvation almost to the exclusion of "salvation as manifestations of earthly deeds in response to correct doctrine". My Christian doctrine concerning Eternal Life was shown to be wrong the more I looked into things like this as my experience in scholarly study testified to my errors of Christian doctrine accepted as Divine Truth. Consequently my study confirmed my worst thoughts; my "deeds" were either lacking or in short supply or were the "wrong ones". No longer could I feel confident of my salvation based upon what I believed that Paul wrote which was no more than "his gospel" and "his theology" which I was seeing diametrically opposed what Jesus taught. I was a follower of Paul more than Jesus. The last time I checked Paul is believed by no one to be Messiah, yet we believe Paul over Jesus. This is not noticed by most, so Bet Emet endeavors to bring this to the readers attention in order that he can have a better grasp of his faith in view of hidden truths which bring correction to Christian error.
Another remarkable feature of the parable is the surprise of both the "blessed" and the "condemned"; for apparently neither of them expected things to turn out as they did. The wonder is, how this lesson could have remained all these centuries buried in the Gospels unnoticed and unheeded.
The "blessed" were quite unaware of having done anything meritorious. They probably were simple folk who attended to the daily affairs of life, feeding and clothing those dependent on them, and giving help where such was needed; not with any ulterior motive or expectation of reward, but just as part of the daily round of duties. And as part of those duties they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, succored the weak, visited the prisoners, and comforted those that mourned. It was these deeds that constituted them "the blessed of the Father." We are not told of any other merits of theirs, whether they ever attended the synagogue or whether they were Jews even.
There is again no mention about "faith," which is so strong a point with Paul; no mention about Paul's or anybody else's gospel; about Adam's "fall" or a "promise" to Abraham; nor about "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ." Sorry to break you bubble but it simply is not there. The silence of such doctrines and their absence from the teachings concerning Eternal Life and the religious belief system of Jesus is deafening!
Just as the "blessed" were rewarded in virtue only for their good deeds towards their fellow-men, and without reference to their creed, dogmas, doctrines, sect, Pauline theology, or nationality, so the others were condemned solely because they did not attend to the needs of their neighbors. They failed to observe the Second Tablet of the Law (horizontal commandments between man to man); the same tablet we saw that Jesus referred to consistently as "necessary" in an earlier article when asked concerning inheriting Eternal Life. For all we know, the "blessed" may have been Gentiles who never attended a synagogue; and the "cursed" pious Jews, priests and Levites, who spent most of their time in prayer and in fasting (First Tablet of the Law). Of such little account did Jesus consider these rites that, as on other occasions, he did not even mention them; but rather Jesus choose to give greater prominence to the importance of good works, so little thought of by Paul. This is the deception. It basically boils down to this: we must either believe Jesus and "his gospel" or Paul and "his gospel". But be not deceived; these two gospels are in direct contradiction of each other. You might never have seen this but that does not change the fact that they oppose each other.
Answer for yourself: But, I hear many ask, if this is as you say, what was the religion of Jesus ? Was he an advocate of "grace" to the exclusion of "works" as Paul would have us believe? Was Jesus a secularist?
I desire the reader to note the antithesis suggested by the two words and then to reflect why or whence that implied contrast. When he has found the answer, it will be the severest indictment of the Churches that have created this antithesis and a complete condemnation of their pseudo-religion.
If we turn to the dictionary we find the word " secular " thus defined:
"pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly; temporal."
It is quite obvious that theology is responsible for this definition. "Religion" and the "affairs of life"; "holiness" and "temporal duties"; "body" and "soul"; "piety" and "duty": these have not only been divorced, but made antagonistic; with the result that a religion and a piety have been evolved that are the consummation of selfishness.
To prove this we need only contemplate a piety as free from "worldliness" as conditions of life permit and the result will be, not a saint but an ascetic; a person who has renounced this world with all its duties, who has debased even his own body, in the hope of thus being able to save his own soul. As if such a pitiful human wreck could have any soul left worth the saving! Yet the irony of the whole thing is that the above scenario describes perfectly the Catholic Monks of the Dark Ages who were the poster children of the Catholic Church and their Gentile theology during the Dark Ages. This is typical of Christianity and not of Judaism; the religion of Jesus the Jew.
I am aware that no sane person is likely to carry his fervor so far as the ascetic I am contemplating. Yet the latter would but carry to its logical conclusion the doctrine which denounces this world and its duties as "temporal" or "secular" in opposition to what the Churches consider as "spiritual" or "religious". The result is not "saintliness," but selfishness run mad.
There is a counterpart to such a "saint." It is the self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking, sensuous egotist who cares as little about what becomes of the rest of mankind in this world as the ascetic cares about their fate in the next. They are the two extremes of a false conception of existence, actuated by like motives. The ascetic sacrifices the pleasures of this world as a price for future and eternal bliss; and the "worldling" who does not believe in the future life is trying to get what "pleasures" he can out of this. Each of them is trying to get the most for himself; they differ only in taking opposite chances. That there are duties in this present world which are sacred because pertaining to this present life, does not occur to either; and in consequence both are classed in the parable among "the cursed."
If the parable teaches anything at all, it is this, that of all the iniquities and abominations none is greater than the doctrine which would divorce the duties of this life and of this world from religion, or would stigmatize such duties as "secular," "temporal " or "worldly," in opposition to "holy," "spiritual," or "religious." The classification is an erroneous one, based as it is on false conceptions of life, duty, and religion. Not that which is secular or temporal is opposed to religion, but that which is sordid, selfish, and iniquitous. This is the criterion that is decisive in the Parable of the Last Judgment. The whole religion of Jesus consists in "temporal" or "secular" duties, and of course could consist in nothing else. The aphorism of "serving God rather than man" is but an easy way of trying to escape one's duties and responsibilities under the Second Tablet of the Law.
You cannot serve God save by serving God's children; this is the teaching of Jesus. Your praise is blasphemy; your gifts, if given as bribes for future rewards, sacrilege; and your fasts hypocrisy. The essence of religion is this: "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these, you have done it unto me."
To live a life of love, of justice, of mercy, of forbearing and forgiving, helping the weak, succoring the needy, seeing in each fellow-creature a child of the "Father which is in heaven," sanctifying that Fatherhood by recognizing your brotherhood, is not worldliness, but righteousness; and to neglect these duties and to devote all your time and thought to praying to God for your own welfare is not "spiritual" or "holy," but sordid and selfish.
The Parable of the Last Judgment leaves no room for doubt as to what constituted righteousness in the eyes of Jesus. The Christian Church who has traded "works" for "faith" should reexamine the parable of the Good Samaritan and prepare to repent of following a "false gospel". They and their Pastors must come to understand that the Law, that Paul tell us we are no longer under, is the EXACT WAY that man is assured, though his obedient actions, that his efforts were the "loving way" of God as each Commandment and Law is nothing more than as aspect of the Holy God; 365 negative Commandments which God is not and which God does not do; 248 positive Commandments which reveal what God is and what God does. Let me remind you that it is "these loving aspects of God, called Laws, that Paul teaches that we are no longer under!
Long habit of thought and association of ideas have invested the words "religion," "spiritual," and "pious" with a theological flavor that assigns to them meanings that are opposite to "secular," "temporal," or "worldly." But, as I have already pointed out, the life of a praying and ascetic may be as sordid and selfish as that of the sensuous egotist; whilst a person who never goes to church or chapel may, notwithstanding, be unselfish, religious, and "spiritual" in the strict sense approved by the head of the Church and Christianity.
I grant that, to the eye, the priest's example in the parable of the Good Samaritan makes for a prettier picture. The priest's religion is also much the easier to follow. But do not tell me that it is the "warmer," or that it can satisfy that secret yearning of a truly devout soul which seeks happiness in the consciousness of having done its duty. Do not misunderstand me. I am not speaking against church, pastor, or priest. Far from it. I am one. Both have a mission, and a sacred one. It is their errors I am trying to expose; errors inherited from Gentile Christianity and their fraudulent document which contains them…the New Testament. It is good for people to congregate and to join in prayer, in communion of thought and of sentiment. Such acts stimulate religion, but are not religious in themselves. They may be aids to religion, but cannot be substitutes for it. Go to church by all means. But if you should pray or sing a hymn to God that shall be acceptable and the acceptance of which you shall feel in your heart, I challenge you to take home with you that hungry mother with the half-starved infant in her arms standing at the street corner in the hope of alms that you passed up on your way to church or when you decided to give your pastor and your church your tithe which God has already said cannot be used for such things as building funds, rent, insurance, pastor dinners, television ministries, blacktopping the parking lot, remodeling, symposiums, etc. Feed the child and then watch the mother's eyes. Hymn after hymn and prayer after prayer will ascend, and no doubt the divine spirit in your own heart will receive and respond to songs and prayer, but although never a sound is uttered in such good "works" as the fruit of your faith, there will come the promised response to you: "Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me."
But your duty does not end with feeding mother and child and dismissing them with a present, however generous. You cannot buy your salvation in this easy fashion. You will have to find out the cause of that woman's distress, and if it be due to some social wrong or some social institution, then the fault is at your own door. No amount of praying can relieve you of the duty to help to remove the iniquity through which that woman has been reduced to that pitiable plight. The rabbis teach us that such confrontation with religious error is the sanctification of the Name of God and failure to confront one who teaches contrary to the only true religion God gave mankind profanes the Name of God. That is why Bet Emet writes hard-nosed truthful articles that grab your attention and your hearts. Nor can you be safe yourself while that pitfall is allowed to remain.
There is an unmistakable correspondence between the character of Paul and his teachings, as there is between the character and teachings of Jesus. But there is no correspondence whatever, nor any point of contact, between the two philosophies or the characters of their respective authors.
Whether we compare their lives, doctrines, or trains of thought, this Romanized Paul is in every respect the antithesis of Jesus. Paul was austere, narrow-minded, bigoted, doctrinaire, superstitious, and intolerant. Jesus was in every respect the opposite. Paul cursed those who dared differ from him (Gal. 1:8); Jesus enjoined "love your enemies"—and practiced it, too.
Thus we might go on showing that every doctrine or dogma of this Romanized Paul was a negation of something which Jesus enjoined on mankind as necessary for their regeneration.
Indeed, if it were not for the misuse of terms, Paul might be described as the veritable "Anti-Christ," in the sense of being an adversary of the only true religion God gave mankind; the religion of Jesus which stressed obedience to the Laws and Commandments of God as the Will of God for all mankind...….which just happens to be Biblical Judaism whereby the non-Jew, by faith and works, is grafted into Israel of God and does not find his standing with God apart from the Israel of God as tries the Christian Church in a Covenant of their own making!
It would do you well to study right now the truth concerning true Biblical Atonement.
Recover "The Faith Once Given To The Saints" Which Has Been Perverted By Gentile Christianity And Their "Literal" and "Historical" Interpretation of the Sacred Texts
In our CD of all out websites contained on one disk we provide a "study plan" for the student and give detailed instructions as how to study these websites "in order" to facilitate one's study. Please inquire for the CD for such through study will take you some time if you ever hope of cracking the "Jesus Puzzle" and coming to the answer of the question: "Who do men say I am?".
call us...we would love to help you with your studies...Shalom...and Baruch Hashem
