10:43:00
Sakshyam Education
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ
-II Corinthians 2:17
The above passage is taken from the letter of Paul written to Corinthians. From the above it can be implied that the disciples belong- ing to the group of Peter might have disturbed the faith implanted by Paul and his disciples. And so to keep them firm on the faith as preached by him, Paul criticizes that they themselves were not as many which cor- rupt the word of God. This implies to mean as saying that what Paul had Preached was free from corruption, while those others had corrupted the word of God. One may mistake that other party for Jews. But “Speak we in Christ” prove that the other party was Peter’s party. If it were really Jews, “speaking in the name of Christ” becomes meaningless. Because Jews do not care Jesus. Though this point is ambiguous in this verse, the following passages agree with our point of argument. Thus Paul branded the church of Peter as ungodly.
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is christ’s, even so are we Christ’s.
-II Corinthians 10:7
This verse discloses that Peter’s party might have branded the party of Paul as antichrist. So in counter to their remark, Paul says if they (Peter’s) were of christ’s, they themselves (Paul’s) were more of Christ’s.
Apostles did not believe that Paul was a disciple... (Acts 9:26)
Church means group of people but not the building as a place of worship.
The verse above B is a strong witness to prove that the rivalry was not between Christians and Jews, but among Christians1themselves under two groups.
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they mea- suring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise -II Corinthians 10:12
In this also we find one deriding the other. Paul writes that the other group of apostles were not wise.
And again Paul says :-
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles
-II Corinthians 11: 5
In this Paul says that he is not less than any chiefest apostle. This discloses the fact that the dispute was not between Jews and disciples but between Peter’s church and Paul’s.
I am become a fool in glorifying: Ye have compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
-II Corinthians 12:11
This verse clearly states that Paul disputes with the apostles. And says that he is no less than any other apostle.
f) for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. -II Corinthians 11:13
In this verse Paul describes the apostles as false apostles, deceitful workers. And again he says that they have disguised as apostles of Christ, “transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” This is a good example that how Paul used his dialectics on the apostles of Christ to
impress upon the then christians1. And further to impress the present
1. Here the word ‘Christians’ means - the people who profess faith in Jesus as Christ. But not as followers of the religion known as Christianity.
Christians1 that it was a dispute between him and the false apostles only but not between Peter’s church and his. But the following verses prove that to whom he described above as false apostles were no other than the real apostles of Jesus.
G) for ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face, I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold ,(I speak foolishly) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they the Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? ( I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent in deaths oft. -II Corithians11:20-23
From all above passages it can be noticed that there were two churches, two gospels with two leaders each for one and their disciples; one contradicting the other; one calling the other as false apostles and as deceitful workers. And each one was trying to get an upper hand over the other. What were those two churches? One that was founded by Jesus on Peter and other apostles with Peter as its chief while Jesus was yet living2. The other church, according to Paul’s claim, was founded by Jesus, on Paul, for Gentiles, in his vision after the departure of Jesus.
.... the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. -Acts 26:17
If what paul claimed were true could ever Jesus have asked his dis- ciples to preach the whole world? In this way had Jesus not included the Gentiles also? Then what necessary was there to appoint an additional apostle specially for Gentiles? When such points as these are raised, the present church being the followers of paul- to shroud over blunders, they simply say that he wrote about the false prophets only but not about Peter and other disciples and gospel . They further add that Peter and Paul and their disciples were co-workers who unitedly worked in the min- istry of Jesus’ gospel. And at the same time they accept that there were indeed two leaders one Peter for Jews and the other- Paul for Gentiles. What a humorous thing is that this point was again contradicted by Paul himself in his deposition on trial before Cheif Captain, saying as that he was an apostle appointed by Jesus to all men.
1.The followers of the religion known as christianity founded by Paul(Acts 11:26) 2. Mark 16:15 + John 21:15-17 + Matthew 28:19-20
Thus we read -
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.” -Acts 22:12-15
And another thing what we would like to bring to the notice of the readers is, those to whom Paul accused (branded) as false apostles, were no other than the Jesus’ real apostles - Please read the following passage which discloses this fact.
“I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly) I am bold also . Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more...” -II Corinthians 11:21-23
From the above passage one can notice that the dispute and contro- versy was not between Jews and Paul as he proclaims1 but between the churches of Peter and Paul.
If there had been dispute and rivalry between Paul and Jews it would have been a matter of no concern at all. But it was between Paul and the church of Peter. (Or) If it were on their personal grudges, even then there would have been no matter. But what heart breaking point is that the rivalry between Paul and Peter was due to religious and doctrinal differ- ences of opinion. This points out very clearly that what Paul was preach- ing was not in conformity with the preaching of Peter and vice versa. Here let us bear in mind that Peter being the chief apostle of Jesus, he would have been preaching the same fundamentals as had been en- joined upon to do. If that be the case, if the teachings of Paul were not in conformity means, he (Paul) was preaching some new doctrines.
or the present church might have modified, noticing the event of his having been attacked by church of Peter and was about to be killed (Acts 26:21), to hide these facts from the present christians’ notice, so that they might not slip which all points can be detected from our further arguments made in coming pages.
The prevalent church has been founded by paul:
Paul says:-
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase
-I.Corinthians 3:6
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth there- upon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. -I.Corinthians 3:10-11
What important thing to note is that Jesus says that he had built his Church on Peter (Matthew16:18).
In this way Jesus had laid foundation on Peter. Then therefore every- one has to build according to the foundation laid on Peter by Jesus. Quite contrary to this Paul says- that he had laid foundation on Christ himself. And warns that no other foundation be laid than what he had laid. Thus foundation was laid on Jesus by Paul. It means to say indi- rectly that one should follow paul himself. This injunction rules out the prominence of Peter’s Chruch.Does this point not prove that there was no relevance between the teachings of Paul and Peter?
Let us examine some opinions of Christian Scholors regarding this point.
The Christ of pauline Epistels has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. We need scarcely hesitate in regarding St.Paul, indeed ,as the real founder of our religion.
(Mackintosh-The person of Jesus. P.51)
Mackintosh very clearly expresses his opinion that the Christ of Pauline Epistles has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. This remark very convincingly admits that what Paul has preached about Jesus has really no relation with Jesus or with his teachings or with what he ex- pected of his followers.
And further he expresses his view so deliberately that paul was the real founder of the Christianity. This point very clearly admits that the Church has been built on the shoulders of paul but not on peter’s as had been decreed by Jesus.
B. W. Bacon writes in his renowned book, “Making of New Testa- ment” in page. No. 61 in conformity with the above view of Mackintosh in clearer terms as here under.
Without the pauline Gospel about Jesus, Christianity could never have become more than a sect of reformed Judaism.
This opinion of B.W. Bacon not only strengthens the above view of Mackintosh in toto but also provides an inference that Jesus had never preached a religion of his own as Christianity, but he had only reformed the already existing Judaism.
But contrary to this St. Paul had professed a new religion under the banner of christianity with all his self invented dogmas and doctrines. Thus the present Christianity is the brainchild of Paul (Acts 11:26). And hence it appears that the Christians are not real Christians1 but Paulines2
under the presumption as Christians1.
NB:- They may be called as Christians as they are following the Christianity founded by paul, if they prefer to be called as. But they cannot be real Christians in the sense of the followers of Jesus. They may be devotees of Jesus, but not followers.
The early Christians (the followers of Jesus )followed in Peter’s lead- ership till he attained his old age. The hold of Peter on the Church estab- lished by Jesus on him (Peter) was gradually being slipped and ulti- mately remained in the form of Unitarians and Sossanians as two minor sects which in the long run disappeared. Thus the Church of Peter was vanished away ultimately.
-II Corinthians 2:17
The above passage is taken from the letter of Paul written to Corinthians. From the above it can be implied that the disciples belong- ing to the group of Peter might have disturbed the faith implanted by Paul and his disciples. And so to keep them firm on the faith as preached by him, Paul criticizes that they themselves were not as many which cor- rupt the word of God. This implies to mean as saying that what Paul had Preached was free from corruption, while those others had corrupted the word of God. One may mistake that other party for Jews. But “Speak we in Christ” prove that the other party was Peter’s party. If it were really Jews, “speaking in the name of Christ” becomes meaningless. Because Jews do not care Jesus. Though this point is ambiguous in this verse, the following passages agree with our point of argument. Thus Paul branded the church of Peter as ungodly.
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is christ’s, even so are we Christ’s.
-II Corinthians 10:7
This verse discloses that Peter’s party might have branded the party of Paul as antichrist. So in counter to their remark, Paul says if they (Peter’s) were of christ’s, they themselves (Paul’s) were more of Christ’s.
Apostles did not believe that Paul was a disciple... (Acts 9:26)
Church means group of people but not the building as a place of worship.
The verse above B is a strong witness to prove that the rivalry was not between Christians and Jews, but among Christians1themselves under two groups.
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they mea- suring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise -II Corinthians 10:12
In this also we find one deriding the other. Paul writes that the other group of apostles were not wise.
And again Paul says :-
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles
-II Corinthians 11: 5
In this Paul says that he is not less than any chiefest apostle. This discloses the fact that the dispute was not between Jews and disciples but between Peter’s church and Paul’s.
I am become a fool in glorifying: Ye have compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
-II Corinthians 12:11
This verse clearly states that Paul disputes with the apostles. And says that he is no less than any other apostle.
f) for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. -II Corinthians 11:13
In this verse Paul describes the apostles as false apostles, deceitful workers. And again he says that they have disguised as apostles of Christ, “transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” This is a good example that how Paul used his dialectics on the apostles of Christ to
impress upon the then christians1. And further to impress the present
1. Here the word ‘Christians’ means - the people who profess faith in Jesus as Christ. But not as followers of the religion known as Christianity.
Christians1 that it was a dispute between him and the false apostles only but not between Peter’s church and his. But the following verses prove that to whom he described above as false apostles were no other than the real apostles of Jesus.
G) for ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face, I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold ,(I speak foolishly) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they the Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? ( I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent in deaths oft. -II Corithians11:20-23
From all above passages it can be noticed that there were two churches, two gospels with two leaders each for one and their disciples; one contradicting the other; one calling the other as false apostles and as deceitful workers. And each one was trying to get an upper hand over the other. What were those two churches? One that was founded by Jesus on Peter and other apostles with Peter as its chief while Jesus was yet living2. The other church, according to Paul’s claim, was founded by Jesus, on Paul, for Gentiles, in his vision after the departure of Jesus.
.... the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. -Acts 26:17
If what paul claimed were true could ever Jesus have asked his dis- ciples to preach the whole world? In this way had Jesus not included the Gentiles also? Then what necessary was there to appoint an additional apostle specially for Gentiles? When such points as these are raised, the present church being the followers of paul- to shroud over blunders, they simply say that he wrote about the false prophets only but not about Peter and other disciples and gospel . They further add that Peter and Paul and their disciples were co-workers who unitedly worked in the min- istry of Jesus’ gospel. And at the same time they accept that there were indeed two leaders one Peter for Jews and the other- Paul for Gentiles. What a humorous thing is that this point was again contradicted by Paul himself in his deposition on trial before Cheif Captain, saying as that he was an apostle appointed by Jesus to all men.
1.The followers of the religion known as christianity founded by Paul(Acts 11:26) 2. Mark 16:15 + John 21:15-17 + Matthew 28:19-20
Thus we read -
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.” -Acts 22:12-15
And another thing what we would like to bring to the notice of the readers is, those to whom Paul accused (branded) as false apostles, were no other than the Jesus’ real apostles - Please read the following passage which discloses this fact.
“I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly) I am bold also . Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more...” -II Corinthians 11:21-23
From the above passage one can notice that the dispute and contro- versy was not between Jews and Paul as he proclaims1 but between the churches of Peter and Paul.
If there had been dispute and rivalry between Paul and Jews it would have been a matter of no concern at all. But it was between Paul and the church of Peter. (Or) If it were on their personal grudges, even then there would have been no matter. But what heart breaking point is that the rivalry between Paul and Peter was due to religious and doctrinal differ- ences of opinion. This points out very clearly that what Paul was preach- ing was not in conformity with the preaching of Peter and vice versa. Here let us bear in mind that Peter being the chief apostle of Jesus, he would have been preaching the same fundamentals as had been en- joined upon to do. If that be the case, if the teachings of Paul were not in conformity means, he (Paul) was preaching some new doctrines.
or the present church might have modified, noticing the event of his having been attacked by church of Peter and was about to be killed (Acts 26:21), to hide these facts from the present christians’ notice, so that they might not slip which all points can be detected from our further arguments made in coming pages.
The prevalent church has been founded by paul:
Paul says:-
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase
-I.Corinthians 3:6
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth there- upon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. -I.Corinthians 3:10-11
What important thing to note is that Jesus says that he had built his Church on Peter (Matthew16:18).
In this way Jesus had laid foundation on Peter. Then therefore every- one has to build according to the foundation laid on Peter by Jesus. Quite contrary to this Paul says- that he had laid foundation on Christ himself. And warns that no other foundation be laid than what he had laid. Thus foundation was laid on Jesus by Paul. It means to say indi- rectly that one should follow paul himself. This injunction rules out the prominence of Peter’s Chruch.Does this point not prove that there was no relevance between the teachings of Paul and Peter?
Let us examine some opinions of Christian Scholors regarding this point.
The Christ of pauline Epistels has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. We need scarcely hesitate in regarding St.Paul, indeed ,as the real founder of our religion.
(Mackintosh-The person of Jesus. P.51)
Mackintosh very clearly expresses his opinion that the Christ of Pauline Epistles has no relation at all to the historic Jesus. This remark very convincingly admits that what Paul has preached about Jesus has really no relation with Jesus or with his teachings or with what he ex- pected of his followers.
And further he expresses his view so deliberately that paul was the real founder of the Christianity. This point very clearly admits that the Church has been built on the shoulders of paul but not on peter’s as had been decreed by Jesus.
B. W. Bacon writes in his renowned book, “Making of New Testa- ment” in page. No. 61 in conformity with the above view of Mackintosh in clearer terms as here under.
Without the pauline Gospel about Jesus, Christianity could never have become more than a sect of reformed Judaism.
This opinion of B.W. Bacon not only strengthens the above view of Mackintosh in toto but also provides an inference that Jesus had never preached a religion of his own as Christianity, but he had only reformed the already existing Judaism.
But contrary to this St. Paul had professed a new religion under the banner of christianity with all his self invented dogmas and doctrines. Thus the present Christianity is the brainchild of Paul (Acts 11:26). And hence it appears that the Christians are not real Christians1 but Paulines2
under the presumption as Christians1.
NB:- They may be called as Christians as they are following the Christianity founded by paul, if they prefer to be called as. But they cannot be real Christians in the sense of the followers of Jesus. They may be devotees of Jesus, but not followers.
The early Christians (the followers of Jesus )followed in Peter’s lead- ership till he attained his old age. The hold of Peter on the Church estab- lished by Jesus on him (Peter) was gradually being slipped and ulti- mately remained in the form of Unitarians and Sossanians as two minor sects which in the long run disappeared. Thus the Church of Peter was vanished away ultimately.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment