Thomas Jeffersons viewpoint

Percival Everett, in his introduction to "The Jefferson Bible" (biblical excerpts of Jesus' life and teachings), wrote "For Jefferson, Paul was the villain of Christianity, reducing the religion to the worship of a man as god rather than focusing on the teachings of Jesus; this hardly sat well with rational thought and led to the superstitious character of Christianity that Jefferson detested."

Obviously, Thomas Jefferson believed that Jesus' teachings were supposed to be the focus of Jesus' disciples and not on Jesus himself. Actually that is a very reasonable assumption when the synoptic gospels are thoroughly studied. Jesus was always a signpost pointing toward God the Father. In Luke 4:8 he quoted the old testament when he said "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." And in Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord". Jesus never called himself "God" or "God the Son" or asked people to worship him or pray to him. In Luke 11:2 he taught the disciples to pray to God our father in heaven. The closest he ever got to assuming deity is accepting the term "son of God"  which was synonymous to Christ/Messiah (neither of which implied deity). Jefferson knew that the idea of the Trinity wasn't orthodox doctrine before 325AD and that it was the single doctrine that Catholics claimed as their own and identified them.

Additionally Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Short in 1820; "It is the innocence of His [Jesus] character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of His apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. Among the sayings and discourses by His biographers [the gospel writers], I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man."

Bible scholars have already coined the term "Pauline Christianity" as a label separate from original discipleship as taught by Jesus. Is there an important difference between the two? Let's see what Paul and Jesus taught:

Paul, the self-named apostle, in essence said that there were different gospels because in 1 Cor 1:12 he wrote "Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ.", and in Gal 1:8 he wrote "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Isn't this type of narrow-minded "only listen to me" preaching typical of cult leaders? Paul really thought he was better than the other "unlearned" apostles with his new version and interpretation of the gospel. He never even met Christ when he walked the Earth whereas the others learned from him directly.

Paul really seems to be sincere and well-meaning but many people like that have also been leaders of all kinds of crazy cults. He admits that he was very zealous for the Jewish religion (in Gal 1:14 Paul said he was "more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers") and therefore could of reinterpreted what happened to Jesus in terms of Judaism which externally was all about sacrificing for sins. It was a religion obsessed with sin, its punishment, and its cure. So Paul, apart from any confirming teaching of Jesus, said that Jesus died as a Jewish sacrifice for the peoples sins. Not focusing on sin and sacrifice, Jesus came along as a prophet to bring the focus back to the true intent of the law and that was to love God and our fellow man. (Like the old prophet Hosea who wrote in Hosea 6:6 "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings".)

Paul should of seen the error of his idea of salvation by faith, apart from the salvation by goodness that Jesus taught, because of all the problems he had with his converts. For example, in 1 Cor 5:1 he mentioned a man having sex with his stepmother that needed to be delivered to Satan for destruction although he still believed he would be saved (1 Cor 5:5). James, the brother of Jesus, refuted this idea of salvation by faith alone. He was known as James the Just and he was the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem after the crucifixion of Christ. (see book "The Brother of Jesus" by Hershel Shanks). Here's the scriptures by James on this subject:
James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

1:25 But whoever looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. 

2:8 If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well

2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

2:17-19 Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone. Yes, a man may say, You have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

(Ha! What beautiful sarcasm, saying that believing isn't sufficient because the devils believe but aren't going to be saved from judgment.)

You might say that "salvation by goodness" is impossible because our "goodness" is as filthy rags (Isa 64:6). This is true, but Jesus didn't teach that we could truly do good without Gods help. The repentance and devotion to God that he emphasized makes sure that any goodness we exhibit is the result of our association with our good God. He taught that the first commandment was to love God, and that the second was to love your neighbor as yourself. Of course the love relationship with God allows an overflow of love to our fellow man. Those without that love relationship with God can only manifest impure and weak goodness. I've known people who "try" to be good but always failed miserably because the god of love didn't occupy their hearts. And I am surrounded by unloving "Catholic" (which includes Protestants who also believe on the Catholics "Apostles Creed" as their basis of religion) Christians who stink to high heaven with their spiritual pretenses and lack of any true spirit of God. Belief and faith is not enough! Without love and devotion there is no true discipleship. (I don't even like to use the word Christianity because that implies what Paul created and which dominated after the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem church in 70AD along with the city.) History proves that Pauline Christianity leads mostly to hypocrisy and all manner of evil by the "church".

 from http://www.thenazareneway.com/The Gospel of Paul.htm

By infiltrating, claiming conversion, and assigning himself the title, Apostle, Paul (who never revealed his birth name was Saul) changed the doctrine and set out to destroy all evidence of the Nazarene sect that produced Jesus the Nazarene.

Paul admitted he had persecuted those who followed Jesus, although he never revealed that he had done so under another name, Saul. If not for Luke, we would not be aware that he had ever been called Saul. If not for Luke's important information about his birth name, Paul could never have been associated with the Saulus whom the Jewish historian Josephus accused of participating in the stoning death of James, Jesus' brother, c. 62, long after Paul's claimed conversion on the road to Damascus. Josephus' Saulus was the grandson of Salome (Saulome?), sister of King Herod the Great. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20.9.1-4; www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm)

Did James, Peter, and the authentic Apostles accept Paul as "one of them," or did they accuse him of lying? Did their followers accept him as "an authority on the gospel of the Nazarenes," or did they reject his teachings? The answers to these questions can be found in the letters attributed to Paul:

Romans 9:1: "I am speaking truth in Christ, I am not lying..."

2 Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus…knows that I do not lie."

Galations 1:19-20: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)"

1 Timothy 2:7: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth."

Why the emphatic protests if he had not been accused of lying?

Paul argued that his gospel was the authentic "gospel of Christ" and that "another gospel" (that of James, Peter, and John) was false. His letter to the Galatians contains his argument supporting "Justification/salvation by faith, not by works." However, the Gospel of James (2:14-17) proclaimed: "What does it profit…if a man says he has faith, but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead." The teachings of Jesus, as described by the gospel writers, agreed with James.

But Paul begged to disagree:
Galatians 1:6-7: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ."

Galatians 1:8-9: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed…if he is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

Galatians 2:1-2 "…I went up to Jerusalem…I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain."

Galatians 2:4-9: "…because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage – to them we did not yield submission…and from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no paritaility) – those I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel…and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised…" (What Paul seems to say is that he rejected James, Cephas, and John as being "pillars" – and their gospel – but they still welcomed him to preach his gospel to the Gentiles! Remember, Paul did not lie!)

 Galatians 2:11-12: "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face…" Galatians 2:14: "…when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, `If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' We…who are Jews by birth…yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law because by works of the law shall no one be justified."

It seems the underlying theme that separated Paul from the authentic apostles who walked with Jesus was whether "Justification" came by Faith or by Works or by a combination of both.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain references to "The Spouter of Lies," and many scholars suggest this referred to Paul. Paul's letters and his insistence that he was NOT a "spouter of lies" seems to support that position. "The Orthodox Church," however, supported Paul's gospel; his teachings evolved into today's fundamentalists' version of "Christianity." Rarely do their spokespersons quote from anything other than Paul's letters and scripture that seems to support them. They reject The Nazarene Way of Jesus and the authentic Apostles and have labeled it "an early heresy" for nearly two thousand years!

 In addition to the issue of “Faith” versus “Works” discussed in Part #3, the gospel preached by Paul differed significantly from the gospel preached by James, Peter, John, and the other authentic Apostles. These differences can be identified by examining the letters attributed to Paul and the answers he gave to those who questioned him:

Assumed Question: “James, Peter, and John taught us that women may preach the Nazarean doctrine. Women traveled with Jesus, and women are teaching in their homes. Should women be allowed to preach?”

I Corinthians 14:33-36: “…women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

I Timothy 2:11-15: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”

Assumed Question: “James, Peter, and John taught us that men should not cut their hair. Should we wear our hair long?”

I Corinthians 11:14: “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him…”

Assumed Question: “James, Peter, and John taught us that we should not eat meat. Are we to be vegetarians?”

Romans 14:1: “…Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables.”

Colossians 2:16: “…do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.”

Assumed Question: “James, Peter, and John taught us that all people deserve to be free from slavery and oppression. But my owner, a believer, tells me I will not be set free. Why am I, and other men and women, still being held as slaves?”

Colossians 3:22-25: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.”

I Timothy 6:1-5: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.”

Luke 4:16-20: “And [Jesus] stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’ And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down…”

Jesus said he came to free the captives and those who were oppressed. That would surely encompass both slaves and women. Apparently, Jesus wasn’t fond of the gospel Paul preached either.

Numbers 6:1-5: “…The Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate him/[her]self to the Lord, he/[she] shall separate him/[her]self from wine and strong drink…All the days of this vow no razor shall come upon his/[her] head…he/[she] shall let the locks of hair of his/[her] head grow long…

Isaiah 7:14-15: “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.”

Judges 13:5: “‘. . . for you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor is to come on his head, for the boy shall be a nazirite to God from birth.

1Samuel 1:11: “She made this vow…I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.’”

Jesus the Nazarene was “consecrated to God” from birth. He was born under the vow of a Nazirite. He demonstrated that he knew how to “refuse the evil and choose the good.” He taught a blend of the Mosaic Torah and Greek philosophy, primarily that of Pythagoras. Pythagoras and his followers lived communally, drank no wine, were vegetarians, wore white garments, and let the locks of their hair grow long. They abhorred animal sacrifice, slavery, and conflict. Women were teachers in their academies. As Philo of Alexandria asserted, they had adopted the Mosaic vow of the Nazirites five hundred years before Jesus was born. They were, in essence, an earlier sect Nazarenes.

The Nazarene Way wasn’t simply a religion or a philosophy; it was a way of living. When either a man or a woman took the vow to become a Nazarene, they separated themselves from certain food, drink, and traditions. They were recognizable by their appearance – their long hair, their white garments, and their peaceful demeanor. There is nothing in the letters of Paul that suggests he had any appreciation for The Nazarene Way of Jesus. How puzzling that Paul’s gospel became orthodox and the gospel preached by James, Peter, John, and Jesus was rejected as an “early heresy” and virtually cleansed from the history of Christianity.

Luke must have considered his allegorical messages about Saul to be of the utmost importance. He identified him as the enemy of the Nazarenes in Chapter One:

Luke 1:68-73: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people…that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us…that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear…"

To find the person that Luke accused of being "the enemy" requires only that the reader find the name that was omitted from these verses that was copied almost verbatim from Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22:1: "A Psalm of David…who addressed the words of this song to the Lord on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul…"

Luke ended his second volume, Acts of the Apostles, with a speech to the Jews that he put into the mouth of Saul; it came from Isaiah 6:9-10: "Go to this people, and say, 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'" (Acts 28:26-27).

What is missing from Saul's speech to the Jews that would contain Luke's allegorical message? What's missing are the verses that followed Isaiah 6:9-10, Isaiah 6:11-13: "Then I said, `How long, O lord?' And he said: `Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the land is utterly desolate, and the Lord removes men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains standing when it is felled.' The Holy Seed is its stump."

Revelation 22:14-16: "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters and every one who loves and practices falsehood. I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star."

The Tree of Life was one of the most important tools used by the Nazarenes and Essenes to teach their doctrine. (See article at: www.thenazareneway.com/Tree of Life.htm)

Luke's allegorical message is quite clear: The enemy, Saul, aka Paul, wielded an axe and destroyed The Tree of Life, leaving only the stump – "the Holy Seed." Luke, on behalf of Jesus and the Nazarene sect, set about to preserve the story, using Philo's rules for the allegorical interpretation of scripture to say, "The Axe of the Apostle" must not be allowed to destroy our message! The Holy Seed remains; The Tree of Life will once again bear good fruit when the truth about Paul is finally known.

Click here for a great site with much more information about how Paul diverted "The Way" in another direction.

If early Christianity was really a revolutionary political movement fully within the sphere of Judaism at the time... whence the Christianity of today? That story can be traced to a certain Saul of Tarsus. This tentmaker, who apparently had very influential friends among the Sadducees, was sent to "Damascus" to root out "Christians" there. Of course, he would have had no authority to carry out those orders in a different part of the Empire than Palestine. But if "Damascus" is "Qumran" a new picture begins to emerge... along the way Saul has a "conversion" and becomes Paul, a "Christian." Shortly after this experience, as recorded in the Acts of the New Testament, the very vigorous Paul travels all over the Roman Empire and preaches Christ. Except... James and members of the Jerusalem "Church" complain he is preaching "another Christ," telling people to be "apostates from the law," and promoting "deviation."

Imagine this scenario: James and his followers attempt a Messianic crusade focusing on returning the "lost sheep" of Israel to the fold. (The key to successful revolt would be the enlistment of Jews all over the Empire -- many Jews lived in Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt at the time.) Along comes this Paul, who claims he wants to assist them in their efforts for revolutionary recruitment. Only... he seems to be preaching a new religion which is distinct from, and even inherently opposed to Judaism: proclaiming that a very holy but earthly man was also divine, recruiting among the Gentiles using pagan concepts (the dying-and-resurrected god and virgin birth are features of the Mithras and Attis cults), and betraying Jewish nationalist aspirations by focusing on a very otherworldly "kingdom of heaven" rather than a concrete political restoration.

So who was Paul? Eisenman suggests he may have been an agent provocateur . He may have even been the individual that the Damascus Document identifies as "the Liar" and "the Apostate." And as to why he went to the effort to found a new religion, Eisenman suggests that it was a brilliantly conceived means to defuse the very this-world, political significance of Jesus and his Davidic bloodline. As an agent of the pro-Roman Sadducee establishment, he found a perfect way to deflect anti-Roman agitation into yet another Roman mystery cult. He apparently succeeded very well.

"The religious teaching presented in Paul’s Epistles is fundamentally different from what research has recognized as being authentic sayings of Jesus…What we know as Christianity today is not the teaching contained in these authentic sayings; it is the theology disseminated by Paul and the doctorers of his Epistles" -Elmer H Gruber (The Original Jesus)

But the most remarkable point in this connection is the absolute silence of the Gospel of Mark on the subject of the Resurrection and Ascension--that is, of the original Gospel, for it is now allowed on all hands that the twelve verses Mark xvi. 9 to the end, are a later insertion. Considering the nature of this event, astounding indeed, if physically true, and unique in the history of the world, it is strange that this Gospel--the earliest written of the four Gospels, and nearest in time to the actual evidence-makes no mention of it. The next Gospel in point of time--that of Matthew--mentions the matter rather briefly and timidly, and reports the story that the body had been stolen from the sepulcher. Luke enlarges considerably and gives a whole long chapter to the resurrection and ascension; while the Fourth Gospel, written fully twenty years later still--say about A. D. 120--gives two chapters and a great variety of details! – Edward Carpenter (Pagan and Christian Creeds)