What Jesus taught vs what the Church made up


Categories: Bible, Christianity

14 replies

  1. Do I really need to quote the context of these verses to show the church teaches exactly what Jesus taught and further show how everyone of theses texts condemn Muhammad as don antichrist? Or will then take cowardly way out by saying Jesus didn’t say any of these things found in John? Let me know.


    • There is a looming distance between Jesus and the Church, they have no chains of transmission connecting the Apostles to the later Church Fathers. It is based on conjecture, it was Irenaeus (200 CE) who claimed Polycarp knew the Apostle John, but Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians never claimed to know John or the apostles. Clement of Rome (97 CE) was the first to mention Peter and Paul’s deaths at Rome, we find nothing about Clement knowing Peter. And there’s no evidence that Peter went to Rome, it is simply legendary tradition. Paul in his letter to the Romans says nothing about Peter’s presence at Rome. The Gospels are products of a later time reflecting the conditions and situations of the Late First Century, there were no Galilee synagogue buildings during Jesus’ time, they were built after 70 CE when Galilee completely changed. Yet the Gospels have Jesus literally walking into these synagogues, which is historically out of place. According to Robert Price, the Gospels are products of the Second Century. Even if the Gospels were written between 70-100 CE the New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman in his book “Jesus Before the Gospels” explains the Christian dilemma that the Church does NOT teach what the Historical prophet Jesus taught. It is obvious that Shamoun hasn’t read this book. The Church does not teach exactly what Jesus taught, they are teaching Paul’s gospel (“original sin”, “vicarious atonement”, “baptism into Christ”, “justification by grace”, the “Eucharist”) which follows a Gnostic-type Christology that describes Christ as appearing in the LIKENESS of men (Phil. 2:7) whereas John’s gospel written decades later says “…he became flesh” which Paul nowhere states. The Gospels are Pauline documents that were composed after the original form of Jewish Christianity centered at Jerusalem had declined and collapsed because of the Jewish-Roman wars (66-70 CE). A good number of sayings reflecting later Church opinions and views about Jesus were placed into his mouth, as the Jesus Seminar has demonstrated. Hence, it is impossible to say the Church teaches what Jesus himself taught. There was a Gentile takeover and the original Jewish Jesus was redressed in the clothes of another culture that was steeped in the worshipping of many gods and goddesses, possessing a human and divine nature. There is a looming distance between Jesus and the Church, as the Christology “science” about Jesus developed after his departure. The Jews during Jesus’ lifetime were monotheistic Palestinian Jews, not adhering to Hellenistic Judaism from which Paul emerged, making it easier to deify Jesus as a “mediator” between God and men. They weren’t debating whether Jesus was God, the Son of God, having a dual nature, or co-substantial with the Father, that was developed after Jesus departed.

      “Some of the differences are much larger, involving the purpose of Jesus’ mission and the understanding of his character. What all the differences show, great and small, is that each Gospel writer has an agenda–a point of views he wants to get across, an understanding of Jesus he wants his readers to share. And he has told his stories in such a way as to convey that agenda. But once we begin to suspect the historical accuracy of our Gospel sources, and find evidence that corroborates our suspicions, where does that lead us? With regard to our questions about the nature of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, it leads us away from the classical notion that orthodoxy is rooted in the apostles’ teaching as accurately preserved in the New Testament Gospels and to the realization that the doctrines of orthodox Christianity MUST HAVE DEVELOPED AT A TIME LATER THAN THE HISTORICAL JESUS and his apostles, later even than our earliest Christian writings. These views are generally held by scholars today, based on in-depth analyses of the Gospel traditions” (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Harpur One Publishers, pp 170)

      “When we compare our opening statements of the Nicene Creed with the picture which has emerged from the NT it is clear that THERE HAS BEEN A CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT over that period in early Christian belief in and understanding of Jesus as the Son of God. With Jesus we found it was possible, indeed necessary to speak of his sense of sonship; but we also found that exegesis did not encourage or enable us to speculate beyond that, and that there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus-tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity, a consciousness of a sonship rooted in pre-existent relationship with God” (James D. Dunn, Christology in the Making, p 60)

      “[F]rom the first the significance of Christ could only be apprehended by a diversity of formulations which though not always strictly compatible with each other were not regarded as rendering each other invalid…it would be unwise to attempt to hold all the diverse formulations in play at the same time, and unpractical to insist on the equal validity of each in every circumstance. As Schillebeeckx rightly notes: “A thoroughly scriptural orthodoxy does not entail conferring upon Jesus simultaneously all of the images and titles available” (Douglas F. Ottati, Jesus Christ and Christian Vision, p 19)

      “It is not only possible, but actually highly likely, that the church has distorted the real Jesus, and needs to repent of this and rediscover who its Lord actually is” (N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus)

      The later orthodoxy of the fourth century Church belonged to the “Christianity” that prevailed over against the competing versions claiming to be Christians too. It was this “orthodoxy” (controlled by Gentile-pagan converts to Pauline Christianity) that was later projected back unto the Jewish apostles, those simple Aramaic-speaking Jews from the backwaters of rural Galilee. Many scholars are beginning to realize the Jesus of the Quran is actually closer to the Historical Jesus of Nazareth than the Christ of the New Testament.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. NO, please sam, no more of your excruciating long cut and paste incoherent rantings!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. As salamu alaykum! Offtopic, but does anybody know some sources to read about the existence of Mekka/Kaaba in pre-islamic eras? As for there’re people saying this:

    “Mecca is Absent in the Inscriptions of the Northern Cities of Arabia

    When we look at the inscriptions found in northern Arabian cities, such as Dedan, we see the same phenomena. Their inscriptions reveal aspects of their own history and mention civilizations of western and southern Arabia. For example, we find mention of some of the kings of the Main Yemeni kingdom of southern Arabia in the inscriptions of the northern Arabian city of Dedan.[28]
    There is plenty of information about the western and southwestern Arabian kingdoms found in the northern cities’ inscriptions, yet we don’t find Mecca mentioned at all – even though it would be closer to the northern cities than the southern and western Arabian kingdoms which I mentioned. In light of this evidence, the Islamic tradition to claim that Mecca has been a major Arabian city since the 21st century B.C. is like Rome existing in Italy for centuries, but seeing no mention of it in any Italian inscriptions. In reality, Rome is the most-mentioned city in the ancient Italian inscriptions. The same logic holds true with the city of Athens in Greece, and Babel in Mesopotamia. So it would also be with Mecca, if the claims about Mecca from the Islamic tradition were true.
    We have seen previously that some Muslims claim that Ptolemy’s mention of a city called Macoraba is actually a reference to Mecca. We have already proven, with Ptolemy’s longitudinal and latitudinal system, that Macoraba is not Mecca but, instead, a small settlement in Yemen, south of the old Yemeni city of Carna in the 2nd century A.D. To cling to such a claim as proof of Mecca’s existence as a major city since the time of Abraham is inadequate and illogical. So, to claim that Mecca has continually existed in Arabia since the time of Abraham, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, is inconsistent and illogical. It is a ridiculous claim. The truth is that clear archaeological and historical facts cannot be reinterpreted or ignored in order to support a claim which is inconsistent with archaeology and history.
    Once again, we see the witness of history confirming our research which shows that Mecca was built long after Muslims claim it was”.

    Confused about what to think.


    • This shows the validity of the Quran as it again displays historical facts like when the Leaders of Egypt were called Kings and Not Pharos and it calls them by their correct name at both times in the context of the revelations. In respect to your question here is one of many sources to explain:


      The source of the sounds (vocal organ) of the alphabetical letters ‘b’ and ‘m’ is one and the same: the lips. So by the passage of time ‘Makkah’ replaced ‘Bakkah’. It can thus be appreciated that the original and ancient name of the place was ‘Bakkah’.
      In the Quran when it is mentioned as a place of the ancient times (3:96) it has been named as ‘Bakkah’. When it is mentioned in the perspective of the period contemporary with the Prophet of Islam (48:24) it is called Makkah.

      The referenced article further mentions:

      King David had actually and naturally used the word ‘Bakkah’ in his Psalm. Because the words ‘Bakah’ and ‘Bakkah’ were written in the Hebrew script in the same way, it got the pronunciation of ‘Baca’ or ‘Bakah’ instead of the correct pronunciation of ‘Bakkah’ in the later Jewish ages. This ‘Bakkah’ was the ancient name of ‘Makkah’ and was given to it by Abraham. Originally the city was called by this name. Here are some of the Arab authorities to elaborate it:
      One of authorities is the dictionary ‘Lisān al-‘Arab’ which explains:

      ‘Both [Makkah and Bakkah] are the names of the city; and [the alphabetical letters] “B” and “M” succeed (can replace) one another.’

      Places have changed names through the ages but the fact that they were there is not changed. When a people settle in an area it is not necessarily going to be a vast metropolis at that time. We would have to excavate the whole of Mecca and its surroundings to even entertain that it did not exist when it was claimed which has not happened. It is fruitless to assume that we have all the archaeological evidence for all areas of the world.


  4. Sam, what’s this reference to ‘my father’???🤔


    • John 8:44 – You belong to your father, the devil…

      That what he is referring to. The tragic comedy here is that little does this nasty piece of work know is his own scripture addresses this matter.

      Mathew 12:22-27

      22: Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see

      23: All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

      If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

      24: But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

      25: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

      26: If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

      27: And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.…

      Which basically means that anyone who works, curses, & warns against Satan Ipso-facto can’t be working for or be Satan himself.

      The Irony is beautiful because people like Sham shamoron accuse the seal of the Prophets Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran as being written be influenced or written by the devil respectively.

      EVERY time people of his ilk try and accuse others of anything all you need to do is go back to their own scripture and pull the rug of hypocrisy from under their feet.

      All he does is supply the very ammunition to riddle his own fake theology and accusations with holes. He really is the gift that keeps on giving.


  5. And I don’t debate deranged abusive bigots, just to be clear!!

    Oh dear….will no one debate (play) with poor little sammy wammy! Awwww!


  6. Hello:

    ThirstforKnowledge stated:

    “Which basically means that anyone who works, curses, & warns against Satan Ipso-facto can’t be working for or be Satan himself.

    The Irony is beautiful because people like Sham shamoron accuse the seal of the Prophets Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran as being written be influenced or written by the devil respectively.

    EVERY time people of his ilk try and accuse others of anything all you need to do is go back to their own scripture and pull the rug of hypocrisy from under their feet.”

    I used to think it meant that also In Every Situation,but the more I analyzed

    Jesus the more you noticed he used a literary technique that can be called Exaggeration in Order to Make You Remember the Message.

    One example is Jesus’ Parable of the Unjust Steward(Luke 16:1-13):

    It is an astonishing parable where Jesus talks as though he were Machiavelli,

    advice similar to that in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”,praising dishonest but clever behavior:

    “He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods.

    So he called him and said to him(to the Corrupt Man), ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’

    “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me.

    I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’

    “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

    And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him,

    ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’

    Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’

    And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’

    So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

    “And I say to you,

    make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail,they may receive you into an everlasting home.(here Jesus is Exaggerating for Effect,speaking like a disciple of Machiavelli)

    He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?””


    • I think that’s an interesting point there as it is a technique employed by the Qur’an and in the wider Islamic tradition. Rumi for example utilised outlandish tales in order to express insights concerning all manner of spiritual and ethical concerns. Moses and the Shepherd or the Man who swallowed a snake being two that spring to mind.

      As Kahlil Gibran once said about Jesus’ parables is that rather than pontificating philosophical theories on the nature of reality, he would seek to speak directly to the persons heart through referring to what was familiar and therefore understandable to them. Even if the audience didn’t understand the point of the message at the time they will at least remember the story for its odd twist (for such a twist cannot exist without it contradicting in some way the established beliefs of the way things worked, a point of reflection perhaps in and of itself) and one day perhaps grasp its meanings.

      Just my raw (sleep deprived) thoughts 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Greetings Patrice:

    Yes, I am familiar with Gibran’s interest in Jesus,he was baptized as a baby,but I think was an unbeliever later on. Gibran wrote a book about Jesus called “The Son of Man”.

    It is a portrayal of Jesus through the eyes of his contemporaries, men and women who knew him as an enemy, friend or teacher.

    These people include Mary Magdalen, Simon Peter, Pontius Pilate and Barabbas.

    I think everybody who makes the effort becomes fascinated by Persian culture,its best poet Hafez,and by how musical and sweet Farsi is,the most beautiful language of the East.

    A Jesus parable that shows his sense of humor and wit is the Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Widow:

    Luke 18:1-5

    “He then told them a parable on the need for them to pray always and not become discouraged:

    “There was a judge in a certain town who didn’t fear God or respect man.

    And a widow in that town kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’

    “For a while he was unwilling, but later he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or respect man, yet because this widow keeps pestering me,I will give her justice, so she doesn’t wear me out by her persistent coming.’”


    • Gibran to be fair was influenced by a rather a lot of different religious influences especially in his later years after returning from Lebanon and studying art under Rodhin in Paris. His mother would one of the key influences for this while he was young because she would often invite and spend time with people of other religions.

      I don’t think he ever formally renounced his Catholicism but he was no lover of organised religion perhaps in part due to his witnessing of religious violence in Lebanon between Christians and Muslims as well as the struggle between Christians and Druze. He saw and was frustrated by what a lot of people see in the world (especially nowadays) and strove for religious unity, so much so one might even strike a parallel with the Perennial school of thought that had beginning to form with the writing of Rene Guenon.

      Sufism was also a large influence on his writing while he studied Arabic in Lebanon at the behest of his mother. Interesting that you bring up a humoured side of Jesus. A nice change from the usually stern way he is presented today. Its nice to remember he was a human being after all and sometimes the world is absurd enough where the only response is to laugh at the contradictions latent within humanity 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: