返回总目录
Rebuttal to Anthony Wales article 100 Similarities between the Lord Jesus Christ
and the Apostle Paul - PART 1.
Search
and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to
search for articles on this site.
Rebuttal to Anthony Wales article
100 Similarities between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul
[Part one]
By Sami Zaatari
His
article can be located here: http://www.answeringislam.org/Wales/jesus_paul.htm
Anthony Wales has written up a booklet in which he tries to show 100 similarities between
Jesus and Paul. However so, the title is a deception, since Wales does not really show
similarities, all he does show is that Paul did preach some similar things to what Jesus
preached. So Wales should have titled his article 100 doctrine similarities between Jesus
and Paul, because when reading Wales’s title one gets the impression that the article
will show similar characteristics between the two.
He wrote:
1. Jesus is the Messiah or Christ
JESUS: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered,
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answered him,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, but my Father in heaven". (Matthew 16:15-17)
PAUL: Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the
Messiah was Jesus. (Acts 18:5)
My response:
So was the prophet Muhammad, in the Quran Jesus is declared as the Messiah as well:
003.045
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad
tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in
the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
Paul was actually more concerned with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus,
nothing else really mattered to Paul, defiantly a stark contrast to Jesus. Paul changes
everything about the death of Jesus, rather than preach the real message of Jesus which is
worship one God, and obey his commands, as Jesus himself said in the NT. Paul didn’t
care about those commands, in fact he broke many of them. One example would be
circumcision; he broke the covenant by declaring it’s not needed.
He wrote:
2. Jesus is the Son of God
JESUS: All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them,
"You say that I am". Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We
have heard it ourselves from his own lips!" (Luke 22:70-71)
PAUL:
Immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of
God". (Acts 9:20)
My response:
And what does the Son of God mean? By declaring Jesus the son of God to the Jews did
not mean he was God or part of God, not at all. Here is what son of God meant:
THE MEANING OF THE SON OF GOD
Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son%5Fof%5FGod
In the Tanakh
In the Tanakh, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:
In the Tanakh
the term does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God.
The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness (see Godliness).
In Judaism
the term "son of God" is rarely used in the sense of "messiah."
Taken from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=son+of+God
So note, according to the Jews the term Son of God in no way means God. And since
Jesus’ audience were Jews, this means when he called himself the son of God he was
going by the meaning that the Jews believed in. And the meaning of Son of God was not
being God or part of God, but meant a servant of God, a judge, a ruler to carry out
God’s commands.
So
Paul calling Jesus the son of God means that Paul also confirmed that Jesus is not God.
However we have Christians telling us Paul preached that Jesus is God, but if Paul did
so, then he contradicts himself, since calling Jesus the son of God means that Jesus is
not God, and if Paul did call Jesus the son of God meaning he is God, then Paul made his
own new definition of son of God.
He wrote:
3. Jesus is Lord
JESUS: You call me Teacher and Lord - and you are right, for that is what I am. (John
13:13)
PAUL: There is... one Lord, Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:6)
My response:
Being called Lord in the Bible does not always mean you are being called God, this
is common fact. When Jesus was called lord it was not meant to call him God or any of
that, others were called lords etc.
However note that Paul now tries to make this title seem more important and unique
by claiming that Jesus is the only Lord by saying there is one Lord. So Paul went and made
Jesus seem divine for people calling him Lord, and calling someone Lord in the Bible does
not make you God.
Secondly, did they really call him Lord? Or did they call him rabbi?
Let us quote an interesting piece from brother Bassam’s article on the
evolution of the NT:
The word 'Lord' being exchanged for 'Rabbi'
Mark 9:5
Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up
three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
Matthew
17:4
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I
will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
So
note the evolution in the text. Jesus goes from being called a teacher to being called a
Lord in the newer version of Matthew. For easier understanding, Christian scholars agree
that the earliest Gospel that was made was that of Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and so
on. And as we read these Gospels, we see that the character of Jesus keeps getting more
modified and changed.
Here is another example take from brother Bassam’s paper:
The word 'Lord' being exchanged for 'Teacher'
Mark 4:38
Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him,
"Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
Matthew 8:25
The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're
going to drown!"
So note once again Matthew changes things around and makes the text say they called
Jesus Lord. Whereas the earlier Gospel has Jesus being called teacher. This is an obvious
evolution in the text of the NT.
This
should not be too surprising, since every Gospel writer wrote the Gospel to how he saw
fit, making alterations, leaving things out and adding things to make the story seem
better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
The authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to St Matthew, a tax-collector who became an apostle of
Jesus. However,
most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous.
The relation of the gospels to one another is the subject of some debate. Most modern
scholars believe that Matthew borrowed from Mark
and the hypothetical Q document, but some scholars believe that Matthew was
written first and that Mark borrowed from Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis). Out of a total of 1071 verses,
Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel
of Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to
itself.
Like the authors of the other gospels, the author of Matthew wrote this book according
to his own plans and aims and from HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW, while at the same time
borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis (the most commonly accepted
solution to the synoptic problem), Matthew borrowed from both Mark
and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q
(for the German Quelle, meaning "source").
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense
derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses
the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5);
"And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they
said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like
Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix,
3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement,
because "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded"
(vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the
Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or
alterations of this kind are very numerous.
The point of quoting all this is to basically show that Jesus being called Lord is
doubtful and is an obvious evolution in the text of the Gospel on the character of Jesus.
He wrote:
4. Jesus is God
JESUS: Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him,
"Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have come to believe". (John 20:28-29)
PAUL: From them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God
blessed forever. (Romans 9:5)
My response:
If Paul did teach that Jesus is God then he is indeed an anti-Christ since Jesus never
claimed to be God, nor was it his mission to make people believe in that. Jesus made it
clear that he was a prophet, a man sent from God to the children of Israel to bring them
back to God. That was his mission; Jesus would rebuke Paul if Paul taught that Jesus is
God.
Secondly, even from the text of Thomas I don’t see anything from the text that
shows Jesus being God. It is obvious that Thomas had some doubt, then regretted it then
cried to Jesus saying my Lord (which is doubtful, he could have said teacher for all we
know) and then cried to God saying and my God. So Thomas basically confirmed Jesus is the
prophet and from God.
Also let us read the NT, these verses prove that Jesus is NOT God:
Mat 15:24 But
he answered and said, I am not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
A God sent to a
specific nation? I think not, Jesus was a prophet; this is exactly why he was sent to a
specific nation like all other prophets before him.
Jhn 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which
sent me.
Jhn 7:16 Jesus
answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine,
but his that sent me.
So note Jesus claims his saying and doctrine is not his. This means the Gospel he
taught and preached did not belong to him, it belonged to someone else, and who can that
be? That person is God.
So just like all
other Prophets Jesus teaches the people things which are not from him, but from God, and
Jesus teaches them a Gospel that is not from himself, but from God.
Jhn 12:49
For I have
not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent
me, he gave me a commandment, what
I should say,
and what I
should speak.
So everything
Jesus speaks is not of himself, not his own will, but God tells Jesus what to say, and
what he should speak. This is defiantly a prophet; prophets do not speak of themselves,
but speak of what God tells them to speak.
I could quote
many many more verses showing Jesus is not God, but those shall do. So as we see Jesus
showed that he was not God, so if Paul taught that Jesus is God then Paul was wrong and an
anti-Christ.
He wrote:
5. Jesus is Human
JESUS: Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing
what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that
I heard from God". (John 8:39-40)
PAUL: There is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself
human. (1 Timothy 2:5)
My response:
So what is it? Is Jesus a human or is he God? Can you and Paul make your minds up? One
minute he is God, the next he is human. Or wait, he is the God-man? What blasphemy is this
that you utter?
Also the verse from Paul proves that Jesus is not God. Note it says Jesus is the
mediator between humankind AND God, this shows that Jesus is someone different than God.
So a contradiction now, Wales said that Paul preached that Jesus is God, yet as we see,
Paul shows that Jesus is not God. So more problems than solutions.
He wrote:
6. Jesus was born of a woman
JESUS:
The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.
And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He
will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:30-32)
PAUL:
When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman. (Galatians 4:4)
My response:
Well at least Paul could admit that Jesus came from a woman, the reason I say that is
because was clearly anti-women and didn’t respect them:
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
AND
1 Corinthians
11:9
neither
was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Also from brother Karims rebuttal:
To Marry Or Not To Marry in the Bible ?
Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said,
"It is NOT good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet
for him."
Here god tells us that it is not good for men to be alone, so god gave adam a wife,
called eve. Later on in the bible however we read:
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Now for the matters you
wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.But since there is so much
immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:8
Now to the unmarried and
the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
Now God in the bible created women for men, because it was not good that men should be
alone. Now later on paul tells us that it is good not to marry, and to stay alone ,
instead of married. A clear cut contradiction. (http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/to_marry_or_not_marry_2.htm)
He wrote:
7. God sent Jesus
JESUS:
I cam from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. (John 8:42)
PAUL:
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own
Son. (Romans 8:3)
My response:
Note the confusion among Christians. Here Wales tells us that GOD SENT Jesus, this
means that Jesus is not God! Wales then shows that Paul believed the same thing. So if
Paul did then how did he also preach that Jesus was God? Which one was it? An obvious
clear contradiction, if Paul preached that Jesus was God as Wales earlier claimed, then we
have a problem here since Paul shows Jesus is not God. So make your mind up.
He wrote:
8. Jesus is the way to the Father
JESUS:
I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(John 14:6)
PAUL:
Through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Ephesians 2:18)
My response:
Yes, Jesus is indeed the way to the Father, just like all other prophets were. Once
again Wales and Paul prove that Jesus is not God. Good job to both of you, you make my
work much easier and you prove how confused you two really are.
He wrote:
9. Jesus is Light
JESUS:
Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world". (John 8:12)
PAUL:
What fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with
Beliar? (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)
My response:
Once again we have a classic example of the evolution in the Gospels. Note how John now
goes to call Jesus the light of the world, yet in the earlier Gospels we see that Jesus
was simply specifically sent to the children of Israel:
Mat 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
Jesus even tells
his disciples to go the children of Israel:
Matthew
Chapter 10
KJV
1
And
when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean
spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2
Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called
Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip,
and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas
Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5
These
twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.
Note Jesus even tells his disciples to not go to the Gentiles! So this is an obvious
modification in the Gospel by John, he wants to make it seem that Jesus was sent for
everyone when he clearly wasn’t, nor did he tell his disciples to go to the gentiles.
He wrote:
10. Jesus is life
JESUS:
I am the way, and the truth, and the life. (John 14:6)
PAUL:
When Christ who is your life is revealed. (Colossians 3:4)
My response:
Indeed Jesus is the way, truth, and the life, just like every other prophet was:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun32.htm
Most of what Wales bring up is also confirmed by Islam, so what is the point in showing
Paul preaching some of the same things in which Jesus did? He clearly modified them as
well, and contradicted himself, and took on modified evolved stories of Jesus as we see.
It is the Quran which agrees with these teachings that Jesus brought yet doesn’t
not contradict them or add on them and make things up from modified evolved texts.
This shall conclude part one.
Rebuttals,
and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Answering Trinity.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Sami
Zaatari's Rebuttals section.
Send
your comments.
Back
to Main Page.