1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Contra Green

December 2615

Since the great war of 2539-2545, a spirit of reconciliation descended upon the Charolites. In place of the persecution of Christians, Charolites are rediscovering the Christian roots of their own faith. In the same Charolite countries where for centuries Christians were denied citizenship, today Christians are even permitted to disseminate counter-Charolite literature. While there are still pockets of Anti-Christian sentiment in the Charolite world, but the region of China, Mongolia, Japan, and the Koreas, where the Fundamentalist Charolites hold sway, the mood is decidedly pro-Christian.

In an extreme show of the spirit of reconciliation, the prominent Mongolian newspaper, the Mongolian Tribune, presented their readership with an interview with a counter-Charolite activist; Jesse C Belmonte. The interview was conducted by the well known Mongolian Tribune reporter; Genghis X Kahn.

Genghis: “Could you please give us a synopsis of the basic philosophy of the Christian opposition to the Charolite faith?”

Jesse: “With pleasure. I understand that your readership expects me to go through the various Scriptural proofs for the Messiah-ship of Charlie and present the Christian refutations for these proofs. If that is what your readership is expecting, I will disappoint them. I prefer to focus on the larger picture, rather than quibble over translations and interpretations.”

Genghis: “I understand that there is an advantage in stepping back and seeing the big picture as opposed to getting bogged down in details. but is there perhaps other reason behind your decision to avoid the Scriptural proof-texts? Are you perhaps not confident with your refutations to the Charolite arguments?”

Jesse: “It is not an issue of confidence. Many Christian writers have already refuted the Charolite proof-texts, and I believe that a study of the texts in context will reveal the emptiness of the Charolite claims. I think there is a deeper issue here. If I debate a Charolite about a given Scriptural text, I have already given the Charolite faith more credit then it deserves. The Charolite has no business holding a Christian Bible in his or her hand.”

Genghis: “Why would you say that? The Charolites cherish the Christian Bible and believe that by reading the Christian Bible one will come to faith in Charlie.”

Jesse: “The very pillars upon which the Christian Scriptures stand preclude faith in Charlie. We must ask ourselves: how did we come into possession of the Christian Bible? What method did we follow to determine that the Christian Bible is true? If we ask these questions, the Charolite faith would not get off the ground, the debate would never begin.”

Genghis: “Could you please explain these statements?”

Jesse: “Genghis, you tell me. How do you know that the Christian Bible is truly the inspired word? How do you know that the books of Matthew, John, Peter and James belong in the Biblical canon, while other books do not?”

Genghis: “I don’t profess to be a theologian, but I do remember from my days in Monday school that Norman Geisler wrote something on this subject.”

Jesse: “I must say that I am impressed by the range of your knowledge. Most Charolite’s are not even aware that Dr. Geisler existed.

In any case, I will remind you of Geisler’s teaching on the subject, and I quote: “For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book’s place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials are those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debates about the canonicity of some books, the DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers (Quoted by Josh McDowell in the “New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” page 22).” In other words, the only way we can know that the Christian Scriptures are truly inspired is if we first accept that the Christian community had the ability to discern and separate between truth and falsehood. But the basic premise of the Charolite faith is that this very community of believers in Jesus did not possess the ability to determine who is a true prophet and who is a fraud. According to the Charolites, the Christians are incapable of identifying their own Messiah. It is well-known that the Christian community, as a community, rejected Charlie’s claims. If it is as the Charolites argue, that the Christian community is not capable of sensing between the true prophet and the fraud, the canon of the Christian Bible ought to be discarded.”

Genghis: “But the Charolites argue that the early Christians were OK, they were Godly and spiritual people. It was only the later Christians that lost the ability to discern between the true prophets and the frauds.”

Jesse: “That is a very convenient theory, and is totally arbitrary. Either you accept that the Christian community was appointed by Jesus to serve as his witnesses for posterity, or you reject that belief. You can’t have it both ways.”

Genghis: “But the first followers of Charlie were Christians. Perhaps they represent the true following of Jesus?”

Jesse: “Those Christians who followed Charlie soon lost all the covenantal signs of Christianity. They were utterly lost from the Christian community. There is no way that the Charolites can be considered the true Christians.”

Genghis: “Are there any other arguments such as the one you just presented that focus on the larger picture as opposed to the debates over Scriptural grammar?”

Jesse: “There are many arguments that refute the Charolite faith before we get involved in technical debates over Scripture. For example: According to the Charolite faith, Jesus returned in order to test his followers, to see if they truly love him. But when Jesus speaks of his return in the New Testament, we get a totally different picture. In the Christian Bible we read how Jesus’ return would be rewarding to his followers and bring down punishment on the enemies of his followers. When Charlie came along, the followers of Jesus were cursed, because they could not accept Charlie, while their persecutors were blessed with faith in Charlie. Charlie’s mission according to the Newer Testament, and Jesus’ mission according to the New Testament are not only incompatible, they are polar opposites.

This is actually true on another level as well. The central character of the New testament is Jesus. Everything in the New Testament points to Jesus. True faith according to the New Testament is a total and unshakeable faith in Jesus. The return of Jesus is supposed to vindicate this faith. Charlie points people to faith in himself. The central figure of the Newer Testament is Charlie and not Jesus. The fact that Charlie claimed to be “one and the same” with Jesus does not change the facts on the ground. The fact remains that it is Charlie who lives in the heart of the Charolites and not Jesus.”

Genghis: “I noticed the sarcasm in your voice when you spoke of the “blessing” that Charlie brought to the persecutors of the Christians. Wouldn’t you agree that the Chinese, who used to be atheists before the advent of Charlie, were blessed through Charlie with a faith that is closer to the truth?”

Jesse: “Perhaps that is true, but the blessing is certainly a mixed blessing. Before the advent of Charlie, the Chinese were not consumed with a deep hatred for Christians. Their conversion to the Charolite faith induced them to murder millions of Christians over the centuries. Now I do recognize that the Fundamentalist Charolite Church has rejected this violent interpretation of Charlie’s teachings, and they are to be commended for that. But stepping back and looking at it from a historical perspective over the centuries, many Chinese people were spiritually poisoned with a hatred for Christians – something that would not have occurred without the advent of Charlie.”

Genghis: “How do you respond to the claim of some Charolite theologians that it was the sin of rejecting Charlie that brought divine retribution upon the Christians? According to these theologians, the Christians were massacred in the millions because they did not accept their own Messiah.”

Jesse: “If the sin of rejecting Charlie brought these massacres upon us, we are thankful that this same sin effectively prevented us from being the perpetrators of these atrocities.”

Genghis: “How do you respond to the miracles preformed in Charlie’s name? People are healed, the blind receive sight, amazing things happen. These miracles do not just occur on a material level. On a spiritual level we see that people’s lives are radically changed through faith in Charlie. How do you explain these phenomena?”

Jesse: “I could tell you that many religions share similar claims, including Christianity, Mormonism and Doormanism. Instead, I will point you to some Scripture. In the Old Testament we read that false prophets are also empowered to perform miracles (Deuteronomy 13:2). Even the New Testament echoes to this concept (Matthew 7:22). We must put aside the miracles and the transformed lives, and focus on the logical arguments. God allows false belief systems to produce miracles and transformed lives. He does not, however, allow them to share the still small voice of truth that appeals to the sensitivity to truth that God breathed into our nostrils.”

Genghis: “One last question if I may. Why do you refuse to debate Dr. Green?”

Jesse: “I don’t see any point in debating face to face. The issue is not between the two of us as performers. The question is: who has the truth? I laid out my arguments in writing, and I continue to do so, while it is Dr. Green that is failing to respond. My article “Contra-Green” was published some time ago, and as of yet there has been no response. I have since published other articles explaining my position without receiving any response from Dr. Green. I await his rebuttals to my argument and I aim to take the arguments from there.”

Genghis: “Thank you for joining us today.”

Jesse: “You are welcome.”

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Answering Christian Objections to Charlie

April 2615

600 years since Charlie’s Resurrection

Much has happened since the Charolite faith was founded. Its adherents number in the billions and inhabit every continent. Many wars were fought between the Christians and the Charolites. In the most recent spate of wars, 2539-2545, the Charolites massacred millions of Christians. But most denominations of Charolites now reject the aggressive philosophy of the Old Charolite Church and promote love peace and tolerance of all people, especially of Christians.

The following is an interview with the author of the highly acclaimed 5 volume series: “Answering Christian Objections to Charlie”; Dr. Leonard M Green. Dr. Green graciously agreed to be interviewed by Joe Parker of the Kentucky Independent Gazette.

Joe: “If Charlie was truly an incarnation of Jesus, why then didn’t the Christians of his time “get it”? Why is it that he only attracted those with little or no knowledge of the rudiments of Christianity?”

Dr. Green: “That is an excellent question Joe. In response I will read a selection from the Christian Testament. You might be surprised that these words are actually found in the book held in such high esteem by Christians. The philosophy of the paragraph I am about to quote is so obviously Charolite, that many people immediately assume that this is a selection from the Charolite Newer Testament. But it is not. This is actually a quote from the Christian Bible, 1Corinthians chapter 1. This only serves to demonstrate that the Charolite faith is the only true continuation of Christianity.

Here are Paul’s words; “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

Joe: “But over the years, there has been such vehement opposition from Christians to Charlie and the Charolites. If Charlie is truly the Christian Messiah then why haven’t more Christians come to faith in Charlie? Where are the pastors and priests of Christianity? Why are they not flocking to join the Charolites?”

Dr. Green: “There are several factors involved in this national rejection of Charlie. Most Christians have simply never bothered to read the Newer Testament. The Christian prejudice against Charlie runs so deep, that many good Christians are prevented from discovering their own Messiah.

Another factor that prevents Christians from coming to true faith is the violence that was practiced by the Old Charolite Church. Can we blame these Christians for failing to see the beauty of Charlie’s teachings, when so many Charolites have so seriously misrepresented him?

In addition, you may be surprised to learn how many Christians actually did come to faith in Charlie. The reason you don’t hear about them is because as soon as a Christian leader joins the Charolites, the Christian historians immediately erase his name from the pages of history.

Finally, and it hurts me to say this, but I cannot withhold the truth – our people were stricken by a spiritual blindness. As it is written, and I quote from the 5^th chapter in Harry’s epistle to the Manchurians: “A spirit of blindness has come upon them as Isaiah prophesied: “they have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear”. This was the divine retribution for failing to recognize their Messiah when he came.”

Joe: Now that you touched upon the violence of the Charolite Church throughout the ages, particularly against Christians, how do you explain this? If the Charolite faith is the true faith then why has it produced so much violence?

Dr. Green: No true follower of Charlie ever hurt a fly. How could a follower of a man who preached: “if he steals your cell-phone, give him your i-pod, if he scratches your car, let him burn down your house” (Gospel of Jerry 12:7) ever hurt anyone? Those who persecuted Christians were only Charolite’s in name, but they certainly weren’t real followers of Charlie.

It is also worthy of consideration that the violence was not always one sided. It would be more accurate to say that there was a cycle of violence. Many prominent Christian leaders called Charlie’s sanity into question, and they referred to his followers as “charlatans” – so the violence wasn’t all one sided.

Joe: “But what of the statements of Charlie himself? In the Gospel of Joanne (8:44) we have Charlie calling all Christians murderers and children of the devil. In the Gospel of Jerry (chapter 23) Charlie refers to all Evangelical pastors by the terms “hypocrites”, “vipers” and other such unkind epithets. How do you explain these statements?”

Dr. Green: “These statements must be understood in the context of the larger picture of Charlie’s message, and in the historical context of the gospels. Since the central teaching of Charlie was love and tolerance, we can understand how these statements cannot be understood in the racist sense attributed to Charlie by the Old Charolite Church. When Charlie calls Christians “children of the devil”, he is not referring to Christians alone. He is speaking to all who live in their sins and refuse the divine grace extended to them through the sacrifice of Charlie. All of us fall short, and no one comes to Jesus but through Charlie.

When Charlie was castigating the leadership of the Evangelical movement, it must be understood in light of the fact that Charlie himself was a paying member in an Evangelical Church. This was an argument amongst brothers. Charlie was rebuking the Evangelical leaders for straying from the true faith of Jesus which only points to Charlie.”

Joe: “How do you respond to the charge that the Newer Testament contains numerous contradictions? One example that comes to mind is the discussion concerning Charlie’s first post-accident appearance to his disciples. Was it in Kentucky, as the Gospel of Pat asserts, or did it take place in Texas as per the Gospel of Thomas?”

Dr. Green: “Joe, let me ask you a question. You are a reporter. Didn’t you ever interview witnesses to a car accident? Did you ever get the same exact testimony from each of the witnesses? Of-course not! I am sure that you are aware that Christian apologists use the “car-accident” argument to explain the contradictions that surround the crucifixion of Jesus. But Jesus did not die in a car accident. Jesus died through crucifixion, which is a long and drawn out process. Charlie did die in a car accident. It was over in an instant. Are you then surprised that the testimonies of his disciples don’t match up?”

Joe: “Christians argue that the concept of a third coming has no basis in the Old or New Testaments. They contend that this concept was only invented when Charlie failed to usher in the Messianic age as his followers had hoped. How do you respond to this Christian challenge?”

Dr. Green: “On the contrary, the events are progressing right on schedule. The three Old Testament holidays of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles serve as a precise parallel for the three comings of the Messiah. Christians who reject the truth of Charlie’s mission are forced to condense Passover and Pentecost as if they were one event on order to justify the belief in two comings. But a plain reading of the text indicates that these are two separate holidays leading us to the belief that there must be three comings of the Messiah.”

Joe: “Is it not true that Charlie predicted that the Messianic age will begin in the lifetime of his immediate followers? Here is the quote from the Gospel of Jerry (16:22): “this generation will not pass until these things come to pass”. Some Christians point to this prediction of Charlie and accuse him of prophesying falsehood.”

Dr. Green: “Do you think that the authors of the Newer Testament would preserve a false prophecy of Charlie in their Gospels? It is obvious that we are misunderstanding Charlie’s words because otherwise his followers would have never preserved them. There are actually several explanations that are possible when we consider Charlie’s words in their proper context. Charlie says “this generation”, but how do you know which generation he was referring to? It is entirely possible that he was talking of the final generation that will actually usher in the Messianic age. Another explanation offered by the most erudite scholars (Charolite scholars of-course), is that only some of the events will come to pass in the lifetime of his immediate followers, but the rest of them will only come to fruition at the end of the age. Yet another explanation of Charlie’s prediction tells us that the original followers of Charlie will come back to life before the Messianic age begins, and that they will not die an eternal death before they see Charlie come back in his glory. Any of these explanations are possible, so there is no way that Charlie can be accused of false prophecy.”

Joe: “Dr. Green, can you please tell us what you consider to be the most convincing proof of the Messiah-ship of Charlie?”

Dr. Green: “Gladly! Turn to Isaiah 53 of the Old Testament. Ask yourself: “who is this talking about?” people throughout the world, immediately associate this passage with Charlie. I am well aware that in countries where the message of Charlie has not yet permeated, people do not associate this passage with Charlie. In fact, in many states in North America, where the Charolite literature is banned by the Christian Churches, people never heard of Charlie, so they are incapable of making the correct associations. Still, wherever people have heard of Charlie and of his atoning death, they immediately associate this passage with him.

The fact that some associate this passage with Jesus is not a contradiction to the Charolite faith because Charolites believe that this passage in Isaiah actually refers to both Jesus and Charlie. The Scripture actually supports this concept because it identifies a plurality of saviors (Obadiah 1:21). This fits perfectly with the theology of Charolite because Charolites believe in two Messiah’s. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory Christian interpretation that explains the passage in Obadiah.

Furthermore, and I want your undivided attention for this one, Jesus could not have been the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 53. This passage can only be understood if we recognize that Jesus partially fulfilled this prophecy while Charlie came and fulfilled it in its entirety. In verse 9 of this passage we learn that the suffering servant is to die with the rich and be buried with the wicked. Now if we turn to the New Testament of Christianity we find that Jesus dies with the wicked, (remember the robbers crucified on either side of him), while he is buried in the grave of a rich man. Charlie on the other hand fully fulfilled the prophetic prediction. In the pile-up that took his life, there were two Porsches and a Lamborghini. Charlie certainly did die with the rich. When Charlie was laid to rest, it was with the wicked. The people buried on either side of him were both well known criminals. One of them had been accused of tax-evasion while the other had several traffic violations on his record. It is only in Charlie that the prophetic word is fully fulfilled.”

Joe: “The Charolite claim that Charlie is the fourth person of the god-head sounds strange to many Christians. Christians accuse the Charolites of polytheism and paganism. Could you please shed some light on this matter from a Charolite perspective?”

Dr. Green: “Sure. First of all, I want to make clear that we Charolites fully affirm both the monotheistic creed of Judaism and the Trinitarian creed of Christianity. Many Charolite Churches recite the Nicean creed as an essential part of their service. So we do not believe in four separate gods.

Another matter that I would like to clarify is that the term “fourth person in the god-head” appears nowhere in the Newer Testament. I find that this term only confuses people and I believe that it should be avoided. Charolites believe that the second person in the god-head is both Jesus and Charlie. It is not as if Charlie became Jesus, for that would be an absurdity, we believe that Jesus became Charlie. The sinless nature of Jesus came to dwell in the sinful personality of Charlie.

There is abundant Scriptural evidence for this doctrine. Psalm 89:27 reads: “Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Many Christians recognize that this is referring to the second person in the god-head. Yet verse 30 of that same passage speaks of the sins of this individual’s children. This cannot be a reference to Jesus, who never sinned and never had children. This passage only reached its full fulfillment in Charlie who was both sinful himself and had sinful children. Similarly, Psalm 41:9, which Jesus explicitly claimed to have fulfilled, speaks of the sins of the Messiah (verse 4). Since Jesus did not sin in his first earthly ministry, it is obvious that he must return and live a sinful life in order to fulfill this Messianic prophecy.

The key concept here is that way back in the days of Jesus people could not fathom a sinful Messiah. God had to break this concept in slowly, through progressive revelation. First, it had to be demonstrated that the divine could be semi-human, and finally it was demonstrated that the divine could be totally human.”

Joe: “Why do you refer to Jesus as “semi-human”? Do you not accept the Christian doctrine that Jesus was 100 percent human?”

Dr. Green: “It is only the Charolites who truly accept that doctrine. Christians who reject the Messiah-ship of Charlie believe in a semi-human Messiah. It is an essential part of human nature to sin. It is only through belief in Charlie that Christianity comes to its true goal of belief in a human Messiah who was both 100 percent human and 100 percent divine.”

Joe: “Can God sin?”

Dr. Green: “I would not be so quick to place limitations on God’s abilities. God could do whatever He so pleases.

I would ask you a question Joe. Do you want to believe in a savior who has never tasted the shame and the guilt of sin? Would you rather believe in a savior who was always right and never knew what it felt like to be wrong? As a Charolite I could fully identify with my savior who has been there and done that and I can be confident that he fully identifies with me.”

Joe: “Didn’t Jesus promise that those who believe in him will have eternal life? How does this square with Charlie’s claim that there is no path to eternal life only through faith in him?”

Dr. Green: “How could Christians receive eternal life if they rejected Jesus when he returned? True believers in Jesus recognize that Charlie is the true incarnation of Jesus, and throughout history, the true believers in Jesus were looking forward to the ultimate sacrifice of Charlie.”

Joe: “One final question if I may. How do you respond to the claim of the Doormans that the Book of Doorman is the true continuation of the Charolie Newer Testament?”

Dr. Green: “I want you to turn to the Book of Proverbs chapter 30 verse 6. The prophet clearly and explicitly states that no-one can add on to the inspired word of God. There is no way that we can accept additional books into the inspired canon of the three fold Testaments of the Old, the New, and the Newer.”

Joe: “Thank you Dr. Green for sharing your time and your scholarship with us today.”

Dr. Green: “You are more than welcome.”

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

The following is an excerpt from the forthcoming critique of the 4th volume of Dr. Brown’s “Answering Jewish Objections.   

Objection 5.26

Here Brown attempts to address the argument that it was Paul who invented Christianity as it is known today and not Jesus. Brown responds with the claim that Paul’s teachings are in complete harmony with the teachings of Jesus. Brown states: “The consistent testimony of the New Testament … affirms this point”.

I find this statement incredible.

A simple reading of Paul’s words reveals that Paul himself claimed to be the inventor of Christianity. Christians who want to believe that there was a smooth progression from the Jewish following of Jesus to the gentile following of Paul will find that there is no basis to their belief.

Let us allow Paul to speak for himself. “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.”(Galatians 1:11,12). Paul is telling us that the gospel that he preached was not taught to him by the disciples of Jesus. Paul is admitting that his gospel was revealed to him in a vision by the deceased Jesus. Paul takes his point a step further. “But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man`s person)– they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only [they would] that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.” (Galatians 2:6-13).

Let us understand what Paul is saying here. He is telling us that “those of repute” imparted nothing to him. Who are these people “of repute”? Paul tells us in verse 9 that these people of repute were James, Peter (Cephas) and John. In other words the disciples of Jesus taught Paul nothing. Paul takes this a step further by drawing a distinct boundary between himself and the Jewish disciples of Jesus. He tells us that he and they were charged with two different missions. They (the Jewish disciples) were charged to minister to the Jewish people (“unto the circumcision”), while he (Paul) was charged to minister to the gentiles. This means that the teaching that Jesus imparted to his Jewish disciples in his lifetime was meant for the Jewish people, while the teaching that the deceased Jesus imparted to Paul was meant for the gentiles. Paul claims that the Jewish disciples of Jesus acknowledged this division in the gospel. He then criticizes Peter and the Jewish followers of Jesus for violating this accepted boundary. He tells us that Peter and other believers from Jerusalem were trying to influence the gentiles to follow the teachings that were meant for the Jews. We can now understand the opening verses in the book of Galatians. “Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead),and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father: to whom [be] the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:1-9).

Paul is surprised that the gentile church of Galatia has so quickly abandoned his teachings. He is informing them that no man or angel has a right to disagree with him because his is the true teaching. Now who were these people that were trying to influence the people in Galatia to disobey Paul? It is clear that these would have been the Jewish disciples of Jesus, whom Paul accuses of duplicity (again – Paul claims that to his face they acknowledged that he had been appointed by the dead Jesus as an emissary to the gentiles, but behind his back they tried to influence the gentiles to follow their own version of the gospel. Remember, Paul accuses Peter; “…how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:14). Paul does not hide the fact that his teachings were considered false by people who were very influential in the early Church (1Corinthians 9:2, 2Corinthians 11:13).

It should be noted that the writings of the Christian scriptures as we have them today were redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The original Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew was destroyed by the gentile followers of Paul. Still, even the Pauline redactors had a difficult job attributing Pauline Christianity to Jesus. In the three Synoptic Gospels there is perhaps one statement attributed to Jesus that is a clear Pauline teaching (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). The origin of this statement is highly questionable. The last supper of Jesus is the one area where Paul comments on Jesus’ lifetime activities. Paul explicitly states that he received this teaching directly from the dead Jesus (1Corinthians 11:23). The Pauline redactors of the gospels had what they considered a “reliable” source for this story. There is no reason to assume that there was any other source for this story. When this story is removed from the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is no longer a Christian.

The book of Acts was written by a follower of Paul. It is clear that he was motivated to present a picture in which Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus agreed on the fundamental issues. The story that the book of Acts relates is quite different than Paul’s version of the events. When Paul speaks of his own conversion, he finds it important to tell us that “straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days” (Galatians 1:16,17,18). But when the book of Acts describes the same events we get an entirely different picture. No word is mentioned of a trip to Arabia. Paul spends time with the disciples in Damascus, then he preaches in Damascus. It is then told that he arrives in Jerusalem where the Christians were not convinced of the sincerity of Paul’s conversion to the degree that they were afraid of him. (This gives the impression that it was much less than three years between Paul’s conversion and his arrival in Jerusalem.) But Barnabas reassures the apostles and Paul was “with them going in and going out at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28).

I am well aware that all of these contradictions can be reconciled by agile minds. But there is a deeper question to be asked. Why the differences? Why does Paul consider it of utmost importance to tell us of his trip to Arabia, of the three-year period that elapses before he comes to Jerusalem, and of the fact that he saw none of the apostles aside from Peter and James? Why does Paul start out his post-conversion story by telling us that “he conferred not with flesh and blood”? And why does the author of Acts regard these same facts to be so insignificant that the picture he paints leaves an opposite impression?

It is clear that the author of the book of Acts was motivated to present Paul’s preaching as a smooth progression from the preaching of the other apostles. Paul, on the other hand, was motivated to show that his preaching is from a source that is superior to the preaching of the other apostles. It was not important to Paul to show a smooth progression. It was enough for Paul to tell us of a begrudging acknowledgment of his preaching by the apostles who saw the live Jesus.

The story that Paul tells us in Galatians 2;7-9 is also roundly contradicted by the author of Acts. Paul claims that the leaders of the Jerusalem Church “saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision”. Paul is claiming that these men recognized that the dead Jesus had spoken to him and authorized him to teach just as the live Jesus had spoken to Peter and authorized Peter to preach in his name. The book of Acts tells us that no such acknowledgment ever took place. In chapter 15 of the book of Acts we are told that when a question arose concerning gentile observance of the Law, Peter and James speak and present their understanding of the matter. If, as Paul claimed, Peter and James truly acknowledged Paul’s apostleship, they should have simply said; Jesus appointed Paul as an apostle to the gentiles, let us obey him. According to the book of Acts, they did nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the book of Acts describes the last meeting between James and Paul, and again the issue of gentile observance comes up, and again James makes reference to the previous decision of the Jerusalem Church and says not a word about Paul’s apostleship (Acts 21:25).

Another revealing episode is described in chapter 21 of the book of Acts. Paul arrives in Jerusalem and is informed by James that “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come.” (Acts 21:20-22).

According to James, all the Jewish Christians are zealous for the law. The word that James uses (zealous), implies ardor, enthusiasm, passion and excitement. Is this Pauline Christianity? Which Christian denomination encourages Jewish people to be “zealous for the law”?

According to James, it is not the Jerusalem Church that oversteps its boundaries by trying to influence the gentiles (as per Galatians 2:14), but it is Paul who is overstepping his boundaries in trying to influence the Jews. The author of the book of Acts gives us the impression that this was a false accusation that was not accepted by James, but he does acknowledge that all the Jewish believers believed this accusation.

The author of the book of Acts does not explicitly tell us how the members of the Jerusalem Church felt about this accusation. But from the little he says, we can understand that this was no friendly misunderstanding. The words “they will certainly hear that thou art come”, imply that the mere fact of Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem will stir up agitation amongst the Jewish Christians. This agitation was not something that could have been settled by James reassuring his following that this was an innocent misunderstanding, and Paul was truly loyal to the law. The conflict was so deep that a verbal explanation on Paul’s part would also not put the issue to rest. It is clear that the Jewish Christians did not trust Paul’s words.

The only way James could end the conflict was by telling Paul; “Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.” (Acts 21:23,24).

The author of the book of Acts would have us believe that this action on Paul’s part would serve as a declaration of Paul’s true beliefs. Paul’s participation in the Temple rites, would demonstrate to one and all that he was truly loyal to the law of Moses. This explanation fits with the inclination of the author of Acts to minimize the conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Church. But this explanation is highly unlikely. If this conflict could not be settled through a verbal declaration on Paul’s part, why would a public performance put the accusations to rest? If the Jewish Christians suspected Paul of lying with his mouth, why would they be so naive to think that he could he not lie with his actions?

The more likely explanation is that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem could not care less what it was that Paul believed in his heart. What they wanted with this public demonstration was an act of repudiation of his teaching. They wanted to make clear, that in the presence of the disciples of Jesus, Paul did not have the backbone to stand for his own principles. This was not to be a demonstration of loyalty, it was to stand as a public renunciation of Pauline Christianity.

Whether you believe that this activity on the part of Paul was to serve as a demonstration of loyalty, or you feel as I do, that this was a forced retraction, there are several questions that the author of Acts leaves unanswered. Of all the activities proscribed by the law of Moses, why did James choose a Temple rite for this public presentation? If the only purpose of this demonstration was to reassure the Jewish Christians that Paul was loyal to the law, a public act of observance of any point in the law would have served. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves, why was this particular Temple rite chosen by James? Why did it have to be a Nazirite offering? Why would a simple burnt offering not have served the same purpose? It is clear that nothing less than a Nazirite offering on the part of Paul would satisfy the Jerusalem Christians. Why not?

The answer is staring us in the face. A Nazirite offering includes a sacrifice that is offered for the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin (Numbers 6:14). Paul’s central teaching is that the only valid method of expiating sin is through the blood of Jesus. The Jewish Christians did not accept this teaching. They believed that the law of Moses provided for the expiation of sin through various methods including the offering of animals in the Temple for this purpose. When Paul would participate in this rite, he would be publicly repudiating his own teaching on the matter.

Some Christians have argued that these offerings on the part of the Jewish Christians would not serve as a repudiation of Pauline Christianity. These offerings were understood to be pointing back to the sacrifice of Jesus. This explanation fails for several reasons. First, the offerings were to be processed by the non-Christian Temple establishment. The priests who processed the offerings would have understood them as Moses explains, that these offerings themselves atoned for sin. The concept that the sacrifices no longer atoned stands as a polar opposite of the soul and spirit of the Temple establishment. The idea of handing offerings to these people as an expression of loyalty to Christian doctrine, is flatly ridiculous.

The second reason that this Christian explanation does not work is because this act was meant as a public demonstration. Paul was not given an opportunity to explain his actions. He was simply to go into the Temple and participate in this offering for the expiation of sin. James trusted that the onlookers would fully understand the message that is inherent in these actions. How would the Jerusalem crowds have understood this message? There is no question that these people would have read the message of Paul’s actions as an affirmation of the efficacy of the Temple sacrifices. No one ever taught these people a different understanding of the sacrifices. The entire concept of “sacrifices pointing back to Jesus” was invented recently under polemical pressure. This concept is not mentioned anywhere in the Christian scriptures or in the writings of any Christian theologian until recently. We can be sure that this concept was not popular currency in the Jerusalem Church of James.

Finally, this explanation (the sacrifices pointed back to Jesus) fails to explain why the members of the Jerusalem Church saw in this act of Paul a declaration of loyalty to the principles they held so dear. Why would this act stand as a symbol of their zeal for the Law?

Let us summarize what we have learned. Paul claimed that no living person taught him anything. He claimed that the teachings that Jesus imparted during his lifetime were meant for the Jews, while the teachings that Paul learned in his visions were meant for the gentiles. Paul accuses the Jewish followers of Jesus for failing to respect this division and attempting to influence the gentiles. Paul tells us that there were people who were very influential in the Church who preached a different gospel than his own. Despite the fact that Paul’s disciples redacted the synoptic gospels, it is still difficult to find a clear Pauline statement attributed to Jesus in these books. The book of Acts makes clear that the Jerusalem Church never acknowledged Paul’s claim to prophecy. The book of Acts also makes clear that there were deep differences between Paul and the members of the Jerusalem Church. (There is more to discuss here, such as the tone and the emphasis of the book of James, the fact that the Jewish disciples of Jesus were shocked by his death, and the fact that the Church of James was allowed to flourish in Pharisaic Jerusalem, but the discussion has already become to lengthy.)

We have an abundance of evidence that Paul and not Jesus was the inventor of Christianity. How does Brown deal with this accusation? In the thirteen pages that Brown devoted to this subject, there are only a few sentences that deal with the issues we raised here. On page 201 Brown tells us that Paul was “recognized as a key player by the other key leaders in Acts 15”. Brown does not explain how the description of the author of Acts contradicts Paul’s own version of the event. Brown also does not tell us that the episode as described in Acts makes clear that the leaders of the Jerusalem Church did NOT accept Paul’s claim to prophecy.

Brown tells us that Paul “dispelled any doubts about his teachings and personal practices in Acts 21” (page 201). This is quite a bizarre statement. The story in Acts 21 reveals the deep friction that existed between all of the Jewish believers and Paul. The Jerusalem Church saw the core of their differences in the Temple offerings. And Brown is satisfied with the pat assurance that Paul “dispelled any doubts”?! Why was there this deep distrust between Paul and the Jerusalem Church? Why were the members of the Jerusalem Church busy with Temple offerings after the crucifixion of Jesus? Why could Paul not reassure the Jewish believers with a simple speech? Why did James and Peter not reassure their own followers? Why did Paul have to do it? Why were the members of the Jerusalem Church so zealous for the Law of Moses? Brown does not seem to have answers for these questions.

Brown tells us that Paul “passed on what he received”. Brown does not make clear to his readership that when Paul says the word “received” he does not mean that he received the teaching from the Jewish disciples of Jesus, but rather he personally received these teachings in visions from the dead Jesus.

Brown tells us that “with the exception of some heretical groups (like the Ebionites), Paul’s teachings were received by the second generation of believers, including men who were disciples of the original apostles (such as Polycarp).” I find this sentence quite astounding. Brown tells us nothing about the deep opposition to Paul from within the Church in his own lifetime. This opposition came straight from Jerusalem, the place where Jesus lived and taught. Instead Brown is satisfied to pass on to his readers a piece of Christian mythology. None of the original Hebrew and Aramaic writings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus and their subsequent followings survived the blind fury of the Pauline Church. All of the writings we have from the early Christians were either written or redacted by the gentile followers of Paul. The writings of the early Church fathers tell us precious little about the life and teachings of the Jewish disciples of Jesus. There is one association that Brown and other fundamentalist Christians seize upon. Polycarp! It is claimed that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Polycarp died approximately in the year 160 C.E. If he ever saw John, it could only have been at a time that he was a small boy and John was an old man. Polycarp does not quote John. He does not tell us anything about the life and teachings of John. The entire claim of Polycarp’s discipleship of John, is at best, an exaggeration of a brief sighting in his youth.

If you are a Christian, I beg of you please absorb what you have just read. The accusation that Paul invented Christianity has deep foundations in the Christian scriptures and in the history of the early Church. Dr. Brown who is a very capable person (and I do not mean this sarcastically), could not provide a defense against this accusation aside from four hollow sentences. So what is the basis of your faith?

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

A Brief History of Charlie and the Charolites

“All these things spake he unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Charlie H. Smith was a traveling Christian preacher. He began his public ministry in the summer of 2012, about July or August. It did not take long for Charlie to gather a loyal following. His followers were few in number and even smaller in the aggregate of their intellectual and spiritual credentials, but their loyalty to Charlie was absolute.

Charlie’s preached a mixed message. On the one hand he spoke of love, peace, tolerance and self-negation. On the other hand, Charlie railed against the respected figures of Christendom. He called them all types of names and rained upon their heads all manners of curses. Until today, it is not clear which part of his message was more appealing to his followers. Some historians argue that his simplistic teachings on love and peace spoke to the hearts of those who found themselves so hurt by the injustices of society. Other historians contend that it was his message of hate towards the established figures of Christian society that attracted those who felt intimidated by the high society of Christendom to begin with.

Towards the end of his rather brief ministry, Charlie began dropping hints as to what he believed was his role in the cosmic plan of Christian eschatology. By the winter of 2015, Charlie’s followers were convinced that their leader was no less than a second incarnation of Jesus. Charlie’s devoted followers firmly believed that they were witnessing and participating in the second coming of the Christian Savior.

When Charlie was killed in a car accident in April of 2015, his followers were shell-shocked. But their shock did not last more than a few days. Due to the confusion that arose at the time of Charlie’s hasty burial, some of Charlie’s followers became convinced that a certain empty mausoleum was the place were Charlie had been laid to rest. The fact that the mausoleum was subsequently found empty convinced these followers that Charlie had risen from the dead. This report was followed by the rumor that some of his followers had actually seen Charlie since he had died.

Those followers of Charlie who believed in Charlie’s resurrection expected Charlie to return and take his rightful place as the incarnation of Jesus. These believers maintained their own Churches for some time after Charlie’s death or disappearance. Although they attempted to recruit followers from amongst the Christians, their efforts did not meet with much success. The fact that the establishment Churches spent time and effort criticizing Charlie’s followers energized Charlie’s devoted believers, but made it difficult for them to grow their Church.

In 2033, all of this changed. That was the year of Harry S Percy’s conversion to the Charolite faith (as Charlie’s followers came to be called). Harry was a man of vision and energy. Harry quickly developed his own understanding of Charlie’s cosmic role and of his own mission to the world. According to Harry, Charlie was the fourth person in the Christian god-head. He was one and the same with Jesus, but he was a different person in the god-head. Charlie’s death had been an atonement for the sins of the world. According to Harry, the death of Jesus could only have been a foreshadowing of Charlie’s supreme sacrifice. Harry and his theologians (and it did not take long for Harry to raise schools of theologians), argued that since Jesus had never sinned, his death could not rightfully atone for sin. As someone who never sinned, Jesus could never be able to atone for sin. Harry argued that it was only Charlie, as a man who was intimately familiar with the concept of sin, who could provide atonement with his death. It was Harry who attributed to Charlie the statement; “No one comes to Jesus but through me”. And it was Harry, of-course, who invented the concept of a “third coming”.

Harry also believed that he was appointed by Charlie (who appeared to Harry several times) to minister to non-Christians. Harry’s message was strongly opposed by the original following of Charlie, and it was certainly challenged by the establishment Churches of Christendom, but Harry did not care. Harry traveled to the far-east and to Africa where he made millions of converts to the Charolite faith. It did not take long for the converts of Harry to outnumber and overpower the original Charolite Church.

Once these followers of Harry gained the reigns of power in the Charolite movement they set about to eradicate every last vestige of opposition to the doctrines of Harry. The followers of Harry did not stop at killing the original followers of Charlie and burning their Churches. They tried to eradicate every last bit of documentation that could serve as a refutation to the doctrines of Harry. The followers of Harry rewrote and edited the Newer Testament touted by the original Charolites. They did not stop there but they appended Harry’s epistles to the Newer Testament, making Harry’s teachings equal with those of Charlie.

It is fortunate that Harry’s followers were not entirely successful. The authors of this article have come into possession of some historical documentation that has escaped the clutches of the Charolite inquisitors. With time we hope to make these documents available to the public.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal