Thomas Jeffersons viewpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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