If I were starting a church, which way would I go--Jesus or Paul? It depends on how faithful I was to the original teachings of the Master versus compromising with the material world.

Paul contradicted Jesus. Paul repeatedly attacked idolatry. (Romans 1:23; I Corinthians 6:9-10; II Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 5:19-21) He recognized the immorality of accepting food offered to idols and pagan gods: “...that which they sacrifice they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” (I Corinthians 10:20) Yet Paul then proceeded to give his followers permission to eat food offered to pagan idols! “You may eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience; for the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it.” (I Corinthians 10:14-33)

Paul told his followers they need only abstain from such foods if it offends their “weak” brethren: “For if someone sees you...sitting at the table in an idol temple, will not his conscience, weak as it is, encourage him to eat food offered to idols?...If my eating causes my brother to stumble, I shall eat no meat for ever, so that my brother will not be made to fall into sin.” (I Corinthians 8:1-13)

Not only does this contradict the Apostles’ decree concerning gentile converts (Acts 15), it contradicts the teachings of Jesus himself. In Revelations 2:14-16,20, the resurrected Jesus specifically instructs John to write to two churches that they not eat food offered to idols. Secular historian Dr. Martin A. Larson writes in The Story of Christian Origins that the seven Asian churches Jesus wrote to (Revelation 1:4) were Jewish Christian (Ebionite) churches that had repudiated Paul. (II Timothy 1:15)

Paul considered himself a Roman (Acts 22:25-26) and an apostate from Judaism (Philippians 3:4-8). Jesus, however, insisted that even seemingly insignificant demands from the Law of Moses could not be set aside. (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17) It's hard to tell at times if Paul rejected the entire Law or only its Pharisaic excesses, since he cited the Law as spiritual authority (e.g., I Corinthians 14:21,34). On at least one occasion, he acknowledged the Law to be spiritual, but admitted his own inability to observe it. (Romans 7:12,14-25)

On another occasion, Paul stated that laws are laid down for the lawless: morality is meant for those who would otherwise lack morals. (I Timothy 1:8-11) Many of Paul’s statements are not against the Law itself, but against the hypocrisy with which it was being enforced or observed (Galatians 2:1-14), and the fact that the gentiles were not obliged to follow all of Mosaic Law. (Acts 15)

According to writer Holger Kersten:

“What we refer to as Christianity today is largely an artificial doctrine of rules and precepts, created by Paul and more worthy of the designation ‘Paulinism.’

“The church historian Wilhelm Nestle expressed the issue in the following manner, ‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul; it replaced Christ’s gospel with a gospel about Christ.’

“Paulinism in this sense means a misinterpretation and indeed counterfeiting of Christ’s actual teachings, as arranged and initiated by Paul...

“Paul also prepared the path for the later ecclesiastical teachings on original sin and the trinity. As long ago as the 18th century, the English philosopher Lord Bolingbroke (1678-1751) could make out two completely different religions in the New Testament, that of Jesus and that of Paul. Kant, Lessing, Fichte and Schelling also sharply distinguish the teachings of Jesus from those of the ‘disciples.’ A great number of reputable modern theologians support and defend these observations.”

The Reverend J. Todd Ferrier, founder of the Order of the Cross, wrote in 1903:

“But Paul, great and noble man as he was, never was one of the recognized heads at Jerusalem. He had been a Pharisee of the Pharisees...He strove to be all things to all men that he might gain some. And we admire him for his strenuous endeavors to win the world for Christ. But no one could be all things to all men without running the great risks of most disastrous results...

“But...How is it that the gospel of Paul is more to many people than the gospel of those privileged souls who sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His secrets in the Upper Room?”

Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing also says, “With all due respect for the integrity of Paul, he was not one of the Twelve Apostles...Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never walked and prayed with Him as He went from place to place, teaching the word of God.”

Paul’s writings indicate that vegetarianism was a tenet of early Christianity and debate about foods were widespread in the early church (Romans 14; Colossians 2:16). Paul characterized his vegetarian brethren as “weak.” Paul told his gentile followers that it is best to abstain from meat or from food offered to idols so as not to offend the “weaker” brethren. (I Corinthians 8:1-13)

Paul’s use of the word “weak” has been debated. Dr. Upton Clary Ewing believes Paul used the word “weak” with a positive connotation. According to Paul, “God has chosen the weak things in the world to shame the strong.” (I Corinthians 1:27)

Paul wrote:

“If I must boast, I shall boast of matters that show my weakness...I will boast, but not about myself—unless it be about my weakness...the Lord...he told me, ‘...my strength comes to perfection where there is weakness.’ Therefore,” Paul concluded, “I am happy to boast in my weaknesses...I delight, then, in weaknesses...for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (II Corinthians 11:30, 12:1-10)

Paul wrote further that Jesus “was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives through divine power, and we, too, are weak in him; but we shall live with him for your benefit through the power of God...We are happy to be weak when you are strong.” (II Corinthians 13:4,9)

Taken in this context, the word “weak” suggests complete dependence upon God.