Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, Valentin de Boulogne or Nicolas Tournier, 16th Century (Source: Wikipedia)

This post is revised from a comment I made over at Reddit on r/DebateAChristian.  The original reddit post, by the brilliant Basilides, concerns whether Paul actually preached about an earthly Jesus, the Jesus defined by and understood through the gospels of the New Testament.  My argument is that Paul’s letters make far more sense if read in isolation from the gospels.

Paul implicitly commands his followers to abide by the dictates of earthly rulers, whom he declares to be sanctioned by God.  According to the apostle, all governments and authorities on earth have been established and sanctioned by God (Romans 13:1).  This ostensibly includes the Roman Empire, the authority according to the gospels responsible for Jesus’ torture and execution.  Furthermore, Paul claims that had the “rulers of this age” understood the message of Christ, the execution would not have taken place:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.  But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.  None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.  (1 Corinthians 2:6-8, RSV)

There is a problem with this passage for Christian orthodoxy and I’d like to briefly address it before making my main points.  Paul states that his message of Christ is “a secret and hidden wisdom of God.”  This is the language of Gnosticism.  Spiritual gnosis, or knowledge, is hidden and can only be found through a mature understanding of revelation and scripture.  Paul speaks in this kind of language throughout the epistles, but this element of the apostle’s message is beyond the scope of this post.

Let me return to my primary focus.  The author states that had the “rulers of this age” known of Christ’s wisdom, which through the lens of orthodoxy we would assume to be salvation through Jesus, they would never have crucified him.  Yet I thought the earthly crucifixion, Jesus’ sacrifice, was essential for human salvation.

These seeming contradictions make far more sense if one sees the writings attributed to Paul as being proto-Gnostic teachings, where the true gospel of Christ is not passed down in any historical way, from a once living person (Jesus), but is only revealed through understanding the supposedly true message of scripture.

We can easily see the revealed nature of Paul’s gospel in examining his opening to his letter to the Romans:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in holy scriptures… (Romans 1:1-2)

Paul here is not claiming his gospel has been derived from an earthly Jesus, but rather plainly states it has been “promised beforehand” via Hebrew scripture, as he similarly does in the 1 Corinthians passage quoted above (“decreed before the ages for our glorification”). In other words, his message comes not from Jesus’ life or the preachings of the apostles, but rather through revelation alone.

We can find a similar, though more explicit, pronouncement on the source of his revelation about Christ in Galatians:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.  (Galatians 1:11-12)

Again, a definitive statement that his message about Jesus is not historically based, but is rather spiritually based.  No one taught him of it.  He didn’t read about it, hear stories of the gospel.  It is definitively a message rooted in mystical experience, not of this world.

All that being said, the works attributed to Paul seem highly schizophrenic. Immediately following Paul’s opening to Romans quoted above, the author continues:

…the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.  (Romans 1:3-4)

This is one of the passages apologists have long held up as proof that Paul preached the historical Christ. First, he writes of one “descended from David.” However, if we consider Paul’s previous salutation that he is preaching a message revealed by God “beforehand through his [God's] prophets in holy scripture,” we can clearly see the Davidic reference in Psalms is not literal:

Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.”

I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.”  (Psalms 2:1-8)

In other words, just like the kings of Israel and Israel itself (for whom this passage was meant to represent allegorically) Jesus, whom Paul declares the “Son of God,” is proclaimed to be king and descendant of David, for whom this Psalm was meant (“A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.” Psalms 2:12) This interpretation solves the seemingly contradictory basis for Paul’s message as being one simultaneously delivered spiritually through revelation and also acquired by means of a story based in history. Interpreted this way, Paul’s Christ is a spiritual king, as revealed through scripture.

Furthermore, we should also examine the statement of Paul that Jesus was not only “descended from David” but supposedly as such “according to the flesh.” This is an esoteric and vague statement to say the least. What does “according to the flesh” actually mean? Are we to really to define it as “born in physical form?” Let’s look further into what Paul says about the flesh in Romans:

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on things according to the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  (Romans 8:3-8)

Does this mean Jesus, if he existed here on earth, of the flesh, could not please God?  Seems likely.  And would the author of such a statement actually believe the redeemer of humanity he called the Christ was literally born of the flesh? Most likely not. It’s clear that in Paul’s theology, neither “according to the flesh” nor “according to the spirit” are meant to be descriptions of actual reality here on earth.  They are better understood as philosophical distinctions, differing ways of living life, one rooted in faith, the other in sin.  According to Paul’s theology, Jesus never became flesh as we would understand it.

Paul deplores the flesh. His Christ existed from the start of creation, on a spiritual plane (Colossians 1:15). There’s never a single mention in the writings attributed to Paul of Jesus’ earthly ministry to be found, no miraculous birth, healings, walking on water, feeding the poor, not even his words and pronouncements on issues Paul was concerned about in his writings. No. Paul’s Christ lived not in the flesh, but was rather a higher, spiritual power revealed only through Hebrew scripture, and only to those with proper gnosis.

Technorati Tags: Atheism, Christianity, debate, Jesus Myth, religion

Related posts:

1. The inspired word of God

Technorati Tags: Atheism, religion

Related posts:

1. The inspired word of God

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

No related posts.

Here’s an edited version of an email exchange I recently had with a Christian fundamentalist. I’m no expert in arguing against the existence of god, but the source I principally relied on makes some great points that the person I debated has yet to respond to. Questioning these basic tenets of the fundamentalist is an important stance to make from my perspective because quite often the next step they take is an argument based in “human nature.” It’s a way to explain why they believe humans as fallen beings, evil, hopeless without god’s grace. Perhaps more interesting – at least to me – is how this religious-based argument of a fallen human nature tends to pose as a justification of the status quo, gross inequalities, hierarchy, social control, even human rights violations, you name it. This pops up every time I get into any political exchange with a fundamentalist – though I think the human nature angle is at the root of most ideoligically-based arguments whether liberal, conservative, atheist, or not.

The following points I make basically paraphrase Dr. Niclas Berggren’s essay “The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible”

The fundamentalist asks: Do you believe in the God of the bible?

From what I understand there are, and have been, many differing interpretations of what exactly the “God of the bible” is. The history of Christianity is a history filled with scism and disagreement – often leading to violence – about how to properly view what/who God is. Is god omniscient, all-powerful? Loving? Does (s)he intervene in everyday human affairs? Or only in important events? Or not at all? (You get the drift.)

So the question needs further explication. Is one talking about Catholic views? Babtist? Episcopalian? Pentecostal? Etc.? Dr Berggren makes a great point in naming only a few of the conflicts within christianity:

“…the list of intra-Christian controversies could be made much longer: suffice it to mention the papacy, the doctrine regarding Mary, the trinity, baptism, speaking in tongues (where, interestingly, Fundamentalist Baptists and Fundamentalist Pentecostals disagree), the issue of creationism, predestination, purgatory, consciousness after death, and so on.”

I asked my interlocutor what his biblical interpretation of God actually is, what it consists of, pointing out that whatever it was many Christians in the world would no doubt disagree with that interpretation – and not merely on inconsequential grounds, but in fundamental ways. That very fact shows me there are some problems with the god-of-the-bible starting point. Assuming something as self evident that is anything but.

Questioning my debater further I continued, if all the others are wrong – as I’m sure you believe – what proves YOU right? Why should I see your particular version out of many within christianity as correct and all the others as misguided? These are important considerations when discussing religion – all religions.

The fundamentalist: Do you think the bible is the inspired word of God?

No. The bible was obviously written by human beings with all the inconsistencies, contradictions and what-not this fact entails. Do you mean to insinuate the scriptures are inerrant, perfect, without fault? To prove such an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof if anyone is to believe it.

If god is perfect, wouldn’t god’s word be perfect? But what about translation? Why wouldn’t this perfect being ensure that the translations were perfect also, without difference or mistake? So it is up to you – the believer – to explain why this perfect being allowed imperfect translations to occur. If you cannot, there cannot be a god as you know it.

Also, wouldn’t an all-knowing, perfect god be able to provide the world with a way to unambiguously decide the veracity of the bible, without question?

I know you’ll answer some of this with the idea of free will and the centrality of faith. But if we have free will, how did god force humans to write his revelation without errors? The idea of force excludes free will. Also, doesn’t the bible say that no one can avoid sinning? (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12 and 1 John 1:8-10) Free will and forcing one’s vision on others to write are not compatible. Why not present his word in another way, not counting on fallible human beings?

You would agree that humans are fallible right? So if god allowed humans to write his inspired word, isn’t there a better than good chance some mistakes were made?

I’m going to quote Dr. Berggre concerning something you’ve brought up quite a few times before concerning some of these problems:

“…are we not limited in our wisdom and capacity to comprehend divine matters? Even if the reasoning above appears correct, we may not be able to trust it. This is a rather frequent argument from Christians when they encounter things which they are unable to understand; these things are then termed ‘mysteries.’ However, if we surrender our ability to reason and make things intelligible, what can we possibly resort to in its place? Blind faith in ‘mysteries’ unsolved? That hardly seems a more reliable approach.”

There’s also some wonderful evidence the fundamentalist must address address. Evidence that proves the bible to be inconsistent:

“We will look at three Bible passages: Acts 13:17-22, 1 Chron. 29:27-28 and 1 Kings 6:1. The first two in conjunction inform us that Solomon’s reign began at least 530 years after the Hebrews left Egypt. But 1 Kings 6:1 claims that Solomon’s reign began 476 years after the Hebrews left Egypt – a discrepancy of at least 54 years.”

I think these are important points with regard to Christianity (and only touch a massive iceberg) and need to be addressed by all Christians, not just fundamentalists. Please try to enlighten me and show me the mistakes of Dr. Berggre’s essay. They could very well be wrong, but he makes excellent points using empirical arguments.

Related posts:

1. Reading the Apostle Paul Without Gospel-Colored Glasses