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

British mentalist Derren Brown recently produced Derren Brown: Miracles For Sale, an interesting expose on faith healing.  While some of the editing is a little poor and fast-cut and it has a reality show quality to it, it’s worth watching in my opinion.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, Derren Brown, faith healing, religion

I’m writing this in response to some things argued over on my Facebook page relating to my last post about Glenn Beck’s absurd statements concerning the Antichrist.

If we want to seriously discuss Beck’s Antichrist theories, maybe we should start with the Christian notion and definition of “antichrist.” Using my bible software to search the term I came up with four verses: 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, and 2 John 1:7. Let’s start with 1 John 2:18, RSV:

Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.

Right away you see a problem for Christians, at least if you want to apply notions of the Antichrist to current events. The anonymous author of this passage was probably writing somewhere around 1,900 years ago yet claims to be living in the final hour before Christ’s return. He’s not talking about some date way off in the future. To any honest reader the last hour can only mean one thing: the author assumes he and his readers were living in the end times.

Also note how he claims “many antichrists have come.” In using the plural of the word, 1 John is likely referring to Jesus’ own predictions of the tribulation in Matthew and Mark:

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22 RSV)

Most biblical scholars see 1 John as being a theological corrective against gnostic teaching spreading throughout the early Christian community at the time. While many variations existed, most Gnostics denied that Jesus had actually been a man, either he never really existed on earth or, if he had, only appeared human (Docetism). They could not accept that God, a perfect, all-benevolent being, would take the form of imperfect, evil flesh.

The obvious anti-Gnostic tone of 1 John and its relation to the idea of antichrist is obvious later:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. (1 John 4:1-3 RSV)

The author is speaking of a schism, a break within Christianity, occurring at the time he writes about the antichrist and false prophets, not some distant evil force to come much later. For example, immediately after mentioning the “many antichrists,” he says of them:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19 RSV)

He is clearly talking about a group of Christians that have split from his own community, a doctrinal dispute, not future leaders.  As well, the author speaks of anyone denying that Jesus is the Christ and who denies the Father and Son is also the antichrist. (1 John 2:22 RSV)

Following on this theme of equating the concept of antichrist with Gnostic Christians and those that deny Jesus is the Christ, the fourth and final mention of antichrist in the New Testament is 2 John 1:7. There the author, now calling himself the Elder, addresses Kuria, or Lady, usually assumed to be the Christian church but seeming more like a reference to an actual person (Kuria would not have been an uncommon name at the time). In his brief letter the Elder further warns Kuria against accepting docetist Christians into her community out of Christian hospitality:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.

If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greetings; for he who greets him shares his wicked work. (2 John 1:7-10 RSV)

Clearly, antichrist here refers to those wandering false prophets, the docetic heretics of early Christianity, not current day Islamists as Glenn Beck would have you believe.

Yet, Beck doesn’t mention the actual passages in the New Testament about the Antichrist; he and his guest instead talk about The Revelation of John. Unfortunately, and contrary to most people’s understandings of the Antichrist, Revelation never uses the word. The best apologists can do is try to make the Antichrist be one of the two beasts (or both) written about in this apocalypse. But it is a futile effort.

Any honest historian will recognize – following the same techniques used in analyzing other apocalypses – the Revelation of John is clearly attempting to explain the times it was written, not some far-distant events and certainly not a future Islamic empire. For example, many apologists think the first beast of Revelation is the Antichrist.  It is a ten-horned, seven-headed creature described by the prophet as being “like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.” (Revelation 13:2 RSV)

The argument would be that the dragon is Satan, the dreadful beast rising out of the sea, the Antichrist. A second beast “which rose out of the earth” is the forceful, militaristic servant of the first. (Revelation 13:11-14) Furthermore, this second beast inflicts upon all humankind a mark, “that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.” (Revelation 13:17-18) We all know that number. It’s six-hundred and sixty-six. Here’s what the footnote of that passage in my copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible says: “Since Hebrew and Greek letters have numerical equivalents, the number of the beast (666) is the sum of the separate letters of his name. Of countless explanations, the most probable is Neron Caesar (in Hebrew letters), which, if spelled without the final n, also accounts for the variant reading, 616 [which other ancient biblical authorities claim and attest]” ( The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ft. nt. 1505).

In Hebrew and Christian communities at the time the use of numerology would have been widely understood. In this case the second beast is the hated Roman empire, if not the emperor himself.

Later on the first beast, or Antichrist, appears again, in Revelation 17. Here we are introduced to “the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication, the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” (Revelation 17:1-2 RSV)  This woman is clearly symbolic of the city of Rome, the center of imperial power in that region at that time. (“And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of earth.” [Revelation 17:18 RSV])  The many waters she is seated upon explains Rome’s geographical and maritime dominance, as does the statement that the kings of earth fornicate with her and their people have become drunk with her power. These are client leaders of the territories of Rome, subservient slaves to her biddings. The harlot rides upon the Antichrist – or the beast with seven heads and ten horns – she is dressed in riches, exemplifying Rome’s wealth.

In Revelation 17:9-11 (RSV) the Roman character of the beast and prediction is clear:

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to perdition.

Here – and not lost to the reader of the time – the seven mountains are undoubtedly Rome, the city on seven hills: Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palantine, Quirinal, and Viminal. Some scholars argue that the seven kings of this passage are Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero (“five of whom have fallen”), Vespasian (“one is,” meaning at the time when apparently written) and Titus (“has yet come”). The eighth that “belongs to the seven” is Domitian. Interestingly there is evidence that some Christians felt Domitian was Nero (666) reincarnated.  For example, in this passage the predicted beast (Domitian) once had been, or “was” (emperor Nero) as the passage states, yet now “is not,” at least according to this so-called prophesy, but will be.

Like all apocalypses of the time the author places himself further in the past than the time he is writing in order to add credence to his prophesies. This can be seen by the fact that his predictions are very accurate until he actually begins to make predictions about things that are yet to come; there he fails.  John is most likely writing during the reign of Domitian (81-96 C.E.), the eighth king, because his visions of things to come after the emperor’s reign fail or run dry. He never mentions that Rome will eventually become a Christian empire. Wouldn’t you expect that? In fact, John prophesies the second coming of Christ under Domitian or immediately after, which obviously never happened.

Also his description of the fall of Rome (Babylon) is way off the mark. Here he writes:

And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and were wanton with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning; they will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, “Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come.” (Revelation 18:9-10 RSV)

In fact, Rome never actually fell, especially immediately after or during the rule of Domitian, much less in an hour. Following the adoption of Christianity as the official and only religion of the empire a few hundred years later, Roman authority moved its headquarters to current-day Istanbul, then Constantinople. Rome as a city continued, while Roman administration moved east. The prophet John in Revelation is way off the mark in his prophesies of Rome’s downfall. Rome, the beast/Antichrist, became the center, protector, and promoter of Christianity  (i.e., Christendom), not its prosecutor.

Seeing that New Testament claims of the Antichrist and the Beast are little more than easily-explained writings addressing and describing the time when written – be they anti-Gnostic doctrinal letters or pro-Christian arguments prophesying the collapse of Rome – we have no reason to ascribe current events to these ancient documents.

In his program Glenn Beck references one passage from The Revelation of John to prove his point that the coming 12^th Imam is the Antichrist:

Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4 RSV)

The important part of the text in Beck’s language is “beheaded.” His argument is simple: certain radical Muslims behead people, therefore they are doing the bidding of the Antichrist. But what the prophet John references here is the martyred Christians under Roman pagan rule, not those killed by the ghastly current-day Islamists. From this flawed logic the leaders of the French Revolution who took advantage of the guillotine were also antichrists, especially considering the fact that many of them were actively engaged in ridding France of Christianity.

Beck and his guest are charlatans and promoters of ignorance. They advocate fear and hatred against others, not knowledge and understanding. They are cowards and frauds posing as intellectuals.  Shame on them.

Technorati Tags: Antichrist, Christianity, Glenn Beck

This is a video released by the online documentary production company “TERRA: The Nature of Our World.”  It depicts creationist Kent Hovind – who is currently serving a ten year sentence for federal tax evasion and other related charges – and his deep hatred of evolutionary theory.  He’s certainly not the most sophisticated proponent of intelligent design/creationism, but he does represent a vocal and aggressive side of the movement against rationalism and secular thought.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, creationism, intelligent design