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

Updated below

Rick Davis, a long-time Washington lobbyist and currently John McCain’s campaign manager, recently told The Washington Post, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” It was a somewhat rare and candid admission by a high level party operative to how the political process actually operates in the United States. While Davis’ comments might seem specific to this election, both major parties have for years preferred to avoid real issues – universal health care, the militaristic state, corporate crime and domination, a growing prison-industrial complex, to name a few – instead choosing to emphasize the personal qualities and style of candidates, especially when it comes to presidential elections. As in advertising, which permeates American’s consumerist culture, the PR surrounding political campaigns is more about feelings and emotions, faith and brand identity than it is about the issues most important to the public.

Mainstream media coverage plays right along with the charade. In fact, it is the perfect vehicle for the branding of hollow political figures. Talk mostly revolves around questions like “Did he or she win over the public with this or that speech?” “How was the presentation?” “Does he come across as an elitist?” And on and on. It’s simple pundit-driven “journalism,” easy to produce, providing the illusion of substance while serving corporate masters.

When public opinion conflicts with elite interests, the public is silenced. Those seeking office know who their paymasters are, and if any issue supported by large portions of the population but opposed by corporate power gets through media filters, it is framed in such a way to be stripped of any substance. For example, take universal health care. For years large majorities of the American public have been in favor of it. So large in fact it can’t be ignored or easily swept under the rug. Ever since Bill Clinton – who was elected in large part for proposing universal coverage – eventually bowed to the insurance industry and HMOs and failed to make the necessary changes, any and all subsequent reform proposals, if even made, only give lip service to the idea of health care for all while doing everything to avoid making the real changes necessary.

Such is politics and democracy in America, a corporate friendly environment indeed.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has a slightly different take on this subject than I do.  Where I see the depoliticization of politics as a much more bipartisan issue, he points to the Republicans as the main culprits:

Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited “negativity” and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.

While he certainly is correct in his assessment of the GOP’s approach, it seems to me one of the reasons the Democrats cave in is because they are unwilling to push a truly democratic, issues-based politics to the fore.  Basically limited to rhetorical promises at best, Democrats are easily exposed as the hollow populists most of the country sees them to be.  You see, they play the corporate game as well, which limits the depth and reach their campaigns can actually go.

Greenwald takes the stance of a “realist,” which is understandable.  He knows that “cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think.”  This is certainly true, but is the most effective response more tribalism, more attacks, an increased focus on qualities and style?  I doubt Greenwald thinks so.  But it’s not so clear what he proposes the Democrats should do.  He rightly deplores the empty, personal attack strategy of the GOP, and calls for a more combative (defensive?) approach:

Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country’s dislike of Republican policies…. If John McCain remains — even from the mouths of Democrats — the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.

As I see it, what is needed to win is not more attention to personality and qualities, but rather a greater focus on the fundamental changes we know are needed.  But the liberal wing of the corporate power structure will never be able to go that far.

Technorati Tags: debate, Democrats, Election 2008, elections, media, politics