Christianity: a contradiction of

Judaism the parent faith

By Brent Waterbury

Smashwords edition copyright 2013

Intro--

Most people don't realize that in the 1st century there was no such thing as the religion of "Christianity".  That wouldn't take place until the early 4th century when the early church fathers pieced a new religion together from earlier Jewish and pagan sources calling it that after Christ--who ironically wasn't the Jews promised Christ to this day.

As a popular religion, Christianity peaked around the Middle Ages (1000 AD-1300)  as Renaissance artists popularized the story of Christ and Mary in paintings but since that time Europe (and later America) has struggled to find personal meaning and relevance in these stories leading to its gradual decline. For example, in France now just 2-3% are practicing Catholics. A far cry from the Middle ages when one could be tortured for not being a Christian.

This historical book has come about through my own personal history, struggles with life and God over the past 25 years both in and out of churches. It takes a  liberal view of religion in general including ancient religions, Judaism, the Gospels, Book of Acts and all of Paul/Pauline letters in which I explore the Greek/ Roman thought and culture that influenced Christianity's theology. I'm not a Phd scholar per se (a state certified teacher however) but I consider myself a pretty good historian and have studied both Old and New Testaments very thoroughly for decades in trying to extract its relevance to modern living. Additionally I feel I have a somewhat 'personal' relationship with the Lord--although in humbleness it's more on His end than mine! God is still invisible in case we all forget...

What I like about this ebook is it's just not cut/dried nonfiction but a story. Since the Bible and the later New Testament is a collection of stories I tried to make this the same.

This book picks up the early Ancient religions (2000-1000 BC) including Rome that were popular in Paul's time which gradually evolved into Judaism and still later Christianity as Ancient's all borrowed extensively from each other. And I believe you'll be shocked (as I was) how very "religious" the Ancients already were--even without scriptures!

As a new religion time wise, 1st c. Christianity was much closer to primitive thought than our own modern society. For example, on the Greek island of Crete (1600 BC) cannibalistic feasts had been going on for centuries and this barbarianism is what Paul was fighting against centuries later.  (Europe: a history)

This ebook explores Judaism (which I tremendously admire) and its Apocalyptic and Dualistic theology while in the later New Testament /Gospels I try to deal with Jesus somewhat 'Jewish mission' on earth. Lastly, I deconstruct Paul's Letter's into the fabric of his society (not ours) as they were never meant in a billion years to be metaphorical to all ages. As some people know, the literalist interpretation of these Letters led to great troubles for the early church over Jesus' rather ethereal philosophy... And as you will see there is no one Near East religion that stands alone for its true originality:

The Bible as a historical document amazes both secular and religious scholars with its accuracy of [certain] events--but it’s the message where they digress.  (“The Rise & Fall of the Bible)

Liberalism

Liberals are pagan Druids.   (Ann Coulter)

This quote by a Conservative Fox News anchor/lawyer to me is hilarious and in her books I can see her points--however I'm a Liberal and I believe in God!  Does that make me a Conservative?? I hate to make this a Left/Right issue... On the other side we have rather militant atheists like Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") who are not really atheists (they're too smart) but they find religion (namely Christianity) so preposterous that they'd rather be "atheists" than religious!  Where do we draw the line?? The problem is we can't.

Contents

1. Ancient Roman Religions

2. Popular philosophies of the time

3. Egyptian mythic religions

4. Babylonian mythic religions

5. Old Testament History

6. New Testament History

7. New Testament Apocalyptic

8. New Testament Gnosticism

9. History of the Gospels

10. Acts of the Apostles and the new Jesus Movement

11. Saul of Tarsus

12. Deconstruction of Romans

PREREQUISITE:  ANCIENT ROME

Roman Empire 1st century

In Paul’s time the Mediterranean area was under Roman control and was at its height of powers although to 180AD its dominant culture, traditions and philosophy was Greek. This “Eternal City” lasted 1200 years and its genius over time projected law, military, organization, administration, engineering, literacy and the arts. Its emperors were acclaimed for their rather liberal thought rather than as power hungry madmen as often portrayed.  For example, Marcus Aurelius (140—180) was widely considered a saint and this is the civilization that both Paul and other early Christian writers cursed at wanting to bring it to ruin in an Apocalypse. 1,2,3,4

Like our own schools, public education (elementary) was mandatory for nearly 700 years--300 BC to 390 AD.  At its height in the 1st century there were middle/upper level schools, 28 libraries, wine shops, inns, 100’s of public baths, 2000 bridges, 50,000 miles of concrete roads and even a garbage service!

So advanced was Rome’s water supply system that only modern industrial nations can best it. The Roman’s had their ‘high society’ too as perfume was deeply rooted and some women even wore high heels! Marriage was encouraged, divorce extremely rare and adultery forbidden with a strong morality which might parallel Moses:

“Whoever catches an adulterer with his mistress in the act, provided he kills both, may go free”.  Seneca, 1st c. Stoic Roman philosopher

No doubt people now would be horrified by that but this was proof of the harsh Roman law where compassion was considered a weakness as the Roman state had been almost continually at war for almost 400 years!

Slavery was pervasive but slaves had legal rights and abusing or killing a slave was a punishable crime. After Rome fell in 400 AD slaves had no such rights—even under Christians. And although Rome was both famous and infamous for their gladiators its citizens finally got tired of the blood-shed and only those condemned to die were tossed in battle with trained fighters or beasts.  The Hollywood movie "Gladiator" is a good example... Contrary to myths (mostly non-historical Christian) Rome didn’t “fall” because of decadence and depravity but because their thinning army couldn’t defend its northern regions against Germanic and Central Asian tribes pushing south. 5, 6, (The Classical World)

Roman’s were more religious than Greeks, Persians and Egyptians. 7

Italian cultures over the centuries became the center of spirituality for the then known world. The Greek philosophy, with its empirical quest for religious ‘truth’, was integrated into all forms of knowledge and its religion and theology were part of philosophy and visa-versa-- unlike today where philosophy and religion are diametric opposites:

The unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates (425 B.C.)

First century Rome had 1000's of cults and many would not be considered ‘evil’ by modern standards as stone idols were everywhere from walkways to on buildings much like our own advertising. Rituals to gods were before everything—from politics to armies marching--thus the Las Vegas concept of ‘chance’ and ‘fate’ ruled strongly in all facets of a Romans life:

Every public act began with a religious ceremony.  8

People were very religious then (at least in the cities) however these pagan gods didn't 'love' their believers nor visa-versa. Also most cults didn't have a congregational life as there were no congregations: 9, ("Rome", Gabbuci) , ("Discovering God)

Pagan temples were served by an exclusive priesthood.  10

The Roman ‘mystery cults’ found in the Greek gods of Isis, Adonis and Cybele were very popular with the ‘redemption’ of the world by death/rebirth of a god' and some scholars believe that early Christians in the 1st c. borrowed this same pagan idea for their Redeemer: 11

Isis is the “sole ruler of eternity and all call me the greatest of all the gods

in heaven—nothing happens apart from me”.  12

Like Judaism/Christianity, these obscure cults boasted of an elevated sense of morality where the ‘good’ would find justice and go to a different spiritual plane while the ‘wicked’ after death would go to the god “Hades” in the Netherworld. And contrary to the myth of 'immoral Rome' Emperor Domitian (60's) punished his own senators for homosexuality! So even among pagan Rome ‘wickedness’ was frowned upon and ‘goodness’ was admired!  13, ("Rome")

Cybele's priest excelled at ecstatic frenzies.  Not only did they castrate themselves during initiation, they cross-dressed, more make-up, frizzed their hair, drenched themselves in perfume and acted like women.  ("Triumph of Christianity")

These individual's could "wash away their impurities of the soul" while initiation rites like baptism were common and even acts of self-denial (Platonism) were sometimes required.  14 , 15, (Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism)

Romans [just like Paul] often feared the gods, admired some, envied them all, but didn't love them [or they them]. The traditional gods of Rome were "gods of the state, not the individual".  16, (Triumph of Christianity)

These imported pagan faiths all stressed celebration, joy, ecstasy with music played or leading a role in services, including singing and dancing--sound familiar??  But upper-class Rome wasn't always impressed with lower-classed paganism and had their limits of common decency:

58 BC

The Senate outlawed Isis's altars and her statues torn down responding to them as "disgusting and pointless superstitions". 17, (Gods and the One God)

Popular philosophies of the time

Philosophy shows us which things are evil and which are not.  Seneca, 1st Christian Roman philosopher 18

Socrates/Plato/Platonism 400BC-300 AD

Plato had to break with the gods and ask: 'What is good'?  Thus the new problem of values was born.  19

In Plato's philosophy reality is dualistic and the earth is a flawed copy of the next life.   20

Among the elite Roman ruling classes (not commoners) Greek philosopher's Plato,

(427 BC) his opposite Socrates, and later Aristotle were the height of learning—what the Roman intelligentsia tried to live by.  Like Paul, they were very arrogant and believed only a few had the intelligence and discernment to reach an understanding of the 'other' world' which was considered timeless and where all truth resides.

[At death] we gain direct knowledge of all that is pure--that is, presumably truth.   Plato   Phaedo

Like Plato, (and later Gnostic-obsessed Paul) Socrates strived to free himself from the 'pleasures of the flesh' and to purify his mind from the 'distorting influences of pleasure and pain' which Paul believed for his later Christian worldview. They claimed that the body/flesh was no good but the soul or spirit was somehow transcendental and that 'truth' would come but only after death.  And of course all their assumptions were wrong:  (Closing)

The Greek sponsored philosophy of 'scorn for the flesh' articulated by Plato will leave indelible scars on Christian attitudes.  21

To Plato, the irrational was associated with matter or errant cause.  22

As a polytheist, Plato also invented the concept called the demiurge (from Timaeus) with the 'lower/higher gods' with the lower god being somewhat evil (the earth, animals, mankind) and the higher gods being the true god and worthy of attention. And although Plato was theorizing and not being concrete as we will see this was the same philosophy that Paul believed and worse--mandated-- with the OT Yahweh who made earth/man/Adam/Eve: 23

This highest God ruled all the planetary deities and could suspend the laws of fate and liberate the devout from the web of determinism. (Passion of the Western Mind)

Plato also wrote in the 'unreality of life' where Ideas (Forms) and the cosmos  were thought to be more real than the world as it is/was. A separate god was the Ideas who "formed" or framed the way things look to us in the world but wasn't responsible for the spiritual cosmos.

While Plato's earlier teacher Socrates felt the opposite—the body is ‘good’ and that spiritual reality isn’t available to those who use their 5 senses. Many feel that Plato’s view, like Paul’s, is against common sense:  24, 25, 26

Plato [like Paul] rejects the 5 senses altogether—the immaterial world is where truth alone lies. 27

And one will notice that all of Paul's letters were copycat ideas from this earlier Greek school that went out of vogue by around the 3rd century AD:

The older schools of Greek philosophy [Plato] gradually succumbed to decadence.  28

Plato believed in a plurality of gods but also the notion of a soul:

Platonism contributed to Christianity [Paul] its model of the soul. 29

Cynic's (320BC)

Cynics believed that ‘behavior (morals) are more important than any abstract thought. Behavior could or can change people which both Paul and later Christians did not believe through their conception of 'sin'. Today most psychologists and psychiatrists (“Dr. Phil”/ “Dr. Laura”) come from the Greek school of Cynics and Stoics.

Epicurean's (300 BC-100AD)

This philosophy believed that ‘feelings with the 5 senses are trustworthy and not abstractions’ which was the reverse of Paul’s--who believed that ‘abstractions’ or faith were more important. The Epicurean’s ("Atomists") also ingeniously believed that the cosmos was a collection of ‘unseen particles’ (atoms)--which wasn’t proven until the 1800's. Talk about a revelation!  The anonymous Letter to the Hebrews (90) picks up this same idea 300 years later. (Heb. 11:1) We also read in Acts 17 (also 90) that "Paul" preaches to both Epicurean and Stoic philosophers as somehow 'beneath them'...

Stoic's (270 BC-300 AD)

Later Christians copied the Greek Stoics which stressed brotherhood and virtue. 30

Most astronomers/physicists today have strong Stoic influences:

The world is made by reason.  The divine, the natural world and people are all linked. The Cosmos determines fate. 31

The harmony of universe is the rationality of its natural laws. ("Marcus Aurelius")

Spiritually, Stoic's believed God designs everything and like Jesus used ‘the god within the self' principle—although unlike Paul they were pantheistic (‘god is everything and in everything’) much like Hindus. Stoic's also believed (like myself) that evil is a human aberration and no one can or could predict who is evil and who isn't--unlike a Paul who believed everyone was evil until they believed in Jesus as their savior! (Romans 7-8)

Other Ancient Religions—Egypt

2000--800 BC

poem--

'I am the one who hath made heaven and who hath raised the mountains and created what is upon it.  I am the one who hath made the water which became the Great Flood [Mediterranean].  I am the one who made heaven in which I have placed the soul of the gods. 32

For over 3,000 years the Near East civilizations were the most advanced in the world where supposedly the early Israelites lived in Egypt for 100's of years and brought much of Egyptian religion back to Canaan with them.  Egypt wasn’t affiliated with Rome but was just as religious with its influence in literature, government and art--except morality. As famously known, the Pyramids were built not only to house the Pharaoh's mummy but a home for his spirit as well! That's a big house!  33, 34

A preoccupation with death haunts Egyptian mythology.  35

These Egyptians worshiped gods represented by the bull Osiris, ('rebirth of the dead for the new life with Osiris'), the crocodile (Sebek), divine goats etc. which represented sexual creative power along with Isis, the Great Mother (Earth). The sun was also regarded as the creator of men. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 Incredibly the ‘single god’ theory of creation didn’t begin in Genesis but in Egypt with the god Ptuh: (Rise of the West)

This concept of a divine intermediary between creator/creation came from Memphite [Memphis] theology.  It preceded the Platonic/Greek notion of the Demiurge by several hundred years and Christian theology by 1200 years.  41

Here a wealthy and presumably wealthy pagan Egyptian confesses to God about 700-800 years before Judaism was written down:

1200 BC

Hail to Thee, Great God, Lord of Truth and Justice! I bring you truth as I have not committed iniquity against men, nor oppressed the poor, I have not starved any man.  I am pure.  I am pure. 42

The Devil

The 'Devil'-- the god Nuu (the abyss), Athar "Lucifer", who wasn't evil, came from Egypt where the early Israelites supposedly spent 400 years.  Of course there were other evil gods elsewhere:

In opposition to all that was good in ancient Egypt, the most preeminent of all the demons, evil gods, or evil powers was Apophis, "the serpent of darkness,"

who was represented by a snake. 44

While in Persian Iran hideous monsters typified the Devil:

The Iranian myth of Drujs were enemies of the Universal law.  These were usually female and made every effort to further the course of evil. 45

Angra was the principle of darkness who created sickness, disease and all manner of evil.  Where people had faith, Angra tried to dissolve that.

(Illus. Ency. World mythology)

While in the OT, Lucifer was just one of God's angels but possibly a "fallen" one--which most Christians naively still believe today...

Babylon --1200 BC

The Neo-Babylonian Empire  600bc

This region of the world laid the foundation for social development and human progress. 46

Babylonian/Iranian religions were the predecessors of Semitic Hebrew religion which used a strong morality to influence its people. One of my pet personal theories about older religions was in ancient times morality was low so which higher ethical people ("priests") obviously saw and tried to moralize their views to the uneducated by claiming the gods 'will notice and bless'. Later both Jews and Christians used this for their viewpoints even to this day. (Our Oriental Heritage) These Babylonian religions were no different in that they also protested against the 'injustice of the gods' ("Epic of Gilgamesh/Epic of Creation") and one such poem is called the Righteous Sufferer which like Job or a Jesus describes how a blamelessly pious man suffers affliction at the hands of the gods! And just like Job, the author concludes that the ways of the gods are unfathomable.  Like all pagan religions, these gods weren't personal and each household had their lesser gods...   47, (Rise of the West)

'Sin'

Ur [Mesopotamia] remained the center for the worship of the moon god Nanna (Sin). 48, 49

Neither Judaism nor Christianity came up with 'sin' but rather it was 'invented' in Babylon! This conception was like sickness where a body might be possessed by a demon which lurked everywhere with a full moon being the most potent. However in their mythology "Nanna Sin"

was a good god who 'illuminated good onto people' but Ancients grabbed the name anyway as something bad... These chants of 'purging' were later picked up by other Ancients like Abraham (1000-1200 BC) and brought them to Canaan-- where unfortunately the Paul’s of the later world spread like wildfire believing it true:

1100 BC--

“Lord, my sins are many, great are my misdeeds! I groan!"     ("Dawn of Civilization")

Assyrian/Babylonian demon Pazuzu, first millennium BC,  Louvre Museum

Cool name eh?

Hell--

The concept of bad people dying and their souls ending up in the Netherworld also began in Mesopotamia or Babylon:

2100 BC

Sumerian afterlife was an underground realm in dusk conditions, neither hot nor

cold, where food was tasteless and where residents wandered around totally naked.

(Myths from Mesopotamia)

The Sacrifice--

The idea of sacrifice was integral to ancient polytheism: do ut des, 'I give, so that you [the gods] may give'.  50

All religion in 600 BC was about the sacrifice.    51

The gods decided and one's fate was written in the stars and couldn't be changed.

("The Gifts of the Jews")

The sacrifice, again borrowed by later Judaism and even Christianity, was a complex ritual requiring the expert services of a priest (incense, processions, oils) to please the gods and get rid of that pesky devil. While the frequent sacrifice on the altars was the lamb which Jews and later Christians used as a personification and/or substitution for their later messiah! And if things were going from bad to worse priests would sometimes kill children on their altar as blood sacrifices to Marduk or other gods for death/resurrection rites. This superstition went on worldwide for 1000's of years and the OT honestly records this same scenario:

The Lord said to Moses, "Any man of Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall be put to death; the people shall stone him with stones.  (Levit. 20)

Historians say that there never was a civilization richer in superstitions than

these Babylonians  and it's easy to see how Judaism and Christianity later evolved from both Egyptian and Persian religions:   52, 53

Praise poem of Ur-Nammu 2200 BC

I am the good shepherd whose sheep multiply greatly.  (History of the Ancient World)

Ur-Nammu (seated, print from cylinder seal)

Persia and Zoroastrianism

The link with Babylon and Zoroaster with its emphasis on one supreme God wasn't a pure monotheism but a struggle between the Supreme being and the forces of evil appearing as rival celestial beings [dualism].  The Jews borrowed this  idea. 54

Zoroastrianism was the world’s first monotheism (1,000 BC?) which is also found in the rather large collection of “Avesta” today housed in Syria. To Zoroaster (and later Paul) the universe was a cosmic struggle between good and evil, where he spoke of a Day of Judgment with the god Mazda presiding. From this came angels, demons and resurrection--which in turn was passed on into Judaism and later Christianity.  Like many, Zoroaster saw himself as a founder of a new religion:  55,  (Dawn of Civilization), (Story of Civilization, vol. 1)

Mazda [not the car] thou art the First also the Last--that thou art father of Good Thought...and the Lord to judge the actions of life. (Yasna 31)

Unlike all religions of the time, the religious unit for Zoroaster was the individual man and not a collective state like a later Judaism. In Zoroastrianism human beings were not mere pawns in this cosmic war (like Paul believed) but had free will to be what they wanted.

Mithraism--

Paul was influenced by Mithraism which was popular throughout the Roman world in 1st century as the most powerful faith in the Empire.   56

As Dualists (a god of heaven another god of evil/hell) the Mithraist's were strongly inclined towards asceticism and like Paul were against all impurity. They believed in the immortality of the soul as 'sinners' after death were dragged off to hell; while the 'Just' passed through the 7 spheres of the planets, leaving at each planet a part of their lower nature until, as pure spirits, they stood before God:  57

Serapis won many 'converts' throughout the Empire and the greatest appeal was Mithras which offered a strong promise of an afterlife and encouraged a very personal relationship with a god.  58

These were the religions that early Christianity was competing with over centuries.

Old Testament  1200 BC

There (at the Tabernacle) I will meet the people of Israel.   Exodus :29

The Hebrew OT is a scribal invention compiling memories and oral chronicles joined by myths, prayers, rituals and fiction of the past into legendary Israelite figures. It was orally recorded over a period of possibly 500 years by 100’s of writers from all walks of life, most who never knew each other:   59, 60,

These biblical images, myths and metaphors of a national God evolved over time into Judaism. These delightful tales of the Creation, the Temptation and the Flood were drawn from a storehouse of Persian legend as old as 3,000 BC. 61, (Our Oriental Heritage)

The value derived from Genesis isn’t scientific or historical but rather religious fiction alongside the primeval riddles of human life and genealogy. Another parallel of Genesis might also be the book of Job with its similar riddles and allegorical statements that man wasn’t fit for society without a moralistic God:

The historical writing of the Hebrews was infused with the religion of Yahweh who was unique in the Middle East.  (Rise of the West)

As societies evolved and became more intricate religion ‘evolved’ right alongside: 62, (Book of Genesis) (Radical Judaism), (Our Oriental Heritage)

The moral function of religion is to keep established values rather than create new

ones. Religion isn’t the basis of morals but an aid to them.   (Story of Civilization),

(Our Oriental Heritage)

As touched on earlier, the Jewish Semitic tribe originated from what is now Iraq (Mesopotamia) and gave the Jews their partial mythology which they later gave to the world such as the Genesis story of creation and ‘sin’ which Babylonians invented earlier through their mythology:

The tales found in Ancient Near East writings [Babylon/Sumerian/Semitic] was thoroughly reworked to yield a new religious messages of ethical monotheism. 63

The original Bible narratives were transmitted orally but it was a long time [500 years] before they were written down.  64

Although Moses (an Egyptian--not a Jew and not his real name) is credited for the first 5 books of Law some modern scholars believe they were compiled post-Exile by 4 anonymous writers over a period of 300 years (500 BC—250 BC)—“J” (Yahwist), “E” (Elohist), “P” (Priestly), “D” (Deuteronomy) and were educated priests: 65, 66 , (Interpreter's, "Commentary on Genesis")

It’s a basic tenet of both Jew and Christian faith that God has spoken to man through history and that the Bible is the record of that divine communication to man. Yet God doesn’t speak in human speech and nor does he write books.

(Interpreters, "The Greco-Roman Background of the NT")

The central thought of Judaism is the living God. (God in Search of Man)

In the struggle for monotheism all means of persuasion were legit. 67

The Jews, shortened from “Judeans”, were mostly nomadic farmers and herdsmen and  weren't just an ethnic group but a social group as they were populated by nomads, semi-nomads and the dispossessed who were trying to settle down and build new lives. These Judeans had a new religion that distinguished them from the heathen and their life was to be controlled by the Torah—the Mosaic code.  This Jewish way of living was eventually written down on 30 ft. long parchment scrolls, canonized after having been circulated orally for at least 500 years--with some historical accuracy. For example, the city of Jericho is often mentioned but archeological evidence doesn't match the events. Also much of the OT contents was dated:  68, 69, (Christianity: the 1st 3K), (Book of Genesis: a bio)

The Code of Moses was written down 1500 years after the Babylonian Code of

Hammurabi and shows no advance in legal or religious thought. (Our Oriental Heritage)

Surprisingly the #1 Commandment of “loving God” was not in the original 10 Commandments nor was even considered the most important commandment! (Deut. 6:5)  The Commandment to “love thy neighbor as yourself” only pertained to ‘love your fellow Hebrews only’ as the Lord forbid the Israelites to even associate with its neighbors! (Lev. 17)  Jesus mistakenly got credit for this popular saying…  Also a “brother” wasn’t a neighbor but a Hebrew only--'a child of the people': (Deut. 22), (Lev. 19)

The Jewish creed was one of anti-assimilation--assimilation was in a sense forbidden by God. This 'jealous God' was concerned with keeping his tribe intact! 70

Thus it’s easy to see why these later generalized ‘Christian’ concepts towards society in general would never work in a society that wasn’t Jewish--meaning people can try these concepts in general but they're not going to work and will ring false which in many cases they do.

Israel (Hebrew “Defenders of God”)

From Genesis, the Bible begins to take on a nationalist book, obscuring God to take on a patriotic personalization.  ("The Invention of the Land of Israel")

Today, Israel is ridiculously nationalistic...

Yahweh didn't say 'obey Me' but 'obey My laws' as a tolerant, inclusive polytheism was up against an intolerant, exclusive monotheism. Its God was concerned with keeping his tribe distinct.  (And Man Created God)

Israel was the world’s first religious community or theocracy and a closer look at the ‘God’s people’ story begins in Exodus (800-1200 BC?) and runs about 300 years later until the last of the minor prophets in Malachi around 500 BC.  Many Jews even today view the Exodus story of supernatural deliverance as the basis for their religion even though it may have also been unfortunately fiction or 'borrowed' from other nearby religions:

We are not dealing here with verifiable accounts but rather its theological interpretations of historical events.  (Radical Judaism)

In other words, the 4 writers of the Pentateuch were already indoctrinated in Egyptian/Persian religions before original Judaism came into existence!

Everyone who watches TV knows the dramatic Moses story but historical reality may have been different:  (Invention of the Land of Israel)

There are no direct references in contemporary sources to either the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan or the story of David. 71, 72

These Semitic tribes were supposedly the Lord’s “Chosen” people, His “own possession” (Exodus 26, 28, 34) and “strangers and travelers with the Lord” of whom they were supposed to imitate! But there were ominous warnings from "God" (in actuality monotheistic priests) as well where they are cursed if they disobey and go back to polytheism and thus hedonism:

If you walk contrary to Me then I will walk contrary to you.   Lev. 26

"The Lord’s Commandment’s" were conditional and not about love but rather obedience to 100's of Moses’ written laws ("613") in the “First five”.

This is the Lord “Yahweh" the earlier pagan fertility god of Canaan who helped the early farmers grow things and cause rain:

Yahweh was a god of the desert and of war and his role as the national 'war god' kept his worship alive, for there was frequent need to call upon his aid in battles.  However, it will take centuries to transform him into the gentle and loving father of Hillel and Christ.    73, 74, (Story of Civilization)

After Moses died Joshua took the Israelites over the Jordon River into the Promised Land where with the Lord’s help they would supernaturally kick out the local pagan tribes—mainly pagan Canaanites:

Canaan 1200 to 1030 BC

As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. (Joshua 1)

While the fate of their heathen neighbor gods ‘controlled’ the weather, the growing of a field, a stream and births the Jews unselfishly didn’t insist that other people worship or follow their God.  These priests believed that religious unity was indispensable for solidarity and it was this intolerance and racial pride that preserved the Jews.

Now these tribal Judeans were now “adopted” by God (2 Samuel 7) as Paul would claim 500 years later: (Our Oriental Heritage)

The righteous [Jews] shall live by their faith.  (Habakkuk 2)

Notice the extraordinary ‘Jewishness’ of the 500 year later New Testament using these same Hebrew concepts verbatim:

Walk in the Lord’s way that you may live [spiritually]. (Deut. 5)

Hebrew Sin—

Sin-- (Hebrew, chashak)--as withholding light, a curse [as from the Devil], darkness [spiritual])

The OT “transgressions” against the Hebrew Lord evolved into wrong doings  and were not the spiritual embodiment of evil or of Satan that later Christian's and Gnostics like Paul amplified. Rather, it was a reference for ‘bad behavior’ or thumbing your nose at the Mosaic Law with a lack of piety. Thus Gentiles (pagans)--those ‘outside the Law’-- were called “sinners” while Jews were called “righteous” because they followed the Law!  (1st Sam. 24) So by reading the OT one can easily see that the later millennial Christian church concepts of “sin” and “righteousness” are totally false, misleading and not applicable to Christians whatsoever:   (Intro to the NT)

If man didn’t sin then he is not lost. And if he isn’t lost then he doesn’t need a Savior. Thus Christ’s salvation ‘mission’ was based on a misunderstanding of Genesis. In fact, the entire NT is based on a misinterpretation of the OT [the Garden/Adam/Eve].  75

Later, we see that Paul misinterpreted both Adam’s and Jesus’ role in “salvation”.  In fact he had it ass backwards:

That man caused his own suffering through an “original sin” is a perversion of the truth.  That original “sin” was God’s-- the creation of matter and the source of evil.  But God doesn’t suffer for his sins; he lets man do it. (Deceptions)

This doesn’t mean that man is above God—it just means that people shouldn’t condemn themselves as “lost sinners” as Paul often does.

700-500 BC

OT Apocalyptic Scripture-- Major and minor prophets—

The Major prophets were written after 1st Exile which required them to write new prophetic works to guide and instruct the Jewish community.  76

These apocalypses come from times of national or community tribulation and are not actual history but for later comfort.    (New Oxford Bible Commentary)

It was in this atmosphere of political disruption, economic war and religious degeneration that their prophets appeared and often as Israelite ‘social critics’ much like our own social critics in newspapers:

Historical pressures gave rise to a new kind of prophecy who could offer an explanation for Israel's suffering and the role of God in human affairs.  This later came to be regarded as central to its national heritage. (Understanding the Hebrew Bible)

While other "prophets" were paid—as Ezekiel was a house prophet in Babylon. These prophets, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos and others, were members of the 'Jewish Opposition' who wrote hoping their words might happen if the Lord sees fit—but were never intended as future prophecies for all ages and peoples as some Jews (and stupidly millions of Christians) want to believe and write books about.  Of course try to tell that to a typical 'Born Again' Christian:

The prophet's primary job was to talk about the present—not the future. (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

The Prophets were vague as to what form the 'Day of Yahweh' [Wrath] would take.  (Rise of the West)

But the Jews were smart and built in their own set of 'checks and balances' since speaking about the future, fortune telling or divination was forbidden. Thus there is no Lawful way Apostle Paul could be some 'Latter Day Prophet' as many Christians believe:

You [Jews] shall not follow the abominable practices of those [heathen] nations.  There shall not be found any one who practices divination or sorcery.  For whoever does those things is an abomination to the Lord.  (Deut. 18)

Often Jews believed they were 'divinely protected' by such social prophecies but the prophet Micah warned the people that such reasoning may be false hope.  It was:

God's lash fell on Judah in the form of Assyrian and Babylonian warlords.   77

In 722 BC Northern Israel fell to their northern pagan neighbors the Assyrians and its 10 Tribes enslaved and kidnapped back to Assyria. The buildings of Jerusalem with its houses and the 1st Temple of Solomon were burned to the ground as its elite marched north into pagan Assyria (now Turkey). Two Tribes were left and 10 have gone missing:

The later Deuteronomic reforms had failed to appease God's wrath.  What more did God require?  What really was his plan?  How could the Hebrews justify the injustices and suffering which the Divine imposed?    (Rise of the West)

A sense of human nothingness before an arbitrary deity darkened all ancient Jewish thought.  (Story of Civilization)

600-400 BC

Just to thrust the knife in deeper, 130 years later the remaining Jews in Jerusalem were again invaded by Persians from east Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (2nd Kings 24, 25) and its capital later destroyed. The Jewish nation as they knew it had come to an end:

The OT's political prophets were consistently wrong.  (Rise of the West)

What about the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and finally the Romans? What did they care about Divine Love? To Israel, the Gentiles [pagans] were oppressive.  78

A deity who was revealed to be too weak to protect the people wasn’t a deity they could continue to worship and the Jews were forced to abandon all their previous conceptions about God. Later in 70AD, the Jews ‘imitation of God’ principle broke up this strict religion after the 2nd Temples destruction...   79, 80, (Radical Judaism), (Excavating Jesus)

The destiny of those '10 lost tribes' has never been established.     (The Road from Babylon)

Apocalyptic Dualism—

200 BC

Jewish apocalyptic was an intellectual movement trying to explain the suffering of God's people.  For centuries Jewish prophet's claimed they suffered because they were being punished by God and if they would return God would stop the punishment and allow them to prosper.  (Isa., Jer.)  So some thinkers moved away from the prophets and picked up Job where suffering came from the Devil and developed a Dualistic view--there was a God and the Devil.  Sin enslaved people and removed them from God's presence. 81

This and created a monster that most Jews had no true answer for.  To the Jewish mystics their warring heathen neighbors (Canaanites, Assyrians, Persians) were under ‘Satan’s spell'. As you will see, Paul believed both of these ideas throughout all of his letters:  (Christianity: the 1st K)

In the Hebrew apocalyptic view, God for mysterious reasons had conceded control of this world over to powerful cosmic [demonic] forces that opposed him, his purposes and his people. 82

The cult-like Essenes were also well-known locally as hermits/extremists who lived in caves and huts around the Dead Sea for 200 years waiting for the world to End and who, like Paul, also 'hated the flesh'. I wouldn't have brought this up if some scholars didn't accuse Paul of being one of these weirdos who you will see later...  ("Birth of Christianity"), ("Adam/Eve and the Serpent" or any book by her)

"The Messiah"

Without a religion they could depend on some of these fantasizing Jews believed they somehow misinterpreted the Prophets and thus began to look deeper within their Scripture for some other kind of supernatural ‘cosmic redeemer’ or ‘messiah’ that might get them out of trouble with these warring heathen neighbors in the future. Thus the social “prophets” wrote--but not very realistically:  (Did Jesus Exist?)

I will raise up for David a Branch and he shall reign as king and shall execute justice in the land.    (Jeremiah 23)

Although most Jews were illiterate (except for the priests) this type of exaggerated hopeful thinking was very prevalent in the region: (Did Jesus Exist?)

The Lord will [hopefully] destroy injustice from the face of the earth”. (Enoch 1, Jewish Bible)

While later Jews and Christians both misinterpreted Isaiah's 'messiah' who was presumably Cyrus of Persia:

The triumphant Cyrus of Persia was God's chosen agent: his messiah ('anointed one').  The 1st phase of man's restoration would be the Jews return back to Jerusalem.  (The Road from Babylon)

Amazingly these Jews didn’t give up on their faith despite the destruction of their home and their 1st Temple as some believed the prophecies and some didn’t:

(New Oxford Commentary)

To Jews there was also a question of means--especially Divine means.

(Excavating Jesus)

Thus we can see when ‘meek little’ Jesus didn’t show up as a ‘conquering king’ the Jews would look elsewhere—and have pretty much given up the search.  Many feel Israel misinterpreted this ‘savior’ who never did or will ever exist for them again as a Nation:  83, (Did Jesus Exist)

Judaism presents no well-crafted doctrine of the Jesus Messiah.   84

250 BC

Under the Greek genius the Age of 'personal' religion opened up.  85

The Jews were surrounded by a civilized Greek culture and it made a lasting impression on them when they translated their OT into Greek and calling it the “Septuagint”--meaning that 70 translators worked on it.  This was the version commonly found around the Mediterranean and the one that Paul used and studied calling it “scripture”. Rarely did these ‘Hellenist’ or Greek speaking Jews use the Hebrew OT again...

Like many religions today these Jews wanted to do ‘good works’ which  included a welfare system where Jews would visit the sick, the widows, orphans, prisoners and the incurable—just what the Lord told them to do! These Jews were into a better life and not interested in immortality or a fatalistic bloody death like a crazy Paul as you will see.  (Mysteries of the Middle Ages), (Who Wrote the NT) , (Genesis: a Bio)

Proselytes

Jewish ‘converts’ in both Greek/Roman cities were non-Jews who went to synagogue but didn’t do Hebrew rituals.  What attracted them was the belief in one invisible ‘good’ god who was always involved in an eternal battle with evil.  Paul set out to ‘convert’ or sway those half-attracted to Judaism. These converts were called ‘proselytes’. 86 , (And Man Created God)

With a new OT in Greek these ‘progressive’ Jews were anxious to spread their religion by proselytizing to non-Hebrews locals with 'Universalist aims' hoping that Israel might be the ‘light of the gentiles’ (which Jesus later used in Matthew).  However, most Jews and priests discouraged 'conversions' as "foreigner’s" could never be full Jews and nor could they enter a synagogue as those who tried would be killed (as a sign of rebellion Paul later tried this stunt with a pagan in Acts). However, depending on the local priest converts could eventually be full Jews but only after 2/3 generations! This concept didn't sit too well with pagans and why later Christianity was an easy 'umbrella' to keep under as everybody would be "saved":   87, 88  (Radical Judaism: Rethinking God and Tradition),  (People's History of the World), (Who wrote the NT), (any of Ehrman's books),

Socially most dispersed Jews found it degrading to live around Greek [pagan] culture.   (Triumph of Christianity)

Unlike other religions in the region Judaism had limits as a ‘world religion’--that being its tribal/racial origins, circumcision and 100’s if not 1000’s of canon/oral laws too complex for the uneducated pagan to comprehend. No doubt Jews were probably the first group in the world to invent the word ‘racist’:

100

Jews are loyal to each other but not with the rest of the world which they confront with hatred reserved for enemies.  Tacitus, "The Histories"

10 AD--The ‘Mishnah’

Every hour He makes provision for all who come into the world.  His Grace satisfies all creatures, not only the good and righteous alone [Jews] but also the wicked and idolaters.  (Mishrash 18.12;59) 400-500BC

Hillel, the liberal Pharisaic rabbi, allowed Jews to freely interpret the Torah to prevailing circumstances to make its commandments more practical. Called the “Mishna” (Oral tradition + Jewish Law) it reinterpreted the OT where God ‘visits’ the sick or ‘sympathizes with the mourner…’, or was the ‘groomsman at Adam/Eves wedding’!  (Benedictions 61) This theory was developed even further under the Talmud around 500-600 and the thousand year OT past could be a blueprint and code of instruction for the future.  Fundamentalist’s these Jews were not! The Sadducees however would disagree feeling that the Law was unchangeable. This schism between the more liberal thinkers (Pharisees) of not wanting a strict Law and the Sadducees is graphically portrayed as infighting in the later Gospels and is not meant as prophecy or future revelations. Another reason the later Gospels are not historical but fiction in this regard. 89, (Who wrote the NT), (Searching for the Original Bible), (any of Bart Ehrman's books), (History of Christianity), (And Man Created God), (Aspect's of Rabbinic Theology)

66-70 AD War with Rome

The Jewish historian Josephus sided with the Romans and blamed a handful of rebel-bandits for the Temple's fall.  (War of the Jews), (And Man Created God)

Being minorities (10%) the Jewish people were weak politically and with rebellious Israel surrounded by Roman armies the Jewish Zealots (remember Judas?) called for Roman's to 'get off our land'  finally ignited into civil war.  While the radical Jesus sects like Paul's refused to fight, broke with their fellow Jews and insanely proclaimed against all logic that they were the “new Israel” which is the main reason why they were criticized and persecuted as typified in the NT:  90, 91, (And Man Created God)

The end of the 2nd Temple meant that the grand traditions of Israel were over.  The Jews no longer had a state of their own.  (Who wrote the NT)

1948

Like I said, this was the 'official' end of Judaism as a state for another 1900 years when the Zionist's took over claiming 'sacred ancestry' or 'Biblical right' which the Muslims/Palestinians currently disagree with. However not all Jews agree with their mass murdering, racist government now:

In all the books of the Bible, Canaan never served as a homeland for the "children of Israel" and nor did they ever refer to it as "the Land of Israel".    (Invention of the Land of Israel)

Old Testament criticism—

Monotheism in a moralizing context can never escape its own dualistic [both good/evil] shadow with its God unwilling to vanquish the forces of chaos or darkness. ‘Which garment shall I wear today?’ God asks himself. ‘Will it be the white of forgiveness or the blood-red of vengeance?’  The hall of mirrors may be approached from either end.  (Radical Judaism)

As a general rule ancients were very superstitious people with the Hebrew’s being no different as ordinary dreams were believed to be ‘divine communication’, fate was ‘Divine Providence’ as  people were just spectators of God’s Handiwork both good and bad. (Ps. 19)   Evil ‘began’ in the Garden as women were the perpetual and cultural culprits of many things bad while sickness was ‘the devil’ as were evil spirits.  (1st Samuel 16) Natural calamities, such as no rain and earthquakes, called “the wrath of God” (2nd Samuel 24, Romans 2). And the story of the “fall of the bad angels” was later used in apocalyptic legends by Paul and others.  (Enoch 1, Jewish OT) For centuries this helped create helplessness among these 'God fearing people' incredibly even up to the 20th century Holocaust where even genocide was somehow 'God’s Unfortunate Will'.

Worse than complaining--maybe these poor people were used to it... 92, 93, ("From Jesus to Christianity")

Judaism/Christianity Today

Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism yet it’s strange that the religions don’t mix very well—either theologically or socially.  (Birth of Christianity)

Because Christianity is way out in left field while Judaism is in the infield...For 3K the Jews have quietly held onto their religion and where it's headed no one really knows...  Except for the Orthodox (especially those in Israel) most have drifted away which is rather a shame. Yet its teachings are still very powerful even today and certainly more powerful and relevant than Christianity's will ever be in a thousand years:

The emotional power, poignancy and literary brilliance of the OT needs scarcely be emphasized.  (Rise of the West)

To the Jew, God isn't a philosophical abstract but an ever-present reality.  Judaism denies the need for any mediator, priest or church, doesn't believe in "original sin" and that no evil is final. Judaism is rational, logical and moral. It is not a creed but a way of life. It demands righteous living--not the acceptance of dogma. 94

New Testament History—

The NT is a long Jewish--not Christian--argument. ("Christianity: the 1st 3K")

The NT or “New Covenant” is centered on Jesus as the Jews promised “messiah” (Greek/Hebrew “anointed one”/”king”/”savior”) which is covered in the 4 Gospels. Most of the books and letters in the NT were started about 25 years after Jesus died while the last book of Revelation was finished between 90-110.  And unfortunately for us about 85% of 1st c. Christian texts have perished leaving huge gaps in early Christian reasoning and theology:  ("Christianity: the 1st 3K")

Of the 27 Books found in the NT just eight go back to their original authors. Most are later forgeries.  (Does Jesus Exist?)

The term “Christian” wasn’t invented till around 90-110 and Christianity as a religion didn’t exist until Ignatius the Catholic bishop of Anitoch in 111 which Pliny also mentions and the first pagan outside of the Bible to do so. The term “Christianism” was also tried later but didn’t make it as there were many other competing religions and borrowings from other large faiths:  (The Birth of Christianity) , (Christianity: the 1st 3K), (Ency. of Catholicism), (any book by Pagels)

Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all agreed that the goal of all human life is salvation through a savior God who was both a person and a deity.  Thus the 'gap' between the deity and the helpless human was bridged while the older concept of keeping a relationship with the supernatural powers wasn't abandoned.

All three promised adherents eternal life in a blissful afterworld.  (The Rise of the West)

As late as 110-150 the Jewish “Tanakh” was called ‘scripture’ by early Christians but ironically Christian scriptures weren’t universally accepted by pagan Rome for another 350 years!  And a few years earlier in 313 Emperor Constantine put Christian’s under a 'religious protection' from harassment from Rome’s emperor Diocletian.    (381AD)

Bronze head of Constantine, from a colossal statue (4th century).

The rather quickly written Gospels were written ‘backwards’ in hindsight as Jesus never said anything that was directly recorded by the disciples so unfortunately any point of view the writers wanted—from ‘Jesus as a plumber’ to the ‘son of God’ could have been used... As mentioned earlier, the Jews ‘Septuagint’ was called “holy scripture” while the later NT books wouldn’t be called Christian scripture until around the 2nd century (130) under Marcion.  In 180 both the Old and NT's were bound together as one but when their theological differences became too great the religions separated completely: ("From Jesus to Christianity")

Modern critics of the NT believe that unless something in scripture can be verified by non-biblical sources it must be rejected as mythical.  95

The earliest dated NT fragment is the John Rylands Papyrus (125) which was found in Egypt, the Muratorian Fragment (170) is the earliest known list of NT books (22 of 27).  The earliest edition of the 4 gospels (Gr.) in one continuous narrative was called the Diatessaion (“the 4”, 170) while partial Old Latin versions of Scriptures appeared in Egypt around 250. No single translator worked on all the books and forgery and bias was more of the norm than the exception:  96, (Searching for the Original Bible)

While the books themselves are understood to be inspired, mere men chose what books should be part of the canon.  ("Knowing Scripture")

Beginning in the 3rd century parts of the NT began to circulate in Syria in what was called the “Old Syriac Version”. Two have survived—one written in the 4th century, the other in the 5th.  Later in 383, St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate which the early Catholic Church used (and abused) for 1000 years.  97, (Searching for the Original Bible)

10- 100 AD—A Spiritual Vacuum

The NT contradicts the OT. 98

Some scholars believe what compelled early Christians to write the NT 40 years after the fact was Rome destroying the 2nd Temple in 70 by revolting Jews as the prophets of their scriptures had failed them.  But as I mentioned the earlier prophets wrote unrealistically while this war was reality: (Triumph of Christianity)

Roman taxes on Jews took a toll and when the army stole 1000 lbs. of silver [not gold] from the Temple that stirred up nationalists and radicals who organized rebellion.  To combat them, Vespasian and Titus decided on a war of terror--to show no mercy and kill every Jew old enough to fight and enslave the rest.

At Gamala [and all across Judea] the Roman's repaid Jewish resistance by putting thousands to the sword and thousands more committed suicide by jumping off cliffs rather than die or be enslaved by Rome.  99

Jerusalem was destroyed and Israel was dispersed all over the Mediterranean and Egypt and many joined the schools of the Mysteries and among them, like our Paul, the Gnostics. Now just as their predecessors had done these Jews felt compelled write a ‘new and wondrous’ scripture which is the NT:

Jews wrote the NT as sequel inspired by the failure of the Old.

(Deceptions & Myths of the Bible)

Compared to the OT with its 800-1000 year history, much of the NT comes across as ‘half-baked’ as ideas and philosophies collide with one another like an atomic atomizer resulting in many inconsistencies and contradictions of thought despite thousands of changes by followers throughout the centuries:

The NT is the story of a fiercely fought cultural conquest to about 380. And with the destruction of Jerusalem gave these Christians a chance to justify their existence as a new movement.  (Who wrote the NT?)

Unfortunately the tone of the NT can be very hateful to both the Gentiles and Jews which is freaky considering that in the OT all Hebrews/Jews considered each other “brothers/sisters” and not competitors.

In other words these new Christian's, like Paul, wanted a Divorce:  100, 101,

(History of the Ancient World)

A thread of hate runs through the New Testament. ("The Bible", Armstrong)

In 140, Marcion, a Gnostic, separated from Judaism and the OT and pulled out Luke along with 10 letters of Paul as his new canon and his followers became very popular in the 2nd c. rivaling the early Catholic Church.  A 100-150 years later the early Church finally condemned them as heretics and that was that. 102

In the mid 4th century the 27 books of the New Testament were ‘assembled’ by a Catholic  committee with 100’s of different texts/books/letters to choose from including  apocrypha but chose the 27 because they were supposedly “written” by Apostles or tied to the 4 Gospels in some way—even though half of Paul’s Letters are pseudepigrapha.  Whether these books were accurate enough spiritually regarding its Founder was irrelevant and starting a retrospective religion through Bishops gave the new cult religion tremendous problems the first 400 years: (Intro to the NT)

In the 4th century when both the OT was combined with the NT the Church finally had its story straight.  This new Bible could now claim antiquity and a firm foundation for this new mythic religion.    (Who Wrote the NT)

Many social critics feel that this combination of both Old and New Testaments is one of the biggest lies in Western history as the NT went unchallenged and was believed literally for another 1200 years until the Protestant Reformation in 1500. Again these opposing churches separated over scriptural doctrine which silently told millions of people in Europe and elsewhere that the Bible itself was a fallible document as it could never be interpreted correctly by individuals. (Who wrote the NT)

New Testament Apocalyptic

What brought out Gospel apocalyptic verses [Mt. 23, 24] were the 4 major Jewish revolts against Rome— 4 b.c., 66-74 , 115-11 and 132-135.  (Excavating Jesus)

As I mentioned, Mark the initial Gospel, was written during times of horrible chaos, violence and war with Rome who the more radical/literalist Jews felt were interlopers and trespassers on God’s Land. This developed a large schism even among the Jews themselves regarding this pagan Roman army who were called the “sons of darkness” --not “Satan” as many Christians believe.  103, ("Excavating Jesus"), ("Short History Of the Jews")

New Testament Philosophy –Gnosticism

The language, if not the spirit of Gnosticism, entered into the NT especially in the writings of Paul.   104

Much of the NT was written by Gnostic writer’s (Gospel of John, Paul’s letters) which was synthesized from earlier apocalyptic Judaism. Gnosticism (Gr. 'seekers after knowledge') was a cosmic struggle between matched forces of good/evil, which Paul was obviously after but didn't mention per se because it was part of the Greek culture at large:

Gnostic writings draw images from the [apocalyptic] OT, pagan myths and Platonic ideas [Dualism].  (Searching for the Original Bible)

Due to the Ancients ‘wolf mentality’ (conquering instead of today's cooperation) spiritual cynicism of the time ran very deep:

If the God of the Jews who created the material world was the true and only God [because of their adversity] he was either a fool or a liar--beyond him there must be a First Cause.  (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Gnosticism [Christianity] was a religion of salvation from the demonic powers. Like Paul, they both claimed to have the Spirit. This was a problem both

in and out of the early church: 'man must be saved from the powers of the OT demiurge the one who created the world'. But not all men are to 'be saved' as the ones who follow the flesh are lost; while the spiritual ones; those who follow the soul are saved. The early Christian’s struggled mightily with this dualistic image.  105,  (Radical Judaism)

To Paul, the spirit was good while the earth--matter/material world/human body--was evil and could not come from God!  (Rom. 7,8, 9) Thus these early Christians had a fatalistic, negative and nihilistic attitude towards the world wanting it to ‘pass away’ with a physical deliverance by a supernatural Being or Gnostic ‘redeemer’! Thus his constant pleas all through his stupid, ridiculous, mythic and metaphysical Letters--no different than the New Age section at a Barnes & Noble today: (Searching for the Original Bible), (Intro to NT)

Those capable of perceiving this harmony were granted the privilege called 'predestination'. It is these people—the mystery Gnostic’s—who Jesus has come to save.  (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

To Paul, God (the ‘cosmos’) was outside in the distance and far away--not inside like Jesus spoke of as “the kingdom of God is within you” which Paul was unaware of:

The real nature of the Gnostic has no bonding with the flesh because to them the flesh is despicable. That ran against the whole tendency of Jewish religion.  (Rom. 7/8),  (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Like Paul, these Gnostics wanted to pull this fledging new religion away from its Jewish roots and somehow move 'forward' but instead moved ass-backwards for 100's of years:

140

Marcion, like Paul, saw the Creator God [Demiurge] of the Jews as a God of judgment and that Christ had died to satisfy the sadistic Creator God. Salvation comes by believing in Jesus' death/Resurrection.  (Marcion, Antithesis), (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

As an early Christian, Marcion felt the OT was mostly myth—which Paul partly did through his hatred of the Jewish Law--which is why we read Paul condemning his religion. This strange philosophy got stronger the closer it got to the 2nd/3rd centuries and if this seems confusing imagine trying to apply it to life! Critics felt Gnosticism was the most dangerous inner threat to the new faith because it could appear to be really Christian: 106, 107     (A People's History of the World), (Interpreter's Commentary, "Unity between the Testaments"), (1st John 2) , (Searching for the Original Bible), ("Early History  of the Church", Norwood)

Gnostic eschatology looks to the final goal or end of existence—when the soul re-ascends to the heavenly realm of its origin.     (Searching for the Original Bible)

In other words, Ancients like our Great Paul believed his soul had a pre-existence somewhere in the heavens--just like the Hindu's believe!  This bizarre philosophy continued another 200 years or so until it was finally condemned by the later Church. The term was later coined in England in the 1600’s.  108

(Encyclopedia of Catholicism), (Intro to the NT), (Marcus Aurelius), (People’s History of the World) , (Christianity: the 1st 3K), (The Birth of Christianity), (1st Peter 5),(Mere Christianity), (Searching for the Original Bible)

Paul's Platonism

Here I bring up Paul because it was his letters that organized the new religion (Jesus was not organized). Paul was steeped in Platonism (which I covered earlier) with the ‘conquest of emotions and the self’--no different than a Buddhist monk.

Later Augustine (400) also embraced Plato's philosophy of the body being evil and 'truth' somewhere up in the heavens. The last Platonic 'school' was eventually shut down by the Church in Italy around 800.  So at least from the shape of his letters we read that Paul followed another myth in addition to Gnosticism.

Paul's OT Apocalyptic Dualism—

Paul's Duality/Gnosticism/Zoroastrianism was absorbed from Jewish sources. (Christian Mystics)

[After the angel Satan afflicted Job] he cursed the day of his birth.  (Job 3)

OT Dualist’s like Paul believed that God created evil wasn’t divorced from it but ‘used’ the Devil or a “fallen angel” for his own gains... Unfortunately caught in the middle of this ‘spiritual battle’ was mankind which 'Jesus the Deliverer' could somehow deliver them from! (Rom. 7/8)

No doubt these philosophies are confusing to understand, especially coming from a document as old as the Bible, but this was another reason Paul was confused and not as personally self-confident as his Letters have dictated.  Remember Paul’s confidence was spiritually “in Christ” (the Cosmos) and not in the self which he believed was evil. (Roman’s 7) Although he was a Jew he rejected Judaism for ‘something he thought was far better’. Unfortunately, Paul had little insight to point this out and speculated most of the time... 109

The Gospels

Jesus didn’t come as the Founder of a new religion yet Christianity was founded 300 years later in his memory. (From Jesus to Christianity)

Neither Jesus nor his followers believed themselves as part of a new religion called "Christianity".   110

The term “gospel” (“good news”) was early Christian slang for Christ's expected return and this “new Covenant” was directed towards non-pious Jews, pagans and slaves around the Palestine area. Contrary to the way they read the Gospel writers were not the original followers of Jesus or even followers of the original 12 disciples:  (Did Jesus Exist?)

All of the gospels are anonymous and none of the writers saw nor personally heard Jesus speak—including Paul.  (Who Wrote the NT?)

Some believe that these non-conformist Jews wanted to pull Judaism a certain direction, possibly away from the Sadducee stranglehold--but certainly not to start a new, literal religion out of it:

Although the Gospel writers portray the Pharisee's as hypocritical, in fact they were trying to create a more equality than their rivals the Essenes or Sadducees.  (And Man Created God)

Semi-enlightened Gnostic Jews ‘created’ the Christ of the Gospel but they didn’t intend their Christ to be taken literally.  They were presenting an ideal. They didn’t take into account the ignorant Gentile literalists who were to follow them.  (Myths of the Bible)

For example, the 'Common Sayings  Cluster' (‘golden rule’, ‘love your enemies’, ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘give without returning’, 'prodigal son' etc.) were not sayings by Jesus as attributed but were compiled by earlier Rabbinic writing by the rabbi Hillel (40 BC-10 AD) with later Jewish-Christian “Didache” teachings (50-100) which were possibly used in the later Gospels. (70+) Other Rabbinic verses attributed to Jesus are "where 10 people assemble for worship the Shechinah (God) abides among them" (Sanhedrin 39 or Mt. 18)-- doing the Father's will: "be light as an eagle to do the will of your Father Who is in heaven." (Aboth Rabbi Natham or Mt. 5), "Don't judge your fellow [Jew] until you are in his place" or the 'imitation of God' principle from the Mishnah. The 'Common Sayings' were also found in the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Q" text. ("Ethics of the Fathers"), 111, (Birth of Christianity)

70-80

It was Mark who historicized the myth for the sake of the Jews who needed someone to save them.  (Did Jesus Exist?)

Mark, the 1st and shortest Gospel, was written just after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and scholars believe it was this chaos that began the process.  Pagels believes that the Essenes were Marks followers since they used images of a 'cosmic war to divide the universe' while Luke/Acts was written by anonymous person named “Luke” in 80-90. John, the Magical Mystery Tour of the 4, was written later and anywhere from 90-110.  112, (Adam/Eve & Satan)

Marks Gospel was the 1st to invent the term "son of God" for Jesus but in retrospect is somewhat mythic because Jesus called himself the "son of Man":

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus is the strong 'Son of God' able to deliver them from the powers of evil around them that hold them in bondage. (Did Jesus Exist?)

Around 90-100 these 4 gospels were compiled but not yet named:  (Who Wrote the NT)

The 4 Gospels are our latest witnesses ranging from 80-120 or even later.  113

In the later synoptic Gospels, Mathew and Luke both borrowed from Mark, except for the later gospel of John which was more Gnostic in approach (oddly I love John's gospel!). These books circled anonymously for years and were a communal process as stories were told, polished, changed and rearranged many times.  But because of ancient manipulation modern scholarly cynicism can run deep saying none of it happened--leaving many  Christians aghast and very defensive about their faith which, like myself, have put many years into:   114  (Who Wrote the NT), (Searching for the Orig. Bible)

Before Mark there was no story of the life of Jesus.  No one recorded Jesus as there was little to report except lore, heresy and ad hoc conversation.  Mark succeeded in collapsing the time between Jesus in the 30's and the destruction

of the Temple in 70. Eventually the gospels were pieced together over decades and even over centuries. Ever after, Christians throughout the centuries would imagine Marks [somewhat historical] fiction as history.  (Who Wrote the NT?)

(I'm not as cynical as Mack though...)

The problem with the gospels is they report a garbled mix of contradictory stories that have to be critically analyzed and sorted out.       (Paul and Jesus)

The Gospels are not in any literal sense holy—they are not accurate and are not to be confused with reality.  They are canvases painted by 1st century Jewish mystics and not intended to be read as history.  They are midrashic writings, not literal biography.  Like Paul before them, the Gospel writers were victims of the limits of language and of God.    (Why Christianity Must Change or Die)

Jewish infighting-- 66-70

Christianity began as a marginal branch of Judaism whose Founder left no written works.     (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Not known to the casual reader the Jewish writers of the Gospels were battling other Jewish sects with an obvious anti-Pharisee/ anti-Law agendas which they hoped for change. Paul's letters also disclose this...  For example, Jesus famous 'battles' with the 'evil' Pharisee's are most likely made up as priest's then were celebrities rather than snakes.

1st c.

Priest's were the 'A-listers' of the age.  115

As time went on these early Christian anti-Judaism sects like Paul's got worse and worse as they accused the Jews of all sorts of villainous acts. Some believed that the earlier destruction of Jerusalem was 'God's judgment on the Jews for killing their own Messiah' and wrote out the story accordingly:

The Gospel account of Jew hatred is incorrect as all were Jews but sectarian conflict and hatred among Jews [similar to Shiite/Sunni schisms now although both are technically Muslims]   116

While others took it a step further making Jews responsible for Jesus' death, in effect guilty of killing God.  Later in the 2nd c., the Gospels were attributed to important figures much like a celebrity endorsement-- rather proving that Wall Street's ideas reached back to the Ancients: 117 ,    (The Battle for God), (Who Wrote the NT),  (Does Jesus Exist?),

The Gospel tradition about Jesus is not all that reliable.  (Did Jesus Exist?)

In the end, our knowledge of Jesus comes down to just the Gospels; there isn’t anything else to go on.  (Triumph of Christianity)

As bizarre as it sounds, had the Roman army not been around warring with the Jews and destroying their 2nd Temple, the warlike and hostile Gospels, and thus the rest of the NT may not have been written at all... (Who Wrote the NT)

Who was Jesus of Nazareth??

Critics believe that the Gospels are full of contradiction's, discrepancy's and is biased towards the subject matter. Jesus wasn’t a historical person and Christianity is founded on a myth.  (Did Jesus Exist?)

Millions of people for 1000’s of years have tried to answer this simple basic question yet no one has come up with a definitive answer that most would agree on. Some say Jesus was a teacher, prophet, a ‘good man’, a martyr, “King of the Jews” (taken from Herod 1st 40 BC) or the Word ‘logos’--taken from ancient Greeks:

Logos refers not to Christ but "the rational order of the universe" a "force" which earlier Greek philosophers apply the name God. 118

Jesus consistently said that his primary mission was to call Jews back to God.

(New Oxford Bible commentary)

Obviously Jesus (‘Joshua’ in Gr.) couldn’t be the Lord Himself, ‘savior’ of mankind or ‘cosmic’ redeemer, apocalyptic prophet or a combination of all--- but nor has he shown us what he is or isn’t the past 2,000 years either! The advantage of this for both believers and unbelievers is absolutely nothing—we are all left in the Proverbial Dark… Why the ambiguity and secrecy if ‘the Message’ is supposed to be lit on a hill? : (Mt.  5)

Jesus was first a Christian Jew--not a 21st century Christian American.  His world was different than ours—his concerns weren’t ours and—most striking of all—

his beliefs [Near Eastern religion] were not ours.     (Did Jesus Exist)

Jesus left no literary remains and his ideas and notes were circulated orally for 20-30 years before written down:  119 , (From Jesus to Christianity), (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

If you [Jews not Christians] continue in my word you are truly my disciples… For salvation is of the Jews.     (John 4, 8)

However these teachings were still 300 years away from being a later institutionalized religion:

The original Jesus of true history has been lost to us. We only know a Jesus invented by the later Church.  (Searching for the Original Bible)

To millions of Christians Jesus is the Lord who showed up unannounced from a dirt-poor lower class Jewish village of Nazareth to ‘save the world'  but that is not a fact but only a religious belief: (John 3:16) ,(Jewish Encyclopedia)

Some scholars dismiss the Gospel's as little more than a Christian fantasy that tell us nothing reliable.  120

To the writer “Matthew”, Jesus was the Jews ‘new Moses’—which he couldn’t have been since he didn’t lead anybody out of bondage.  To John, the Lord was the “logos” or Word that was in the beginning with God-- which may be true, yet that raises huge contradictions between the Old and NT's of which the New claims to be from:

The OT is a revelation from God yet this God never told His “chosen” [Jews] that He had a son. Yet this son is the “Word”, the Logos, the creator of the world.  Why would God keep this fact from Moses [only to split the two religions down the middle later]?     (Deceptions & Myths)

The word 'logos' means "reasoned thought" which later re-emerges as "the Word" of God.  However the relationship between God's Word and 'reason' is problematic [faith is anti-reason]. (Closing of the Western Mind)

To some cynical historians Jesus was not a man of true history raising the horrible notion that “Jesus” might have been a later cult-figure for spiritually-starving Jews which I earlier mentioned:

The term "Son of God" can be an inadequate term because it's a very family pagan concept as

pagan gods propagated 'sons on earth'. To avoid confusion the term "only begotten" was

added... Jews had difficulty with this term because of its pagan connotations.

(History of Christian Thought--Tillich)

Also Jesus couldn’t have said everything attributed to him as it’s contradictory to the character:

If one accepts Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet then his other [social] sayings would be contradictions. (Excavating Jesus)

Poor Jesus!!

To the mistaken Disciples hoping to pin responsibility on Jesus he was the ‘Lamb of God’ who would take away the ‘sins (there’s that word again) of the world'—yet that obviously never happened:

Evil didn’t start with Adam/Eve and nor did it end with Christ.  121

Reading the Gospels for the first time one is struck by the quotes of peace and Jewish practicality (to a degree) but also very famous apocalyptic 'end of the world' verses of death and destruction (Mt. 23/24):

Jesus ethics were driven by an apocalyptic agenda.  (Did Jesus Exist?)

Jesus was remembered as a teacher who challenged people to think of themselves as citizens of the kingdom of God.  But that kingdom was vague rather

than clear and unambiguous.    (Discovering God),   (Who Wrote the NT)

Yet what or whose "Lord" is it? (Why Christianity Must Change)

“I am the Lord—I change not”. (Malachi 3)

Another reason why devoted Christians 'bang their heads against the wall' trying to decipher this Jesus and in retrospect never should have bothered in the first place:

Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism agreed that the goal of human life was salvation.  All 3 promised adherents eternal life and all 3 were egalitarian, offering hope from the inequities which they labored under.   122,   (The Rise of the West)

The Parables

Known among millions for his parables Jesus became both famous and infamous over the centuries for people not understanding him:

I call his parables megaparables—"so they may not understand".  123

While the ‘Yahweh’ of the OT spoke more like a legal judge on the bench, this Christ said things completely opposite and upside-down from the obvious facts and situations. He told a non-Jew Roman officer that he had ‘more faith’ than anyone in Israel  while cursed at the Pharisee’s for being ‘too religious’! [Paul are you listening??] (Mt. 8) But unfortunately these stories often collide in religious contradictions... For example the story of the extorter Zacchaeus a tax collector who promises to give back 50% of his possessions to the poor: (Lk. 19)

What Pharisee would have criticized Jesus for converting sinners to saints? (Excavating Jesus)

And unlike many of today's Christians, Jesus personally liked  'outsiders'  and wasn't threatened by people’s beliefs or unbelief’s--unlike Paul or later Christians who were very threatened by people’s beliefs. (Mt. 9, 11, Lk. 19)

Jesus in the OT?

170

Jesus is not the Messiah for the Jews or else they would have accepted him. Origen

Since later writers pieced the Gospels together from scraps and Oral tradition many critics feel that the ‘Jesus in OT prophecy’ was also invented by later disciples by inserting both important and trivial OT verses such as ‘the 30 shekels of silver’, ‘virgin birth’ the ‘suffering servant’, etc. to "prove" their case. Of course this flies in the face of what all Christians want to believe about their Lord:

All the OT was searched for correct language regarding Jesus to fulfill his Jewish mission-- whether prophet, priest or king and none were complete.   (Who Wrote the NT), (The Bible in Translation)

Later Paul, along with the later writers of the 4 Gospels, reinterpreted (incorrectly I might add) the OT Septuagint looking for this ‘Jesus as Savior’ (messiah), ”the Lord’s anointed” for the non-Jewish Gentile or pagan world. But Jesus never said that he was the Savior of the world anywhere in the NT but rather referred to himself more as a supernatural teacher and Judge for the continuing Jewish epic.  It was later disciples that pinned the 'messiah' tag on him:   (Discovering God)

Christians have misinterpreted Isaiah 53 [the suffering passages]. In their view, the messiah had to suffer but they’re wrong. There he’s called “servant of the Lord” not the messiah. (Did Jesus Exist)

In hindsight today it's easy to see that Christ was not the Jews ‘warring King’ to supernaturally fight against Rome. This supposed “messiah” and Davidic “king” from Ezekiel/Jeremiah/Isaiah who was to liberate the people of God from their oppressors did not--thus Jesus was overlooked and ignored by the Jews which continues to this day:   124, 125, (Triumph of Christianity),

These early Christian writers gave the ‘messiah’ term a radical new meaning.

(The Battle for God)

Thus, these Old and NT ‘Gods’ couldn’t or shouldn’t be confused with each other as they are completely different personalities... (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Christianity: a religion of exclusion and fear?

In stance after stance the Gospels goes completely counter to our modern life. 124

For 1000’s of years both Jesus and later Christianity have been both famous and infamous for excluding people: “no one [no Jew] comes to the Father but by me”, “repent” (Mt. 4), the “2nd Coming” (Mt. 24), or John 3:17--where those that don’t believe are “condemned already”... Other confusions of who Jesus was that he came to ‘call Israel’ to repentance (Mt. 15) only later calling Gentiles! (Mt. 22) It’s well known that Jesus didn’t like either the Pharisees/Sadducees but  also called pagan non-Jews “dogs”—Jewish slang for the ‘lowest of the low’ Gentile.   (Mt. 7, 15, 16, 22, 23)  Also his famous “kingdom of God” speeches weren’t all ‘peace loving’ as they are partly apocalyptic about supposed later destruction: (Lk. 22)

In some places Jesus said salvation from and in other places directed it mostly to the Jews at large. In Acts, Peter argued that one must become a Jew first then begin doing Christian rites while Paul argued that being a Jew wasn’t at all necessary and that if a man circumcised himself then forget being a Christian! ("The Lost Gospel of Judas Isacariot")

The Crucifixion

There is scant historical information about the death of Jesus.  (From Jesus to Christianity)

The crucifixion is central to Christianity. But you must remember that for the first 300+ years most early Christians were Jews that converted and Rome wasn't going to 'convert' because the religion was technically illegal! Thus beginning a strange new Jewish religion around a Crucifixion for redemption that 99% of the Jews wouldn’t--and worse--couldn't believe in was bound to have a lot of problems.  Only in the mid 4th century and later did the early Catholic Church try to use the crucifixion for all people in general--at that time mostly barbarians. And I mentioned earlier that in ancient times both animal and human sacrifices were used to ‘appease the gods' so the sacrifice was as well known as your hose:

900 BC

A frequent sacrifice on Babylonian altars was the lamb; [the Lamb of later Isaiah]

“The lamb as a substitute for a man, the lamb he gives for his life. (Our Oriental Heritage)

In Moses’ Law a 500 years before Jesus the Israelites were admonished to purge the evil and the guilty from the holiness of Israel: for instance, murderers, hookers and homo’s were stoned to death. (Deut. 19, 21)  To the Ancients in Jesus’ case it’s the opposite--the Jews supposedly ‘purged the innocent Lamb' (Jesus) from the unholy world and everyone else is "saved":

Jesus teachings and the stories about him contain nothing that could he used as a cause for being crucified by anyone.  (Who Wrote the NT)

Playing devil’s advocate here, Christians believe that Christ was a martyr but a martyr for what?  Martyr’s die or kill themselves for a reason. When asked to defend himself in front of Pilate he was silent—meaning Jesus could not be a martyr:

Early followers of Jesus took the Crucifixion and martyrdom from the mythic Greek concept of a ‘noble death’…   (Who Wrote the NT)

A serious objection raised against the Christ story is that it seem so fundamentally pagan. Although a sacrifice may have seemed plausible to early pagans, the story rings quite false now.   (Triumph of Christianity)

It’s old news that these Jews broke their own Law in the “killing” by crucifixion of Jesus which was forbidden and as a rule crucified victims were left unburied and tossed on the ground to rot.  To the superstitious Jew the shame of non-burial was equally feared: 125, 126

Roman crucifixion was punishment for slaves, servants, peasants and bandits—not itinerant preachers. And why would the crowd demand crucifixion during Passover which was a festive occasion? What has Jesus done against them??  (Excavating Jesus)

Regardless, tolerant Rome never would have sentenced the thieves next to him to death anyway (especially by crucifixion) which was reserved those hated by Roman society. Thieves were punished but not killed: (Deut. 25), (War of the Jews)

Are the Gospel accounts of the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus true to historical reality?  Many scholars say no.  127

The reason they say no is because outside of the Bible there are no other references.

Sadistic Jews?

Also I believe the untruthfulness of the NT regarding Calvary should be obvious as Jewish religious leaders of the time never would have mocked somebody dying on a crucifix anymore than a pastor or a Catholic priest today would mock somebody dying in a flaming car wreck now:

There was only one Christian and he died on the cross...  (F. Nietzsche 1890?)

Resurrection

The influence of faith-based religion without death would be unthinkable. Clearly faith is just a shadow cast by our hope for a better life beyond the grave…  ("The End of Faith", Harris)

The gist of Christianity as a later religion was supposed to be about Jesus’ resurrection from the grave yet oddly the Gospels speak about it the least.

In Mark, the 1st written Gospel, (70) Jesus 'appears to nobody in particular' and made a statement that is strongly contradictory to the other Gospels, "He who believes will be saved but he who doesn't believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16).  From Mathew and Luke we get just one very vague chapter while John has two chapters on what is supposed to be the whole premise of Christianity.  Clearly, these early writers didn't exactly know where this new religion was headed and were using it to 'one-up' existing Judaism. 127, 128

The Call

Go therefore and teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.   (Mt. 28)

This verse was probably edited in later by followers but historically Jesus couldn't have said this as he called himself the "Son of man" (son of Adam--Hebrew general term for humans) not the son of God.

Most know that Jesus was a practical teacher (especially during the liberal Hellenistic Greek period) but this verse isn't practical at all! Teach "all nations" what--a religion with Jewish ethics and morals from the Near East to the rest of world to Infinity?  What about nations in the Far East or India? What about the 1000's of indigenous tribes in the unexplored lands of South and North America?? What about the cultural and language divisions??  And by what laws or authority do they have to teach anyway other than what the Gospels command?? In countless other verses Jesus didn't demand that people believe but unfortunately early militant Christianity became the proverbial Spanish bull in a china shop for 1500 years:  129, 130, ("Constantine's Sword"), ("Triumph of Christianity")

1532 Peru

Brooklyn Museum -Atahualpa, Fourteenth Inca,

As for the Pope of whom you speak he must be crazy of giving away countries which do not belong to him.   Atahuallpa, Incan monarch to the Spanish conquerors.  131

There are 100's of other references of early militant Christianity (500-1000) around the world but this isn't the book for that.

Acts of the Apostles and the New Jesus Movement

30-120

The Roman Church claimed its own traditional authority on the foundation of the Apostles Peter and Paul.  132

Acts was a story of hostile cultural forces and missionary zeal. Time magazine    133

Some scholars call Acts the "great cover up". 134

The Acts version of Pentecost reads like it occurred the day after Jesus was resurrected but it was actually written anywhere from 60 to 90 years later and recorded just a tiny fraction of the early apostolic church. Here we see a shift away from the 'flighty' Jesus and more towards the disciples that later gave structure to the Catholic, or “Universal” church with the dead Peter being its first Pope (“papa”).  How’s that for public relations??:

(Who Wrote the NT), ( Intro to NT), (Interpreters Commentary,  “Early History Of the Church")

The NT letters were written to support the apostolic fiction and to insert the “authority” of the Apostles into the chain of tradition... While Acts itself might rather be called 'Acts of Paul'. (Who Wrote the NT), (Paul & Jesus)

In Acts, Paul was a follower walking behind Peter of this new ‘Jesus movement’ which began as a religious sect or Jewish separatist movement among Greek-speaking Jews. Oddly, the original disciples had little recorded impact on the early Christ story wanting instead to blend back into society rather than become preachers like a Paul who was considerably more bold:

Sect—a group that has tension with the rest of society and feels that the rest of society has gone wrong and only a few people—the members of the sect—see the correct road.    (From Jesus to Christianity)

Peter believed that Jesus was the Jews ‘long lost Savior’ who they just killed (Acts 3) but unlike Paul, Peter (an eyewitness) felt that Jesus was the Mediator sent only to Jews and not pagan Gentiles. Paul quarreled with Peter over this matter and history wouldn’t be kind to Peter’s viewpoint: (The Bible in Translation),  (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Between Paul, Peter and Jesus are irreconcilable differences.  (Paul & Jesus, Tabor)

Also questions arose concerning relations of the new Jesus believers and the power rivals in the synagogue.  Apparently the early Jesus people were engaged in a form of ‘myth-making’ as they wanted a new ‘Jewish Epic’:

With regard to this [Jewish] sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against…  Acts 28

In Acts the sermons being addressed to Jews were: He was your God’s Choice, you killed him, therefore repent, be baptized and be Christians.  That is not “good news”—it’s manipulation and intimidation and no Jew would have found that motivating.   (Who Wrote the NT)

55

Some [Peter] believed pagan Christian’s should convert to Judaism first [for salvation].   ("The Bible")

Of course, that would leave the later Catholic Church in a huge bind since Peter was their first Pope! The later Catholic Church didn't want Jews--they already had their own religion!

Paul in Acts

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem Jews railed against him a notorious traitor and at the second conference in Jerusalem Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses”. (Acts 21:21) A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life was rescued by the Roman police claiming Roman citizenship.  The charge?  Ringleader of a religious sect that might undermine the Roman 'social order'. What's very troublesome about this small story is Paul's hatred of his parent faith and instead of appealing to the Jewish council he appeals to the Emperor Nero and was sent to Caesarea but in chains. The governor in Caesarea wants to hand the case back over to the Jewish council but Paul refuses—he's a Roman citizen and appeals to the governor of Rome to take up the case. Paradoxically, if Paul would have stayed with the Jews his life would have been spared. This announcement was the end of Paul's association with Peter’s Jerusalem Church.    135, 136 (Concise History of the Catholic Church)

60-100

The apocryphal and Gnostic Book “Gospel of Thomas” [taken from the unknown “Q” source] recalls a short-lived ‘Jesus movement’ in the 60’s which was a synthesis of the Septuagint ‘purity codes’ which Paul wrote about in the Letters.  These movements were vague but inviting rather than clear and unambiguous, and like the old ‘hippie’ movements of the 1960’s were very experimental. These groups developed their own social practices and group identities, thought of themselves as prophets of old and to be members of “a people” [Paul’s own words].  These early Jesus people were now using ‘epic revision’ in the style of Judaism but without having any access to Jesus’ own words these people preached without exercising control over what they said. The new sect later found their self in great competition with Jewish synagogue’s which had a 1000 year history and a greater claim on salvation.  Who could make the claim that a small group of ‘Jesus people’ represented Gods new “Plan A” for mankind??

(The Bible in Translation), (Who Wrote the NT), (From Jesus to Christianity), (People's History of the World)

65-67

The NT vision of the church is best represented as the ‘dream of God’--the beloved community. 137

Under house arrest for 2 years in Rome Paul was able to speak to visitors, went through possibly 2 court trials but was declared guilty of sedition-- betraying the Roman state. Although he never killed anybody he was possibly sentenced to the highest punishment under Roman law and beheaded by sword 62-67 (no one really knows for sure however). But we can  realistically forget the Christian ‘romantic ideals’--Paul wasn’t killed for being a ‘Christian’ believer but rather as an enemy of the Roman state. An ignominious ending for a social rebel and true divider rather than integrator of people:

Rome later declared war on the Galilean's when they realized their aim was total triumph over all other religions.     (Concise History of the Catholic Church)

Saul of Tarsus, Turkey

A photo of how Paul might today as a former Jewish Essene

The greatest irony in history is the religion named for Christ has become the religion of Paul and the Roman Church.     (Who Wrote the NT)

Outside of Acts and his Epistles very little is known about Saul (‘Paul’ Gr.) (Acts 13).  He was the son of a Pharisee and according to Acts went to a strict rabbinical school in Jerusalem studying the Torah Law, Prophet’s and the Writings. These were recruited from the privileged and wealthy in Jerusalem which neither Jesus nor Paul was associated with (especially with Paul being a lowly tent or leather maker) so this is probably another exaggeration. (Acts 18) At the time Judea had about 20,000 Pharisees and coincidently this was the same group that Jesus targeted in the Gospels as hypocritical and who were leading the innocent astray through mean-less rituals!  ("World of St. Paul"), (Intro to NT), (Triumph of Christianity)

The rest is academic as most Christians know the ‘Paul story’—the Pharisee who watched a crowd stone to death a member of the hated Jesus sect Stephen, (39--62) his ‘conversion’ on the road to Damascus, the later missionary who transverses the Mediterranean covering 1000’s of miles by ship starting “churches”-- in actuality houses.  Contrary to the stereotype of Christians being ‘wimpy’ Paul must have been a big or a strong man as “he dragged off men and women to prison” and people from the new Jesus movement “were all afraid of him”! (Acts 8)

Paul’s view of Jesus was as a salvation-deity whose death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism but in mystery-religion.  138, (Interpreter's, "Greco-Roman Background of the NT"), ("NT and the Christian Community")

And scholars don’t always agree with Peter/Paul’s “miracles” and in his Letters Paul never once mentioned his “conversion” on the road:    (Why Christianity Must Change)

The “blinding light” story must be viewed as exaggeration or Christian legend.

(From Jesus to Christianity)

Compared to his fiery Letters, the “Paul” in Acts seems rather cardboard and ‘2-D’’ and there are large inconsistencies in theology between the two “people”.  For example the Paul in Acts once “refused to be a judge of Jewish law” (Acts 18) but in his Letters changed his tune entirely:  (The World of St. Paul )

The message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, wasn't the same as Jesus message. In fact, they were contradictions with little in common beyond the name of Jesus itself.    (Paul & Jesus)

Supposedly, Paul went first to synagogues to debate his Christ where he pastured tiny house churches of the sect for about 5 years however both Orthodox and Hellenist Jews couldn’t have much to do with them as their  religion prevented them due to their new '2 God’ and later '3 God' theory. So it appears that Paul’s ‘missionizing role to Gentiles’ was later exaggerated by the later Pauline school:  139 ,  (The Triumph of Christianity), (The World of St. Paul)

The Hellenistic mentality with its intellectual curiosity and love of novelty, its skepticism and intellectual independence was something which the religiously inclined Semite [Paul] could scarcely comprehend.  ("Greek/Roman Background of the NT")

Not exactly someone you'd want writing the NT... Thus early Christians were forced to improvise, working from word of mouth and worshiping without the benefit of books and established rituals.  (Europe: a history)  Pasturing these small churches what is now Turkey is where Paul ‘deciphered’ the OT's ‘sacred writings’ into the pseudo-theology of the Letters which later Christians picked up. Contrary to myth, Paul didn't invent the Christian church as a form of Christian worship or organization as most came from Jewish or pagan practice. Paul, like Jesus, never saw themselves as “Christian” but more as radical big-mouthed Jews:

(Paul Was Not a Christian), (From Jesus to Christianity), (The World of St. Paul)

Paul was a loose cannon and it's no wonder he was held in such suspicion. 140

Starting  a new religion with quotes on parchment wouldn't be easy and the road these people idealized and chose would be extremely steep and later filled with violence from all sides:

Against all logic Paul and his small band of followers all assumed the world was going to end soon so there wasn’t much point in trying to improve it.

(Christianity: the 1st 3K), (From Jesus to Christianity)

And unfortunately for the rest of the world, with these Letters and his new religion Paul now started a war against the Common Man…

Paul’s Epistles/Letters

Paul’s letters are irresponsible and extremely ignorant. 141

Paul’s Letters and Epistles were written to house groups around Asia minor in the late 50’s/early 60's for “edification” but they are more essays than informal letters some which were dictated to scribes for an oral feel and are in order from longest to shortest (like the Koran):

The Epistles are the oldest surviving documents in the Christian tradition and shaped the theology which survived as mainstream.   (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

In the 1st/2nd century these “epistles” were intended for publication and spiritual reading by the general public within church’s which at that time may have sounded rather futuristic and bizarre as Gnosticism was just starting like a new drug! And I mentioned in the Intro where Ancients were closer time wise to a primitive, undisciplined people, thus historically one today should never use these letter's as morality today--which 10's of millions of Christians still do!

And due to early Christianity's total lack of "scripture" these very short letters were later canonized by the early Catholic Church in the late 2nd Century They recorded just a tiny fraction of both legitimate and apocryphal apostolic letters that floated around the Mediterranean for 100’s of years. Surprisingly most people are unaware that Paul's weightier Letters may have been pieced together from possibly 100’s of other letters he wrote most since lost in time. Today millions of Christians believe that Paul ‘updated’ or somehow ‘realized’ Christ in order that they can assimilate the Lord’s teachings into everyday use. However we must realize that Paul was writing his fiery letters to pagan barbarians--not 21st. c. college-educated people. If you're having trouble assimilating that imagine writing letters to the Taliban and see how they might respond:  142 ,  (Intro to the NT)

Paul’s Letters loom so large that Christians use him as the definition of the new religion.  (Who Wrote the NT)

Paul behaved as the supreme authority under God and Christ for the pagan churches. 143

Paul didn’t have any distinctly Christian writing that would have the status of Scripture like the OT and his knowledge of Jesus was only through

tradition. 144   (Paul was not a Christian) ,  (Intro to the NT)

Paul is forever fascinating as his thought has shaped the Western world.  But did he found a Christianity that its Christ would have disowned?     (Gospel According to Paul)

I believe he did and even today some scholars still have a difficult time understanding this extremely arrogant and radical Gnostic preacher:

I personally know scores of scholars who have spent 20, 30, 40 or more years of their lives working to understand Paul. In many respects his writings are more difficult to interpret that the Gospels. (Did Jesus Exist)

I disagree. Paul wasn't that bright--only a confused Fundamentalist would be confused… And speaking of Fundamentalists, the advanced society that you and I live in today was caused directly by people not believing in the Bible literally for if they had we'd still be living in Medieval Ages where nothing of importance would have ever been invented or recognized.  If you think I'm nuts then consider older Middle Eastern Muslim societies who mandated fundamentalism (Sharia law) at every level for 1000 years. And in Saudi Arabia they still do:

1250-20th century Middle East

Got a new question? The 4 existing Sunni schools of thought can address it.  No trailblazing tolerated... This imperial strategy was oppression from Muslim to Muslim: the incarceration of interpretation [of a 7th c. document]. ("The Trouble with Islam")

Paul’s Basic Theology:

a).Christ is the Jews new Messiah who most Jews have rejected.

b). New believers, i.e. pagans, are now “justified” and set apart from Jews.

c). Christ’s blood sacrifice cleanses people from all sin.

d). Jesus is returning any day now.

One wonders what Paul was preaching when he started out.  His surviving writings are virtually empty of what the earthly Jesus had taught.  145, (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Hoping that the Lord might have called him into prophecy Paul reinterpreted and tried to 'update’ the apocalyptic prophecies of Isaiah/Ezekiel/Jeremiah/Daniel to his own 'neo-Judaism' arguing that Christ could actually reinforce the Jews religious establishment instead of tearing it down.  This is false as nothing like that ever occurred:  146, (Jesus: Lord or Legend?)

The Letters were later called "Christian" because Christian’s chose to include them in the NT as authoritative.  Conversely Jews don't use them in any way.   (Paul Was Not a Christian)

Regarding the writing style Paul writes with a fearfulness and urgency-- a ‘man on the edge’ with an explosive temperament awaiting the Savior or messiah who never returned.  ("The Bible") It's apparent in the letters that Paul wanted a strict theocracy where the Lord could or would somehow rule-- ‘one gospel, one church, one empire’ --‘Maranatha—the Lord Returns’! This was his mindset constantly--never wavering:

Paul was steeped in [200 b.c.] apocalyptic Judaism.    (Intro to the NT)

Paul wrestled with the problem of how Jesus represented God and his Letter’s stayed away from Jesus’ own emphasis’s. Paul was the personification of the Jewish mystic whose ‘vision exaggerates.    (Christian Mystics), (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Yet when Paul died not a single Gospel had yet been written:

Paul is the only major Christian theologian never to have read the Gospels!

(Closing of the Western Mind), (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism)

Paul was an ambiguous [vague, unknowable] figure whose gospel was fiercely contested and his authority challenged. Many modern readers find his gospel alien and hard to grasp.  (The Gospel According to Paul)

That's because Christians today aren't 1st c. Gnostics like Paul--and not knowing its historical context try to figure out his bullshit anyway...

Pagans

I mention pagans here because these were the "unbelievers" who Paul and his cohorts were trying to 'convert' since most Jews didn't believe him. The Latin meaning of pagan is “country dweller” (or hick) not just idol worshiper (although all pagans were idol worshipers) so it was to this group who Paul was addressing. Most importantly Paul wasn't being metaphorical to "unbelievers" down the pike, later Christians or "the world" as it might appear.

These pagans were polytheistic, viewed the world as a ‘manifestation of divinities’ and used rites of ritual magic/witchcraft and reincarnation for their salvation. The pagans who ruled the world also had great festivals (some which lasted 100's years) frequented the city's temples and built their social life around local cults:  (Gospel According to Paul)

In the Hellenistic age the educated man no longer believed in the traditional gods.

("Greek-Roman Background of the NT")

While the minority Jews of the time stuck their noses at pagans most viewed humankind as part of nature equal with all other creatures and parts—much like Hindu pantheism.  Around 500 AD the Christian church outlawed paganism and eventually made it a derogatory term where pagans couldn't be a professional part of society anymore. (147)

Romans (56-58 )

Roman Rule 63BC-313AD

(jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

Paul was not a ‘Universal’ man as Christians for millennia have portrayed him. He was a man of his time reflecting on assumptions of his day...  It’s the height of foolishness to try and claim ‘eternal truth’ for his culturally-conditioned and time limited words.  Paul’s words are not the words of God-- they are the words of Paul.   (“Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism")

I'm not a fan of the Paul, his mentality or the Pauline letters in the least and for the most part find them adverse not only to most human logic but adverse to what Jesus supposedly said in the later Gospels. This long Letter was addressed to a mixed-population ‘house church’ in Rome that was based on Paul’s perception of both the heathens and Romans ‘need for redemption’ along his ascetic takes on self-denial/new life/Israel’s failed relationship with God and other ethical (Jewish) teachings.  Most likely written from Corinth, Paul wasn’t the founder of this new Galilean church which he never visited and only speculated and generalized about their moral/spiritual issues: 148

Paul knew little about the Roman Christian community.   (Intro to the New Testament)

This letter was not addressed to a particular problem and scholars for 100 years have speculated why Paul wrote a long, detailed and extraordinarily hateful, negative and judgmental letter to a community he wasn't familiar with? Some scholars believe that Romans may have been a 'circular letter'--that is, handed out to different assemblies to be read aloud, thus wasn't for the  church in Rome, while others believe he might have wanted to start church's out west—say in Spain.  This letter would not have been a great start: (Gospel According to Paul), (Who Wrote the NT)

The Romans will not recognize him as their appointed representative.

(Gospel According to Paul)

In Romans, Paul explains to these experimental pagans that Christ died for everybody and that his death was similar to the earlier Jewish blood sacrifices of animals-- except now the sacrifice would be for all mankind.  To those who believe in the Cross, Jew or pagan is now 'eternally saved’--although they wouldn’t be called ‘Christians’ for another 50 more years... This radical analogy is what pissed off the Rabbis who didn’t believe Christ was their messiah and that it wasn’t Paul’s job to point fingers at them for not believing his take on salvation. And as you will see, Paul's take on salvation never showed up!

(Jesus: Lord or Legend?), (Who Wrote the NT), (Christianity: the 1st 3K), (Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot), (A History of Christianity)

Style--

The Book of Romans used what earlier Greek philosophers called an ‘argument from reasoning’-- a written device used by first asking a hypothetical/reasoned or illogical question--then answering the question later. For example in Romans, Paul asks, “Then what advantage has the Jew?” (3:1) and then goes into the reasons why... To most Christians today Romans is 'meaty', mysterious, always read to congregations but never fully understood--like it is the Word of God. But that 'mysticism' is actually his Gnostic/apocalyptic/anti-Jewish/Platonic mindset. Sorry there's no other way to say it:  (“Letters of Paul", Gilmour), (“A History of Christianity”), (Intro to the NT), (History of Christian Thought), (any books by Pagels/Ehrman)

Roman's is difficult to understand because it deals with objections and misunderstandings arising out of Jewish opposition [to their sect] which was part of Paul's situation—but not the situation today.  (History of Christian Thought)

The Bible quotes are New Oxford and paraphrasing is often used for grasping 2-3 sentences or paragraphs so you don't get bored...

Chapter 1

:1   Paul called to be “an apostle” (Gr. “one sent out” or “missionary”).

Later Christians believed that Paul was somehow the new “12th Apostle” since Judas wasn’t around anymore but for Paul to proclaim himself an original Apostle would have been an exaggeration since it was 20 years after Jesus. Other definitions of ‘apostle’ are any of the 500 or so that saw Jesus after his death and became preachers or he could have been an ‘apostle’ of the church in Antioch which would be a lesser title. (Who Wrote the NT), (From Jesus to Christianity)

:2   Jesus was promised beforehand through the prophets.

The term ‘messiah’ was crucial to New Testament writer’s—whenever they found the word ‘Christos’ in the Greek OT—be it king, prophet or priests—they coded it as a reference to Jesus.  ("The Bible"), (Who Wrote the NT)

There are no direct inferences in the OT regarding Jesus as Messiah for the Jews...  Isaiah’s famous verses, “For us a child is born and the government will be on his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’” (Isaiah 8) obviously didn’t materialize for the Jews and which begs the question, ‘who are these verses pertaining to then?’  The answer is no one really knows!  Some Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians will point to these as ‘2nd  Coming’ verses but correct prophecies over 3,000 years old for the Jews are non-historical.   (Who Wrote the NT), (Radical Judaism), (Understanding the Hebrew Bible)

:3-4 Jesus is the son of God.

The phrase “son of God” was familiar to Jews and didn't signify the Messiah per se but rather the Israelites who were called “sons of God” throughout their history--but wasn't recorded as such in the OT.  Jesus called himself the “son of Man” not the son of God.  Later in the 2nd c. Jesus divinity 'evolved' which the early church wanted as they could now separate from the monotheistic Jews.  ("Letter of Paul to Romans", Blackman), (any of Ehrman's books), (Age of Faith), (Paul & Jesus)

:5  Who we [Roman's] have received apostleship [preachers] to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations.

This is 3 parts:

a).  While these pagans could give a shit less about nascent Christianity or a big-mouthed false Jew like Paul, later communities drew "justification" from him.

b). This verse proves that apostleship equaled preachers.

c). There were no "nations" in the 1st c. but which the Catholic church later  used to spread Christianity, sometimes by force worldwide.

:6  You Roman's [heathens, idolaters] are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

Pagan converts left the Jesus sect with a problem--nobody felt that people should be excluded from salvation but admitted on what terms?

(The Bible), (World of St. Paul), (From Jesus to Christianity)

Paul mistakenly believed these people as worthy or even better than the Jew who (for reasons not covered here) refused Christ as their messiah. Paul believed these pagans are now the 'people of God' but most pious Jews saw them as great pretenders or just possibly experimenters.

:8  Your faith is proclaimed in all the [Roman] world.

Early Christianity was a movement still defined in terms of Judaism and was still looking forward to the apocalyptic promises [Jeremiah , Isaiah, Ezekiel] made to national Israel.    (Searching for the Original Bible)

Outside of this letter nothing is known about this church and it disappeared without a trace...

:10-13  Paul wanted to visit that he might give them some spiritual gift but was prevented.

Ancient sea travel wasn't very comfortable.  ("Letter of Paul to Romans")

:14 Paul’s under obligation to both Greeks and [foolish] barbarians.

‘Barbarians’ was a contemptuous term used by Greeks for those with a lack of culture.  Jews also contemptuously used this term for many non-Jews and Paul knew pagans were foolish anyway and lets it slip. These "fools” were supposed to be the new Jewish Epic that Paul wanted?  149

:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel [“good news”].

“Good News” wasn’t about the ‘good news’ of Christianity—which to the pagan world and the Jews at the time was nothing but bad news and more competition-- but the word for Christ’s expected return. (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

:17  He that is righteous through faith shall live [in the Hereafter].

For Paul “salvation” was often in the future when Christ returned.

(Intro to the New Testament)

:18  For the wrath of God is reveal from heaven against all ungodliness

and wickedness of men who suppress the truth.

As in Judaism, the Christian experience of God oscillated between a love relationship and that of a horrifically punitive antagonism and condemnation. Thus did hope/faith co-exist with guilt and fear.  (Passion of the Western Mind)

This verse is in 3 parts:

a). The difficulties Paul had to overcome with the barbarian background of astrology, the gods/goddesses of fortune and fate, dreams/magic/mythology along with the Roman credo of ‘do-your-own-thing’ was the antithesis of Judaism. Somehow Paul wanted to change these pagans from the ‘outside/in’ through a new brand of neo-Jewish ‘moralism’ in order to get to heaven.  Here Paul was referring to pagan barbarians-- not man in general for all ages like Christians want to believe.          (Who Wrote the NT)

b). This is Paul's Dualism with the OT demiurge in cahoots with the Devil... However, the “wrath of God” has never been revealed from heaven against sin anyway and flatly contradicts Jesus viewpoint (Mt. 12, 25, Luke 5, 19, John 5, 8,12, 17)

c). Paul felt it was the Jews that were “suppressing the truth” by not believing in the “Jesus as the new messiah” story—now 20-25 years old.

:19-32 Paul condemns other pagans with their ‘if it feels good do it' mentality and that somehow they will be penalized by God and deserve to die.

This was common Jewish polemic against the pagan world.  (Paul & Jesus)

Throughout his entire life Paul grew up surrounded by religion—Hebrew, Greek mythologies, Persian Mithraism and 100’s of other mystery cults and rites in addition to Greek philosophy. But what pissed off Paul was idolatry who he feels these people deserved to die.  I'd say L. A. now is about 60% pagan, un-churched and probably no different (probably worse) than these Romans who were at least looking for a god--but few complain about their very heathen lifestyles or want them to die.

Chapter 2

In this chapter Paul self-righteously and arrogantly points his guns at Judaism...

:1-3  You pagans, when you judge someone you condemn yourself because you're doing the same things. Do you think you'll escape the judgment of God [when Christ returns]?

Unlike early Christianity, paganism was essentially a tolerant faith.  (Hist. of God)

This is 2 parts:

a).  Paul, the ignorant observer having never visited Rome, is now condemning their supposedly pagan behavior of chapter 1, even though he tells these pagans not to judge others in verse 5.

b). When Paul speaks about the future or salvation the reference is always an apocalyptic ref to "Christ's Return" which he was waiting for.  (Who Wrote the NT)

:4  Don't you know that God's kindness is meant to lead you [barbarians, 1:14] to repentance?

170

One of Celsus's main objections to Christianity was that it was impossible to tell what Christians believed since they disagreed among themselves so completely: "These different sects slander one another with unspeakable words of abuse whether Ebionites, Marcionites or Gnostics. They [like Paul] utterly detest one another."   150

In the next verse these same people are all are under "God's wrath". (3:5) Which is it Paul??

5: Both Jews/Greeks are storing up wrath or glory for themselves when God’s judgment will be revealed [when Christ returns any day now].

Paul vehemently spoke out against Greek/ Roman philosophy with its emphasis on ‘free thinkers’ and sex as hedonists.      (Mysteries of the Middle Ages)

These are veiled apocalyptic verses of basically a madman and without any theology to back

him up now claims that both Jews/pagans are now under Judgment. If he was any sort of a

decent Jew he would have known that none of the OT apocalyptic prophecies came to pass, yet

300-400 years later he's still condemning both Jews and Greeks. Of course, none of his absurd

boasts ever came true...

:6 For he [God] will render every man according to his works [when Christ returns in Glory].

This is 2 parts:

a). There's nothing "Christian" about this verse as judgment is written about  100's of times in the OT:

Surely there is a God who judges on earth. (Ps. 58)

b). Another apocalyptic verse.

:7 To those [pagans] that do well he [the OT God not Jesus] will give eternal life [when he returns].

Another apocalyptic verse.

:8-9 But for those who are factious and don't obey the truth [Paul's words/Jesus' teachings] but obey wickedness there will be wrath and fury.

...to those who are factious and don’t obey the truth, there will be wrath and fury-- to those that disagree with Paul!  (Intro to the NT)

:10 But glory and honor for everyone who does good, both Jew and pagan [when Christ returns].

Another apocalyptic verse...

:11 For [the OT] God is impartial.

This is 2 parts:

a). This implies 'an even scale' of judgment since Jesus was coming back in the Apocalypse along with Yahweh but Paul believed their sect and thus their God was above the Jewish Nation which would make God biased towards Paul, not the Jews! But never for a minute did he believe Jesus was God. To Paul, Jesus was an angel sent by God.  (Who Wrote the NT)

b). Maybe God's impartial but his later henchmen were not:

1000-1500's

When they killed 10's of thousands of innocent men, women and children they were acting in obedience to the Church with the blessing of law and order.  The official seal of the Inquisition was misericordia et justitia (mercy and justice).  151

:12-15  Because pagans/heathens don’t have any laws they will perish [be

damned] while Jews will be judged by their own Law [when Christ returns].

Myths don't spring up from virgin ground--they are borrowed from older sources then molded and remade into new myths. 152

This is 2 parts:

a). Not so surprisingly Paul, the pseudo-Jew, wasn't aware of Jesus'/Hillel's teachings:

Condemn not and you will not be condemned.     Luke 6

It was a no-brainer at this time that Jews would be judged by their own Laws--but here Paul shows his real prejudice towards pagan Gentiles by telling this congregation that they “will perish” because they don’t have the Law!  Of course this is all a threat by telling them that they won’t be judged as harshly if they come to Jesus...

b). Another veiled apocalyptic verse of God's Judgment.

:16  On that day when God judges the secrets of men through Jesus [when he returns].

Early Christian’s had to confront the gap between the kingdom of God as a 'mythic ideal' and the Roman society as the real world which they lived.     (Who Wrote the NT)

:17-24  If you call yourself a good Jew are you a hypocrite who steals or robs [pagan] temples?

Paul was usually reckless with his words despite being outnumbered by 4 million Jews against maybe 1000 “Nazarene’s”.  Who would write a letter like this to perfect strangers unless your thinking is a bit crazy??

:25-29 Circumcision is of value if you obey the Law but if you break the Law your Jewishness becomes void [useless]. For he isn’t a real Jew on the outside but only on the inside as his praise is from God not men.

This verse is telling about Paul’s attitude towards Judaism and the Pharisee’s who he felt were hypocritical... According to Paul if a Jew committed a 'sin' then his religion was no use but Paul obviously wasn't aware of Christ's teachings after he healed sickness:

See you are well!  Sin no more [obey Moses Law]that nothing worse befall you!  (Jn. 5)

Chapter 3

:1-4  What advantage has the Jew? They are entrusted with the oracles of God.  But what if some were unfaithful?

Ecstatic converts are dangerous founders of religious creeds.  153

This is Paul hating his old religion, needing and wanting something else. (v. 5)

:5-6 If our wickedness shows us the justice of God what shall we say?  That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us?? By no means! For how could God judge the world otherwise?

If Christian’s knew what the “original sin” was they wouldn’t see mankind as under the condemnation of God.  If they knew what the soul is they wouldn’t think it as ‘lost’ but only undeveloped.  Lacking such knowledge they can’t enlighten those they teach.

(Deceptions & Myths)

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul believes that people (including himself) deserve the "wrath of God" and that if they weren’t bad they wouldn’t be judged in the first place! This is his 'anti-man, guilt-trip logic' that God must have made people for one purpose—to judge and condemn them which he speaks much about.

b). Another apocalyptic verse.

:7-8a  But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds why am I still being condemned as a [pagan] sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?

This is a continuation of thought from v. 5 where his wickedness shows Paul the "justice of God"--meaning he thought of himself more like a worm like most religious Extremists...

:8b Some people [Jews] slanderously charge us with saying [evil].

Being a former Essene obviously Paul didn't have many friends... And I also don't believe he actually knew what true evil was since everyone on earth was already evil. (Rom. 7/8)

:9-18  Are Jews better off?  No. Both Jews and Greek [pagans] are under sin

[held captive to the Devil].

One of the 7 manifestations of wrath is “enslavement to the body” which would

be possessed by the devil.  154

Here Paul finger-points at the Romans believing in Adam/Eve’s ‘sin’ as the reason for God ‘cursing’ man because man is ‘separated’ from God. But according to the Torah Jews are not separated from God because of ‘sin’—so why is Paul condemning his peers here? (Ezekiel 3, Psalm 37, Proverb 10) Later we find out his real angle is Jesus who he believes is their ‘secret messiah’ and the ‘bridge’ between ‘sinful man’ and God.  But Jesus only said he was “the way” to heaven--not salvation for every man, women and child on earth! If that were the case what would become of Judaism and their Epic? How would those who never heard or believe in Jesus ‘be saved’?   (John 6), (Who Wrote the NT)

19-20: Through the Law [and what’s written on men’s hearts] comes

knowledge of sin.

In the NT version of 'sin' (Gr.) means "missing the mark" which comes from "archery".  In that aspect, sin would mean "missing the spirit" which is certainly not a crime. 155

This is 2 parts:

a). Earlier I mentioned that Jews were called “righteous” and non-Jews  “unrighteous”--here Paul rationalizes that it’s God’s purpose through laws/ Jewish Law to make people realize how bad (guilty) we really are since all have fallen short of ‘doing what is right’!  However that’s not in Jesus'/Hillel's philosophy with a woman caught in adultery which by Levitical Law was to be stoned to death:

"Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".  And when the

Pharisees heard it they went away.  (Jn. 8)

b). Paul knew nothing about a person’s inner ‘moral code’ that Aristotle, early psychiatrists/psychologists and even relatively modern Christian writers like C.S. Lewis/Paul Tillich believe in as a guideline for personal change.  Stoic morality was around Paul's time as well...

:21-22  Christ has been manifested apart from Jewish Law and the prophets

bear witness to it.

Clues to the ‘hidden meaning’ of Jesus in prophecy and fulfillment are fragmentary. There was no single story or story line in Jewish scripture that could decode the Jesus story as relevant to Israel.  (Who Wrote the NT)

:23 All have sinned and fallen short.

The biological theory of primitive instincts unfitting man for civilization was symbolized by the doctrine of original sin. (Story of Civilization, vol. 1)

This major Christian mantra is a reference to Adam who “fell” from God’s favor and in Fundamental circles used as guilt trip to separate man from God which is somehow 'bridged' by Jesus through faith... This is the 'mental stretch' (faith) that all Christians for eons are expected to have regardless of how ridiculous the thought train might be. Man might have a problem with evil but Jesus never took it away regardless...

:24  Believers are justified by his grace through redemption in Jesus.

'Grace' is a term actually from Roman law where one is being treated as innocent when in fact one is guilty.  (Christian Ethics)

This is 2 parts:

a). 'Grace' isn’t a concept from the OT and wasn’t used anywhere in the Gospels but Paul went to bed with it and used it 90 times!  I believe Paul made up his own theology as it suited his outlook...

b). Redemption ("buy back") was a familiar to both pagan Greek and OT readers:

Redemption was a Greek ritual for the freeing of slaves--to redeem the slave from the owner.  ("Greek-Roman Background of the NT")

For 2,000 years "redemption" is the Christian story for the Cross would be void without it yet it implies a prior separation somehow.  The big problem is there's nowhere in either the OT/NT that explains this concept! Paul certainly doesn't! Christians are simplistically told to believe its dogma and accept it regardless--which doesn't go over too well with other secular people who remain very skeptical.

Chapter 4

:1-25   Paul brings up Abraham with his promises and ends that Jesus was raised for our justification (v. 25).

‘Law, gospel, freedom, redemption, adoption, spirit, judgment, salvation’ sound like NT concepts but actually they’re OT concepts which as a Pharisee Paul knew about but spun this theology as the “new” gospel of Christ.     (Intro to the NT)

Paul’s “justification” isn’t in the OT or Gospel theology yet to Paul this meant that somehow someway millions of Jews have ‘lost’ their way of salvation and now need to be ‘saved’ along with the rest of the world!  The word here means a 'separation from God' and that man as done wrong (Adam). This is unscriptural as Jesus never said he came to call people or Jews to ‘mass repentance’: (Mt. 5 Sermon on the Mount, 6, 7, 18, Luke 10, 14, 18, 19, John 3)

To Paul, all humans were in a ‘sinful’ state thus a ‘need’ for a gospel.  This was Paul’s own invention.   (Who Wrote the NT)

This is another reason why Christians are always on the defensive--because they believe an Idiot like Paul for their 'theology' over Jesus'.

Chapter 5

:1  Justified by faith let us have peace with God through Jesus.

The Christian assimilation of the mystery religions with the Greek gods were absorbed into its own hierarchy--Christ as Apollo/Atlas/Perseus/Mithra, God the Father as Zeus, Sarapis, Mother Mary as Aphrodite/Isis, the [later] Holy Spirit as Apollo/Dionysis, Orpheus and Satan as Pan/Hades/ Prometheus.    (Passion of the Western Mind)

This is 2 parts:

a). Here Paul’s 'reconciliation' means a separation that has somehow been bridged by Christ... This means anybody who ‘believes in Jesus’--plus Paul’s new ‘moral laws’--are now justified eternally no matter what they do or who they are!  Jesus never said this as God’s Kingdom was from the ‘top-down’—not the ‘bottom-up’—meaning God chooses His own people!  (Mt. 7:21-27, John 6)  To the Jews, Paul must have been ridiculous as the Israelites were already under the Lord’s salvation—who the hell was Paul to say they weren’t??

He who is of God hears the words of God.  (Jn. 8)

Like the Jews think today I don't believe Paul was of God--hence the huge

problems in the later Church...

b). This verse is very telling of Paul's Gnostic Dualism where this sect now has "peace" from the

'vengeful OT God' now through Jesus:

The Demiurge is a lesser divine being who serves as the instrument of the higher powers.  It is not the God but reigns as king/lord/military commander who gives law.  In short he is the "God of Israel". (The Gnostic Gospel's)

:9 Because of the Cross we [believers] are now saved from the wrath of [the OT] God [when

Christ returns].

Often Paul emerges as the villain of the Christian story for having imposed a hateful dogmatism.    156,    (Mysteries of the Middle Ages), (World of St. Paul)

This is 2 parts:

a). This contradicts Jesus admission that people are not under condemnation...

Clearly, Paul didn’t know about Christ’s most basic outlines. (John 3:16, 6: esp. verse

37, Luke 13, Mt. 13)

b). Another veiled apocalyptic verse meaning the OT Demiurge gives Christ the ok to return as his representative.  The OT apocalyptic “wrath of God” on earth is just 1 of a 100 such verses. (Is. 13)

:10-11 For if we [people on earth] were enemies [of the OT Demiurge] we were reconciled to

[or back to] God by the death of his Son and we shall be saved by his life [when he returns].

Paul believed in an "upper" Yahweh sometimes called "God Most High" as well as a "lower"

Yahweh, not human and called the "messenger Yahweh" which was common of Judaism in

Paul's time.  157, 158

To Paul, Jesus was the messenger Yahweh... I realize this plus my insider notes can be very confusing but Paul often writes in short hand and unrealistically expects others to somehow read his mind!  But was it just a mere coincidence that Gnosticism was just getting started just as Jesus shows up?

Before gaining 'gnosis' the candidate worshipped the demiurge [below the highest God]

mistaking him for the true God. Now through 'redemption' the candidate believes he has been

released from the demiurges [OT God's] power. (The Gnostic Gospels)

To Paul, Christ reconciled them to the 'mean' OT God-- meaning the Demiurge God or the devil hopefully wouldn’t be throwing “his fiery darts” at people anymore! (Eph. 6), (1st Peter 5), (Book of Revelation)

:12-20 Sin came into the world through Adam to make it a worse place than it already is but

someday we’ll be delivered by Jesus [when he returns].

All men have need of the gods.  Homer (800 BC)

This is 2 parts:

a). Here Paul makes an argument from Adam but Adam is fiction--hence his ‘theology of sin’ explanation with Christ somehow ‘reversing the order’ is false and misleading...  Paul believes that Adam was the culprit who ‘spread sin, condemnation and spiritual death to all Mankind’ but that the “free gift” of Jesus dying “brings justification and righteousness”.  Here Paul simplistically reverses the 'sinner Adam for the saint Jesus' hoping it’s theology of some sort…  Jesus never said he died on the Cross as a ‘role-reversal’ of Adam’s ‘sin’ anyway! And if that isn't true Adam isn’t even mentioned in Gospels so he couldn’t have been important for a later theology...

b). “The Law came in to increase the trespass”.  This isn’t correct—Moses didn’t give the Israelites the Law to make them ‘feel guiltier’. This is Paul hating his old religion...

Chapter 6

Paul wasn’t a theologian or a philosopher but an evangelizing preacher like a Billy Graham.  (Intro to NT)

This chapter is about several topics:

1). New believers are to be baptized.

2). Believing in Christ and being baptized automatically frees one from sin.

3). Roman's somehow haven't grasped salvation yet.

:1-4  Rome’s new ‘believers’ are now baptized into his death and can now “walk in newness of life” for it’s the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead.

2nd century--

Baptism was the [pagan] sacrament of entrance into the church.  Later on the names of God the Father and the Spirit were added. As yet there were no explanations; this was faith and liturgy, not yet theology.  (History of Christian Thought)

This verse is 2 parts:

a). Being baptized was a new concept and wasn’t used in the OT as having any validity scripturally...  This was just another Jesus tradition that new converts passed on as not just symbolic but a prerequisite since it was a rite that supposedly 'gets rid of the Devil'. In this passage Paul believes that baptism and salvation are synonymous.

b). Paul’s take on “newness of life” is hypothetical at best as Christ never said anything like it.  (Jn. 3, 6)  Here Paul is trying to teach a "mystery religion" with Jesus as the "mystery god" who vanished 20-25 years ago:

Mystery gods greatly influenced the Christian cult and theology. Those who participate are brought into a state of deep sorrow over the death of a god and afterward the ecstatic experience of the god resurrected.   (History of Christian Thought)

:5   Believers are united with Jesus in death and also with the Resurrection [when Jesus returns].

We are tempted to claim that Paul is drawing his converts into the dark, private world of the [Essene] mystics.  (Gospel According to Paul)

This verse is 2 parts:

a). “United in death” is Paul’s Gnostic/Platonic/Extremist background speaking where after these believers die they are united with Jesus or unless he shows up first.

b). Another veiled apocalyptic verse.

:6, 7 Old self crucified so that the sinful body might be destroyed and that

we might be no longer slaves to sin.

The dualism of flesh/spirit was derived from the pervasive Platonism in Paul's [Greek] culture.    (The Birth of Christianity)

This is in 3 parts:

a). The somewhat mythic Platonic philosophy of 'conquest of emotions/self' is puzzling and anti-Jewish as Jews were never 'slaves to sin' anyway. If Jews weren't then why are these new Galilean church’s somehow ‘slaves to be freed’?? I'll answer that--Paul was steeped in Platonic philosophy which was only subjective at best but stupid Paul mandated it to pagans.   (Plato's Phaedo)

b). Regarding the “old self” analogy Paul was not being symbolic--he believed that once baptized in Christ the ‘old nature’ would just pass away and that God’s spirit would take its place! (2nd Cor. 5) In actuality the 'old self' is not destroyed as this is never mentioned in the 4 Gospels anywhere... 159

c). Christian apologists might try to defend Paul by bringing up the later Pentecost with the “Holy Spirit” as a “new life” but this theology of a 3rd Person in  the Godhead wasn’t in the later Church till the 4th century with the Old Roman Creed.  (Who Wrote the NT)

:8 If we have died with Christ [old self crucified] we believe we shall also

live with him [when he returns].

The gap between the universal, omnipresent, all-knowing deity and the helpless human was bridged by the concept of the god-man.   (Rise of the West)

This is 2 parts:

a). The 'old self crucified' was actually nothing more than Platonism (a myth) where the spirit ascends the lowly flesh, except now Paul places the Cross there instead.  The Cross was mainly symbolic of Jesus death and resurrection and supposedly God the Father brings life (although there are other contradictions within the Gospels).

b). An apocalyptic verse as the Greek verb “saved” in Paul’s letters always refers to the future:

To Paul salvation is not something people already have but what they will have when Jesus [supposedly] returns on the clouds on heaven and delivers his  followers from the wrath of God. (Lost Christianities)

:10, 11 Christ died to sin so consider yourself dead to sin and alive to Jesus.

Paul was a Gnostic missionary.  160

This is 3 parts:

a). Paul here feels that the pagans are immune to sin now--it will have no effect because you’ve now been baptized in his Name and get together every once in a while... In the Epistles, Paul contradicts himself over and over again regarding blame and judgment but Jesus never told people they were sinless just because they believed in him:

[In the next life] I have much to judge.  (Jn. 8)

If these new Christians are spiritually perfect what’s to judge? Of course, that could be "the world" as well...

b). Paul tells this congregation to “consider”, i.e. imagine, that they are alive in God!  Maybe the Lord does make them “alive” but to imagine you’re one thing or another doesn’t make for real self-truth. It’s but very unfortunate but factual that people can and do delude themselves over many issues, events and circumstances.

c). If Jesus is a judge (as Christians believe) that might or would make him supernatural, a god or a God since according to the OT angels didn't judge. This is the unfairness and hypocrisy of the NT for it supposes it transcends the OT yet borrows from it to make its points!

:12 Don’t let sin reign to make you obey its passions.

To the ancients evil [sin] was from ‘fallen angels, demons and Adam & Eve’.

(People's History of the World), (Gnostic Bible), (Pagan Christianity), (any of Ehrman's books)

As mentioned earlier 'sin' was the Devil here working against people--especially to these early Christians as the cause of all suffering and pain. The OT Jewish concept of the devil was rather vague but was later developed to greater lengths in 1st century and actually accelerated up to the Middle Ages! Unlucky them! (Concise History of the Catholic Church)

13: Don't yield your members [mouth, hands] to sin.

Platonism entered early and deeply into Christian tradition.  (Rise of the West)

This is Platonic/Gnostic bodily-hating 'Puritan Paul' talking here—‘Jesus is coming back any day now--don’t drink, have fun or pre-marital sex or chase women as it’s evil!’. In a Platonic ridiculous ancient holdover from 2000 years ago, Christian's today still embrace these absurd concepts and Mormon's aren't even supposed to drink even coffee!

14-16:  Sin will have no dominion since you’re not under the [Jewish] Law but under God’s grace [of the Cross].

To Paul, the anti-Jew, the Cross was like a 'blanket covering peoples sins' or wrong doings and to later Christians this absolved any sort of responsibility where people could run amok without guilt. Another reason why early Church had behavioral problems for 500 years: (“Early History of the Church”)

170

The new creed severed the bond between religion and Nation [Rome] which threatens societies stability.   Celsus, Greek Philosopher

Celsus charged that Christians had no answer to the problem of evil, that

human nature can’t be changed and denied the process of ‘conversion’.  Christianity didn’t makes sense and all the apostles were incompetent scoundrels with an ax to grind.

:17  Thanks to God you [pagans] who were once slaves of sin [through idolatry] have become obedient from the heart.

200-500

Many Christians thought [like Paul] they could serve God best--or rather, most easily escape hell--by abandoning their parents, spouses or children, fleeing from the responsibilities of life in the frightened pursuit of salvation.  (Our Oriental Heritage)

Some Romans admired the Jewish religion but most felt it was too cumbersome and of course they wouldn't tolerate their multiple gods. But switching to Paul's new religion (later Christianity) was a big question mark as well since Jesus' was still considered a rebel against Rome for another 250 years or even more!  Other Roman and Greek cynics claimed that the Galilean's were a bizarre and rebellious people since they "worshipped a dead carpenter".

23: For the wages of [continual] sin [is spiritual] death.

The early Christians who obeyed and abused the rigid concepts of the Gospel were inspired by the savage enthusiasm which represents man as [somehow] a criminal and God as a tyrant.  161

This is 3 parts:

a). This is easily the most hated and misunderstood verse in the Bible--and one reason why is he invented it since it's nowhere in the Gospels or the OT.  Remember it was Paul’s new theology that quantified ‘sin’ (now the personal Devil) as a persona that could take over a person’s soul no different than the teenage girl in “The Exorcist”!  Today we might recognize ‘sinful’ as a rather bad, ill-tempered person difficult to be around (think an Clint Eastwood character) and other variants might be a depraved lifestyle or somebody far-away from God where in that case the verse would apply.  But Paul's hateful overt generalization for all people wouldn't take off till the early 4th c.

b). Philosophically this verse is closest to Platonism where a person 'too much in the flesh would interfere with the spirit'. In any instance, this verse is a myth anyway because who or what person could explain or pin-point somebody's "spiritual death"?? Was Jesus pointing his finger at you to 'be more spiritual'?? Regardless, later Christians etched it in rock for a millennium... ("Plato: the collected dialogues")

Chapter 7

Paul talks about his new non-Jewish dichotomy—serving the Law of Moses with his mind but with his “flesh” (the Gnostic/Platonic “evil body”) his very own “law of sin” (or Adam).  This infamous chapter is the ‘Prelude to Christians Beethoven’s 9th of Scripture’—Romans 8.  In this chapter monomaniac Paul address his powerlessness before "sin" and that Christ--the falsely perceived OT “Deliverer” of Israel--is somehow the only One to release him:

Here Paul sees himself as a worldly ‘victim’ unable to get out without Christ.  (Intro to NT)

:4  Brethren you have died to the [old Jewish] law through the body of Christ who was raised from the dead.

To Celcus, Christian philosophy struck him as a botched misrepresentation of Plato's concept of the 'transmigration of souls.' (Triumph of Christianity), (Discovering God),  (Passion of the Western Mind)

This is the mythical Christ's sacrifice for the 'sins of the world' again... This Christ might have died, risen and gone to Heaven but is or was it symbolic of freeing all mankind from Adam's and Eve's 'sin' which was a myth to begin with?? This is the lever that all Christians use as their salvation--but this mythic... If Jesus wants to do something with our souls in the Next life that's his prerogative as we are powerless to do anything about it anyway regardless once we're dead!

:5  While we were living in the [unspiritual] flesh our sinful passions were aroused by the Law to bring [spiritual] death.

The most sinister spin-off from the Garden of Eden is the strange doctrine of original sin, centered on the puzzling assertion that all humans are riddled with sin and guilt.

(Christianity: the 1st 3K), (From Jesus to Christianity, White)

“Spiritual death” was Paul’s own warped Platonic theology which for 1000’s of years Christians have sword-swallowed...  It means a ‘separation from God'.  Paul believed he was a ‘bad person’— worse than an Adolf Hitler and guilty under God and why ‘the devils darts were thrown at him’.  This is both Dualistic/Gnostic thinking as the later 2nd c. Gnostic Gospel of Thomas attests:

“Jesus said, ‘Wretched is the body that is dependent on the body and wretched is the soul that is dependent on the body’”.    (verse #87)

In other words, the body is evil and worthless to the soul.  (Searching for the Original Bible)

:6  The old written code is dead and believers serve the new life in the Spirit.

Essenes were a well known sect and were regarded as Judaic hermits and mystics.

162 , (Dead Sea Scrolls)

This is 2 parts:

a). The "New Life" is what Christianity is supposed to be all about but theologically it's '180' away from Judaism from where Christianity originally sprang from... As I mentioned earlier the Dualist Paul believed that the Lord of the OT gave Jesus permission to "save" them yet if they are both deities then who the hell cares??

b). Paul’s “new life” apparently didn’t bring a 'new awareness' though--even for 2,000 years:

VALDRIN XHEMAJ / EPA

Pope Francis holds the holy bible during his inauguration mass in St. Peter's square, Vatican City, 19 March 2013.

To many the opulent wonder of St. Peter's is fascinating but in the end it may be just a hierarchy with gorgeous clothes and no spirit.   (Time magazine, March 25, '13)

:7-12 Through the Jewish Law Paul ‘knows’ sin.

50-300

The Gnostic elite were distinct from the irredeemable majority of mankind.  Or more broadly, those within the Church were distinct from everyone outside it.

(Passion of the Western Mind)

What he means is he still felt 'guilty' under the Torah for it ‘exposed his sin’ (v.9) which Paul believed separated him from God by “deceiving” him. He must have been a lousy Jew to begin with and has the situation in reverse since the OT laws were there that they may live not die. What was Paul reading here?? (Deut. 1, 10)  Paul's pseudo-theology is the later 'supersessionist' policies of the later Church which they hypocritically used OT Laws to prop them up!

13-14: Paul is “sold under sin” [i.e. the Devil].

Paul went way off base by using the language of law, sin and death instead of the Greek notion of self-control to control passions.     (Who Wrote the NT)

:15-20 Paul doesn’t understand his own actions because of ‘sin’ [the Devil].

Here is Paul basically whining and saying ‘the Devil made me do it'.

Paul tried to explain his spiritual schizophrenia because ‘if I will to do what I can’t do it’s because of sin’.  Sin for Paul was a powerful force—a demonic power so strong it could make him do what he didn’t want to do.

(Why Christianity Must Change or Die), (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism)

:21-23 Paul is captive to the law of sin.

Like all his kind Paul’s wretchedness was due to his own ignorance.  He understood neither the Jewish law nor the Lawgiver.     (Deceptions and Myths)

Paul reclaims his truth of prior verses 7-12.

:24  Paul uses the Greek question/answer I mentioned earlier by asking these new members:  "who will deliver me from this body of death [law of sin]"?

Paul grew up around Stoic/Gnostic views of evil—which there was already a lot written—instead he choose to believe the Adam/Eve myth of evil—a story that doesn’t pinpoint evil at all.  (Marcus Aurelius)

:25  With his mind Paul serves God but with his body he serves sin.

The dualism of flesh/spirit was derived from the pervasive Platonism in Paul’s culture. (Birth of Christianity)

This is Platonism and later Christians would adopt a similar poisoned mantra for almost 2000 years...

Chapter 8

This chapter is about many things and in fact sums up nearly everything Paul wrote in all his Letters which is why most Christians turn to it first for theology and spiritual guidance--a big mistake.  But this is just early Christian dogma not to be taken literally or even spiritually:

It's not necessary to accept something which the church has derived from Rome or Greece, even if sanctioned by a dogmatic decision.  (A History of Christian Thought)

The themes are:

a). No condemnation to new believers.

b). Mind set on the flesh is hostile to God.

c). Same Spirit that raised Christ will raise believers.

d). Former children of God are now heirs with Christ if they suffer.

e). Creation waits for angels/Christ to return.

f). Everything works to good who are called by God.

g). New believers are predestined and justified.

h). God is for new believers as Christ intercedes for them.

i). Nothing can separate believers from the love of God.

j). Earth was cursed because of Adam, so under Christ believers will be

freed from bondage/decay and brought to freedom

:1 No condemnation to those [heathens] in Christ [when he returns in Power].

Paul viewed pagans would have favor with God/Jesus while Jews would be condemned.     (Paul & Jesus)

This is 2 parts:

a). This is Paul making up his own theology by substituting ‘Christ’ for ‘God’ as if these Jews and pagans ‘outside of Christ’ are condemned. First, Christ didn’t show up to “condemn” the then known world!  (John 3:16)  Why is preacher Paul (and most Christians today) condemning people for their "unbelief in Jesus" who's not the Savior for the entire world!  If you doubt that go ask the billion Chinese or the 700 million in Indonesia or the 900 million in India!

b). The word ‘condemnation’  in Greek means "doom" so this is another apocalyptic verse meaning when Christ Returns ‘anyday now’ he won’t condemn or doom these new believers to Judgment.  (New Oxford Bible commentary)

:2  The law of Christ set us free from sin and [spiritual] death.

Guilt is commonly used in the form of blame to manipulate and punish.  163

Paul never had any access to “the law of Christ” and this is false theology for several reasons:

a). First off, Christ never told the crowds/Jews any new “laws”!  Jesus’ parables were optional not a requirement and the people who listened had choices whether to ‘accept’ them or not—they were not mandatory.  (Mt. 7, John 12)

Only his later ignorant disciples made personal mandates for the unbelieving masses...

b). Jesus said he didn’t come to “abolish the Law”. (Mt. 5) The only new law was a commandment to his new disciples that they “love each other”. (John 13, 16)  This wasn’t a commandment directed for all future believers to follow ad infinitum however as most Christians believe it to be...

c). ‘Spiritual death' in the OT--where Paul found some of his theology--possibly comes from the Lord shunning Israel for its ‘backsliding’  (Jeremiah 1-5, 7,8) and ‘whoring’ ( Is. 1, 31).  When Israel fell away the Lord said he wouldn't speak to them as a Nation which would have been a figurative ‘spiritual death’:

Be warned O Jerusalem lest I be alienated from you and cast you out of my sight. (Jer. 6, 7)

But if Israel “repented” then:

If you truly amend your ways, if you execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, shed innocent blood and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will let you dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers.  (Jer. 7)

Jesus contradicted Paul’s theology here by claiming that even what Jews talk about--what they are as people or individuals-- ‘justifies them’ before God—not what they believe in. Contemporary Jews believe the same.  164,   (Mt. 7, 8, 12)

:3  God sent his Son to condemn sin in the flesh.

Paul interprets the Christ event from Jewish Apocalyptic.  165

This is about several things:

a). Christ was sent because Jews could no longer obey  the Law “by the flesh”.

b). Christ was sent as an OT “sin offering" only now for all of mankind.

a). This verse may be partly true as the Hebrews had (and additionally invented) 100’s of laws both sublime and ridiculous which made it hard for the ordinary Jew to follow as the themes of Mt. 16, Luke 11 point this out. But Jesus said he didn’t show up to alleviate the Jews from their own Laws-- Christ mainly gave people spiritual insights into the next life—not new laws to enslave more people:

There is no passage in Scripture where it’s written that the ‘Son of man’ will go the way of suffering and death. 166 , (any of Bart Ehrman's books), (Who wrote the NT)

b). God sent his own Son as a sin offering to condemn sin in the flesh.

A big problem with Paul is that as a Jew he sounds so official and commanding but instead his theology is inaccurate and confusing. In the ancient OT (later revised) if a person ‘sinned’ they were to make an animal burnt offering (or sacrifice) as a Covenant with the Lord and they would be forgiven. (Numbers 15) Here Paul reverses that tradition and says that Jesus is the atonement for all of Mankind—something the early Catholic Church and later Christians may have salivated over--but Christ never said he was a ‘sacrifice of sin’ for all of future mankind. On earth Jesus forgave peoples ‘sin’ personally as he saw fit but it was not a ‘blanket’ for all of mankind. For example, Christ said he wouldn’t forgive the Pharisees or Sadducee’s ‘sins’ outright because he felt their judgments and attitudes were evil and needed correcting (Jn. 10).  Automatic forgiveness wouldn’t be in order here thus Paul’s ‘blanket sin’ covering theory is erroneous:

The Father has life in himself and has granted the Son to have life in himself with authority to execute judgment.  (Jn. 5)

:4-5  Paul says that Jewish law will automatically be fulfilled by the Lord who don’t walk by human logic “but according to the Spirit”.

Paul's overriding belief was a universal unified [new] church.  167

This is the Gnostic/Platonic background of Paul where ancients believed that a higher spirituality was achieved by somehow “conquering” the self. (v. 37)  Unfortunately for Paul there are few places in either the OT or the Gospels that supports this rational... As a Jew, Jesus condemned the practice of total spirituality:

Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them. (Mt. 6)

:6  The mind set on the flesh is [spiritual] death but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

By devoting himself to things divine, the ascetic [Paul] could awaken divinity within himself and bring his own life into the celestial order. (Passion of the Western Mind)

This is 2 parts:

a). Keep in mind that this Letter was sent to a mixed group of pagans and a few converted Jews but as mentioned earlier these heathens had some pretty strange rituals which Paul knew about and obviously hated (Romans 1/ Corinthians). Thus Paul’s ‘need’ for a very heavy-handed ‘theology’ to a few ignorant new believers who knew next to nothing about religion... This verse could be rewritten to say, 'the mind set on pagan rites/sex rituals is spiritual death'.  However it’s not relative to modern day Christians who live their everyday non-pagan lives--unless they want to of course!

b). This is Platonic/Gnostic thought where "the flesh" is evil while "the spirit" is the only good:

The cult of the 'God Within' owes a debt to the ancient Gnostics. ("Bad Religion")

:7 The [pagan] mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to [OT] God; it does not submit to Gods [Jewish] Law, indeed it can't.

The insane person or the dreamer fails completely in having an objective view of world outside.  168

This is 2 parts:

a) In Paul's time some heathens may have been hostile to the Jews OT God but as mentioned earlier Rome was mainly civilized people who took community baths and browsed libraries! In fact, at that time Rome was the most civilized and spiritual region in the then known world so just who is this idiot talking to here?? It’s obvious his hate towards mankind in general shows through...

b). This is a continuation that pagans wouldn’t (or worse) couldn’t submit to “God’s Law” but this isn't true because a least 1,000,000 non-Hebrew people 'converted' to Judaism in the region so how could they not “submit” to God?? No doubt Paul is trying to set up his overall argument that Judaism is weak and that this new Galilean religion with its 20-25 year old history and scraps of theology taken from Jesus is now the new dominant and transcendent religion that everyone should now “submit” to! Oddly, this “submit” verse sounds a lot like the 600 year away Islam which in Arabic also means “submit”:  (Essays on the Historical Religions), (Age of Faith)

Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say ‘submit to me!’

:8  Pagans who are in the flesh [doing pagan rites, free love] can’t please God.

Divinely demanded vicarious atonement is a theological obscenity.   (Excavating Jesus)

This verse is 2 parts:

a). This Platonic/Gnostic verse is telling these church people to ‘stay in the Spirit 24/7’ and if you don’t you “can’t please God”—a new precedent to the early Christian guilt trip now 2000 years old and why churches today have a hard time getting new people inside:

Gnostic man is thrown into an antagonistic, anti-divine, anti-human nature until a ‘Revealer’ [Jesus] arrives. (Christian Mystics)

This means that before Christ Paul couldn't have had much of relationship with the OT God either...

b). This verse infers that the Lord is somehow ‘buddy-buddy with Paul' as he must be in ‘the spirit 24/7’ to say something as arrogant as this...  And if the Lord was giving him ‘inside info’ over new spiritual matters why so much mythic apocalyptic theology that never materialized?

:9  But you [pagan] Roman's are not in the flesh you are in the Spirit! If anyone doesn’t have the Spirit then Jesus doesn’t belong to you!

When the soul tries to investigate anything with the help of the body it is obviously led astray.  With the body out of the way the soul gets a clear view of the facts.  Plato's Phaedo

This verse is 2 parts:

a). This is 480 BC 'Platonic Paul' again telling this church that ‘you don’t act or think like ordinary people now—you are now in the Spirit’. Here the pseudo-Jew is telling this congregation that if they do what he tells them that they 'should be in the Spirit of Christ by now' but with whose judgment??  His own?? If it was Jesus' Spirit then why didn't they behave, get humble, shape up and want to hang around?? Jesus taught differently from this Gnostic Gospel:

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life so also the Son gives life to whom he chooses. (John 5)

b). The second part is more complicated as it infers predestination which isn't anywhere in the OT but another new 'theology' Paul invented by combining various OT verses like, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us [God and Israel]? And I said, "Here am I! Send me!". (Is. 6) But instead of being positive with it Paul turns angry, negative and judgmental by reversing the son-ship and warning this congregation; “if you don’t have the Spirit then God doesn’t know you!”  This is Paul’s pre-Christian hypocritical “love” working...  Jesus was definitely judgmental but he didn’t tell people that ultimately they could never be part of God like Paul does in this later Gnostic verse: (100 AD)

You don’t know where the wind comes or goes and so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.  (John 3)

In other words Paul, the Spirit is Unknowable and can’t be contained or Judged by us lowly people including you…

:10  If you have the Spirit of Christ in you are no longer living in sin—now your spirits are alive.

How consistent were Paul’s arguments?  Caution is required.    (Intro to the NT)

This verse is similar to the preceding one where Paul is being 'the Judge' over people's spirits since they should now “be alive” because they’ve given up paganism:

:11 The same Lord who raised Jesus from the dead will also give you this same spiritual life.

140

Marcion (a Dualist Gnostic) felt he was the only person in the 2nd c. to understand Paul...  He interpreted the world in essentially negative terms as the world in no way represents the God who is revealed through the preexistent and risen Christ. Like Paul, he was heavily influenced by Gnosticism.  (The Gnostic Bible)

Unless Paul himself came back from the dead himself this is a big stretch for how the hell would he know??  As usual this is Paul over-promising these pagans that they've just won the "$1,000,000 Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes" and the checks in the mail! Like Jesus’ example, Paul’s theology isn’t provable empirically or spiritually as there are no other examples of this theology in the OT... (John 3)

:12, 13  If pagans continue living their usual ways they “will die [spiritually] for they must put to death the deeds of the body”.

The heavy infusion of Platonic philosophy into Christian thought in the early centuries after Jesus, with its body-soul dualism and the degeneration of the material world, was their own personal take on salvation.  169

This is the usual Gnostic/Purist/Platonist bullshit that Paul embraced with ‘the conquest of emotions and the self’ where the body/soul were somehow in ‘mortal combat’ and not integrated with the mind/body like most people believe now.  The fact that Paul sincerely believed this should be grounds that most or all of his theology is false and that all his writings tossed in the garbage can!  But what makes Paul even more ignorant is nowhere in the Gospels or even the OT remotely says anything close to this sort of nonsense:

I am the resurrection; and whoever lives and believes in me [that I came from the Father] shall never die [in the next life].  (Jn. 11)

14: For all those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

In the OT Spirit meant 'God in action'...  (History of Christian Thought)

This is 3 parts:

a). OT Jews called themselves and each other 'sons of God' while 'sons of the devil/darkness' were unconverted pagans. (Age of Faith)

b). This is a curious verse as I believe that the Spirit of God is tied to certain people being "sons of God" but supposedly that would have to come from either the Father or from Jesus--not a loud-mouthed Paul who claimed he "spoke" for the Lord.

c). Christians must ask of this verse, 'led to where?' as Paul himself was eventually led to a prison in Rome where he was supposedly "martyred" but  as a Galilean rabble-rouser and not a Christian.

:17 We are heirs with Christ provided you somehow suffer now!

Many views of Paul are at odds with the Gospels.  170

This is 3 parts:

a). Paul tries to show the Roman community how much he may have been suffering in his travels since as a troublemaker had been arrested/jailed, shipwrecked, etc.--but it is not a prerequisite for salvation as weirdo Paul says... In the Gospels, Jesus later suffered but he didn’t tell his disciples or common folk to ‘suffer along with him’ or tell disciples to ‘come on, get crucified up next to me!’

There's no incidence in the Gospel's where Jesus told followers to suffer!

b). This is the Platonist philosophy where practitioners condemn the flesh (body)  and try somehow to 'exhort the spirit'.  Paul thought the spirit could be built up and strengthened no different than the human body --but we know now that's impossible.

c).  If there is a positive side to suffering is that it might change ones mentality by lessoning selfishness, self-centeredness and gaining empathy but generally years later and certainly not overnight... On the other hand, (and most often) it tends to defeat people, takes away their happiness and make them resigned to their 'fate'.

:18-19 Glory will be revealed to us by the revealing of the sons of God [angels first when Jesus returns on the clouds].

When God becomes abstract it's not right to hypostasize his qualities, such as heaven, light, glory, etc.  (History of Christian Thought)

This is Paul’s apocalyptic mindset--sorry never happened

:20-23 The Creation subject to futility by God until now as we await the redemption/adoption of our bodies as sons [when Jesus shows up again].

This verse is in 2 parts:

a). This is Paul believing the Adam/Eve myth of Creation as mankind was “subjected to futility” and “groaned in travail” because of it until now but since Adam is Jewish allegory that would make mankind rather not subject to futility and as having intrinsic self-importance which most people, even kids feel is innate. This is another reason why the NT's message for centuries has been called 'anti-human' and recently "sado-masochistic" by (not Hitchens/Dawkins)

b) Another apocalyptic verse.

:24  For this hope we were saved and wait for it [2nd Coming] with patience.

By the end of the 2nd century many Christians considered Paul the most important figure in religion after Jesus.  171

Another apocalyptic verse which the word "hope" and “saved” is future tense—they haven’t been saved yet –that is not until Christ returns! That should make millions of Christians sweat!!

:27 God intercedes for us [as we pray] according to the will of God [that Jesus comes back soon].

This is 2 parts:

a). This is Paul’s new fake theology as intercession is never used in the OT or in the Gospels...  In fact prayer itself might be overrated as Jesus only mentioned it a couple times out of 28 chapters in Matthew! Christians can talk and write books all they want about prayer but Jesus himself didn't say that much about it...

b). Prayer is a very tricky concept anyway...  Many years ago when I was living in the mountains, I met some visiting young German's (2 guys/1 girl) who were visiting and were leaving to go back to Germany, so the girls I was with all "prayed" for their safe return home! Well, a week later I found out the worst possible scenario happened instead as another oncoming car swerved into their lane and hit them head on just 1 hour later and 1 of them died.  Moral of the story?  Prayer doesn't always work too well...

:28  [In our sect] everything works for good who love God and are called according to his purpose. (Gr. “to decide before")

This could be fatalistic as well since God predestines everything.  (Intro to the NT)

When I was in church a lot Christian’s loved bringing up this verse whenever they could because it sounds optimistic and it made them so happy!! 'God's with me no matter what I want to do!!' But conversely it can also be fatalistic and self-destructive because who actually knows what God’s true purpose is for a given situation??  Most reformed theologians and Catholic’s also reject this sort of theology...  This verse is a good example of fatalism. (Marcus Aurelius)

:29, 30  New believers are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus.

Followers of Jesus were counter-culture hippies who came up with a way of looking, dressing, living and relating that announced its contempt for honor and shame.  (The Historical Jesus)

This is 2 parts:

a). As I talked about earlier, predestination is Paul’s own theology and isn’t found anywhere in the OT and Jesus never said people are “predestined” either. To Paul, "predestination" meant who would be saved or taken in the Apocalypse and who wouldn't and not somebody's life course...

b). That new believers are to be "conformed to the image of Jesus” is bizarre considering at that time 95% of the world was pagan/ pantheist and ‘mystery cults’ were as popular as today’s video games... Also Orthodox Jews wanted nothing to do with a supposed rebel against Rome who died on a Roman cross... Who was this Jesus anyway as the house church’s had just traditions for his overall theology?

c). About thirty five years later John wrote that ‘he who loves me I will return the favor and manifest myself to him” (Jn. 14) but nowhere does Jesus say to a new church 100’s of years off ‘be conformed to my image’ right now.  In fact, the later Church went the opposite:

370

Jesus, the all too human rebel against the Roman Empire, now seemed an inappropriate role model [for the new Church]. This meant a shift away from the gospel texts and towards the letters of Paul.  (AD 381)

:31  If God is for us who can be against us [our Galilean sect]?

When a group of people make something sacred the members of the cult lose rationality as believers produce pious fantasies that don't match reality. 172

This verse sounds optimistic but looking back it’s easy to negate this when for the first 300 years early Christians were socially ostracized and hated by most Jews, Romans and who struggled against rival religions. ("Early History of the Christian Church")

:33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect [us Nazarenes]?

“Elect” implies that some are to be saved while others are excluded.    (Christian Ethics)

This is 3 parts:

a). By using this verse later Christians outmaneuvered the pagans and dared  millions of Jews to bring up charges against their new theology:

380--500

After St. Paul’s Church came to power Christians smashed all pagan temples, built churches on top of them, outlawed paganism and crushing all opposition.  (Triumph of Christianity)

b). Later and now state legalized, early Christian's went ape-shit no different than later Islamists around the Mediterranean in the 640's:

“Christians should not abuse the authority of religion and lay violent hands on Jews and pagans contrary to law.”  (Code of Justinian, 529)

:37  We [believers in Jesus] are more than conquerors [over Satan and Roman paganism].

170

Celsus saw Christianity as a mixture of fanatic superstition and piecemeal philosophy.  He charged that the descent of [man] God contradicts the unchangeable character of God.  Also why did this happen in a despised corner of the world?  Why the allegory when they couldn't explain certain verses?   (History of Christian Thought)

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul believed that the Lord would stand in front of their small sect against the Devil's onslaughts and giving them the power of "spiritual warfare".

Nearly everything that was said about Christianity in its earliest years was an exaggeration. ("Rome", Hughes)

b). Paul (along with his peers) can conquer or ‘win-over’ the Jews unbelief which they can now ‘accept the Messiah’ as their Lord. Here Paul wins.

Chapter 9

This chapter is in 3/4 sections as Paul rambles on about many things but I’ll touch on highpoints:

:1 My conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit.

Many historian and scholars believe the Holy Spirit was later added:

200

The Trinity concept was put forward by Tertullian and passages attesting the Holy Spirits distinct personality are few. In Scripture there is no single term by which the 3 Divine Persons are denoted together. Some Liberal Protestants today contend that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't contained in the NT but that it was formulated in 2nd century and received final approval in the 4th as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.   (Catholic Ency.), (AD 381)

:2-13  Paul believes that most of Israel isn't the ‘children of God’ and that this “grace” (period) belongs now to pagans which he feels is the new Israel.

The Lord might argue against Paul:

For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation.  Ps. 132

However the 30+ year later arguments in Matthew where Jesus told the Jewish leaders that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to another nation” didn’t imply the entire Hebrew epic was lost as Paul and later Christians wanted to believe: (Mt. 21)

The Pharisees asked Jesus “Is it lawful to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses tell you?” (Mark 10)

In other words Jesus quoted the Law back... (as we know the Gospel's were written by Ancients and are unfortunately mixed with both truth and fiction allowing us to piece them together like a newspaper puzzle!  Unlucky us.)

:14-18  To Paul, God hardens hearts.

When religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than compassion its message becomes meaningless. ("God in Search of Man)

Paul brings up this analogy for the entire nation of Israel as if they’re now history in favor of pagans... And all through the Gospels Jesus did mention the Jewish religious leaders as having gone astray (Jn. 5, 15, 16) and adding burdens to people but not the entire Nation as he told the Jewish crowds (not Christians at that time) to “seek first his kingdom” and that Jews "are the salt [a rare commodity then] of the earth". (Mt. 5, 6, 7)

You [Jews not Christians] are the light of the world. (Mt. 5)

Unknown to Paul, Jesus didn’t show up to ‘harden men’s hearts’...

:19  The pagans might ask Paul hypothetically, "Who can resist his [OT Demiurge's] will?"

Matthew [20 years later] wouldn't have found Paul's letters inspiring let alone inspired.     (Jesus Interrupted)

This is 2 parts:

a).This is Paul's nihilistic fatalism rearing up... As usual Jesus says the opposite:

Jesus said, “Beware of men” not 'beware of God’. (Mt. 10)

b).  Just getting traces of Jesus' philosophy 20 years later Paul didn't believe that Jesus was God--that was after the 1st c...  That makes this verse become the dreaded OT God who "failed" Israel and why Paul and other Jews weren't looking in that direction anymore--at all costs!

:20  But who are you to answer back to God?

This is 2 parts:

a). Here is Paul laying another Jewish 'guilt trip' on these pagans as if they are under 'condemnation for not believing in Jesus'. While it's true in Paul's time that someone's civil rights would be ridiculed later (under later Roman Emperor Justinian) a person's presumed guilt was changing in front of his accuser. This was the early beginnings of Western thought in which Near Eastern Christianity hitched a ride on claiming 'morality' but most people didn't have many rights until the 1800's.  Like the genius Durant said, 'religion just changes with society--not the other way around':

6th c. Rome

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat -- the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies.

b). Recall that Hebrew ancients including Paul weren’t aware of ‘self-consciousness’ and believed that their minds were somehow ‘attached to God by an invisible cable’ meaning that God somehow controls Everything. Thus the fatalistic and very fearful philosophy of Paul! As Dualists, these ancient people were afraid of living or doing anything that might possibly piss God off, which was another reason why Paul always extolling him hoping the ‘evil God of the OT' wouldn’t throw his darts! Today, millions of Christians also believe this same philosophy of appeasement which is unnecessary:

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me.   (Mt. 25)

The early followers of Jesus assumed he would be a King in the next life...

:25  Israel failed their religion because they didn’t pursue it through faith—they based it on the works [Law].

Why the hated of Jews?  Early Christians were 'right with God'; everyone else, including the faithful Jews, now stood under God's curse. We find this view in Paul.  (Jesus Interrupted)

Early on I mentioned that for salvation all Jews needed to do were keep Moses 613 Commandments! (that's all?) Jesus doesn’t argue this as with the story of the rich young man who asked Jesus what good deeds he must do to inherent eternal life which Jesus rattles off the 10 Commandments which the young man said “these I have observed”.  Jesus, knowing he wouldn’t be around forever added another condition: “If you would be perfect, go sell what you have and give it to the poor; and come, follow me”. (Mt. 19)  The young man obviously didn’t want to be perfect in heaven so he shined him on but his Jewish salvation was still intact. Christ didn’t say he ‘failed his religion’ because he lacked the faith to follow him (although Jesus did say the rich would have a hard time with pride).  Paul would differ with Jesus here.

:27-29  Paul brings up apocalyptic OT verses that say only a remnant would be saved trying to rally God/Jesus around this tiny sect.  (Is. 10)  Despite what millions of Christians believe Paul was obviously no continuing prophet:

6-70

The Zealots were a terrorist group who said that Jews didn’t owe any allegiance to Rome except to God.  But the Jesus group looked a different direction and believed in a non-violent revolt.  Its members would be saved and honored

during the eminent end of the world.  (A History of God), (The Battle for God)

That would make Pauline Christianity a myth--unless Christians want to pull out one verse that they 'might believe in' but forget the ones they don't!

:30-31 Israel lost out with God because they pursued righteous [Jewish paths] by the Law while the Gentiles [pagans], who never bothered, have attained it [by faith in Christ].

This is 2 parts:

a). Through his condemnations I believe Paul was usually 'in the flesh' anyway and doesn’t know his Judaism as I mentioned all the Jews needed to do is follow the Law and the Lord would see them individually as righteous:

Now O Israel, pay attention to the ordinances which I [Moses] teach you and do them; that you may live!  (Deut. 4)

But because Israel kept being invaded Paul looked somewhere else--that being this Apocalyptic Jesus who's coming back to get rid of the evil Romans!

b). If he said this, pagans to Jesus were always beneath the Jew so how could they possibly be the new Epic?

If your [Jewish] brother sins and doesn't listen to others advice let him be to you as a Gentile [pagan] and [brutal] tax collector.  (Mt. 18)

In other words, a bum and a low-life...

:32 The Jews have stumbled over the corner stone [Christ].

It's very weird and extremely arrogant that a sect with maybe a thousand members would say a generalization like this to a nation of 1-3 million Jews unless one is mentally unbalanced:

Paul’s attempts to be precise about the Gentiles being the new “people of God” ran into trouble. What would happen to the Jews?  Would the religions now mix?  Could they mix? (Intro to the NT)

Worse, Paul didn't care--Jesus was coming to carry these new converts all away!

Chapter 10

This is the same continuing thought from the last chapter.

:3 The Jews have a zeal but it isn’t enlightened. They didn’t submit to God's [our Galilean sects] righteousness.

Anti-Judaism didn't exist in the Roman/Greek or any other culture before the coming of Christianity--therefore it is a Christian invention.   (Jesus Interrupted), (Constantine's Sword), (Paul & Jesus)

This is 2 parts:

a). Jesus only made one reference to being the Jews “messiah” and even that reads like it was inserted in passing since the next verse the disciples marveled that Jesus was talking with a woman!  (Jn. 4) However both the original disciples and Paul believed that Jesus was the Jews messiah and wrote the NT accordingly to fit their biased view...  And much later trying to fit that view into this new religion made havoc on everyone involved--my point being Paul cannot force Jesus into being Jewish Nations salvation if they don’t want it!  And because the Jews didn’t believe that they were now wrongly condemned and murdered through history.

b). Paul believed their sects morality was much higher than the Jews and now they were the standard which Jews must be judged by! (Romans 7-9)

:4  For Christ is the end of the law for every [new believer] who has faith.

Proving that Paul didn't have much contact with this spiritual "Christ" through his "conversion" the 20-25 year later Gospels disagree:

I haven’t come to abolish the [Jewish] Laws--but he who practices the Law and teaches such shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven! (Mt. 5)

Admittedly there are a lot of very slanted views in the NT of who Christ was and a lot of it was written in by early church people with a lot of inter-tribal biases and agendas which don't help clarify anything. This is why more introspective Christians need to read the Gospel's with both a historical and skeptical view if they want anything that Jesus might have said... ("Discovering God", Stark), (any book by Ehrman), ("The Triumph of Christianity")

: 9 If you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead you will be saved [when He Returns].

Paul’s real concern was the imminent End times.  (Bad Religion)

Another apocalyptic verse... Paul taught these early Christian's that they weren't 'saved yet'.

:10  A man [and woman] believes with their heart and is justified and they confess with their lips will be saved [when Christ returns].

This is 2 parts:

a). This verse is the essence of the Christian religion today but taken literally does that mean a Stalin or Hitler or some hateful criminal would be "saved" if they also "believed"? Supposedly in Christianity!

b). Another apocalyptic verse to a very small sect that was trying to break away from Judaism... (Triumph of Christianity), (The Faith)

:11  The [OT] scripture says, “no one who believes in him [the Lord] will be put to shame".

There was no NT in Paul’s day so Paul just inserts “Christ” for God and thus no one will be put to shame...

:12 For [in Christ] there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul brought this up only because in Judaism there was distinction between Jew and Greek--as converts would need to wait a few generations to be fully integrated.

b). Paul is somewhat lying again meaning as long as you believe the way he wants you to believe in their cult you're ok--otherwise he places you under a curse.  Christian's for millennia have used this verse to show how ‘unbiased’ or ‘nice’ Paul was—but these same people have never read into Paul's other biases:

For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse. (Gal. 3)

All who sinned without the Law [pagans] will also perish.  (Rom. 2)

Don't you know that the unrighteous [unbelievers] won't inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Cor. 6)

:13 For “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” [when Jesus returns any time now]. (Joel 2)

The 1st c. lacked a clear separation between Heaven and earth.  (The Birth of Christianity)

Another apocalyptic verse...

:14 How are men going to hear without a preacher?

This verse shows Paul thought he was a preacher--not an apocalyptic prophet.

:15  As it’s written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

170

The apparent “blind faith” of the Christians was bewildering to [Roman critic] Celsus and he used it to further support his claim that Christianity was a false religion. In his opinion, the main tenet of Christianity was “Do not ask questions, just believe” and “Thy faith will save thee".  Celcus Discources

“The Way” wanted to market Jesus’ teachings so they added the “good news” title from Roman Emperor Augustus’ birthday and inserted it here... This was also a coded term to mean “Christ’s Return” which would be the “good news”. The "good news" couldn't have been their literal gospel and rhetoric since they were a hated and socially ostracized bunch. (Christianity: the 1st 3K), ("Paul & Jesus")

:16  They [people] haven't all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says...

Paul is trying to lay on these people another OT guilt trip besides his Jesus guilt trip... To Paul "the gospel" was the OT as the NT wasn't yet written...

:17 So faith comes by hearing and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

How free were early Christians in their personal lives?  Did they have to obey God or a church? The answer in the NT is not quite certain as Jesus gave no directions for the founding of a new church.     173

This is 2 parts:

a). What's bizarre about this verse is the source--Paul knew next to nothing about this Christ yet 100's of thousands of churches base their foundations on his flimsy, very Platonic doctrine that was later proved false around 500-600.

b). I'm heretical on this point but in a huge sense Christianity as a new religion may have been false since Jesus taught Jews and Jews only and never told his followers to begin a 'new church' which would have conflicted with his Judaism. Twenty-twenty five years later Paul picks up some oral traditions that have obviously been amplified over time and here we are...

:18-21  Paul calls Israel a 'foolish, disobedient and contrary  nation' for not believing in Jesus as their messiah.

In the early stages Jews could ignore Christian's as they outnumbered them. But Christian's continually stuck back and kept arguing.  And arguing and arguing and arguing.

(Forged: Writing in the Name of God)

Regarding the NT now, Paul with his views has the advantage of being published in the Bible while the Jews reasons for giving Jesus 'a pass' were not.  Thus what could the average Jew say in defense? While later Christians swallowed Paul's Platonic bullshit hook, line and sinker where it was in so deep that it was impossible to pull out without damage:

400

Jews started the long process which they were being segregated from 'Christian' society was now beginning.  (AD 381)

Chapter 11

:1-6   I ask then, has God rejected his people??  By no means!  But at the present time there is a remnant [himself/other Galileans] chosen by grace!

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul believes that the thousand or so Nazarenes are the "remnant" for the new Israel and who Christ is going to choose when he returns!  What an arrogant son of a bitch!!  Never happened...

b). Evangelical Christians cozy up to this verse as they believe they are the new remnant!  Give it up--Paul was not a prophet although he thought he was since he believed he was "speaking for the Lord".

:7-11 Paul wavers between Israel’s salvation as a few “elect [Galilean's] obtained it but the rest [the majority] were hardened.  But through Israel’s trespass’s salvation has come to the pagans as to make the Jews jealous”.

Einstein said it's far easier to smash an atom than smash a prejudice.

Millions of Jews all across the Near East ignored Paul and still believed in their OT salvation:

600 BC

Return, faithless Israel, says the Lord. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful. I have called you by name, you are mine.   (Jeremiah 3/ Isaiah 43)

:12  Israel’s failure means more [spiritual] riches for the pagan [world]!

Prophetically Paul believed Judaism was failing and over the next decades continued to do so but Paul's reasons for its downslide were incorrect:

66--Jerusalem

The Roman army wasn't around for 4 years, 'surely the Romans would prefer to come to terms?' the Jews thought. 'Surely they would be forced to grant Judea her independence?'    ("Ancient Rome: The Rise/Fall of an Empire")

What Paul assumed at that time (but didn't mention) was Judaism was incestuous--it was eating herself alive through both over reaction to Rome and/or OT apocalyptic prophecy. As mentioned before, the Zealots (starting in 6 AD) were the ones to cave in this rather peaceful religion when the Roman army later returned once again under Titus:

The [later] apocalypse of the ruined Temple seemed so compelling to Christians that they felt inspired to proclaim the messiah-ship of Jesus. Afterward, Christians made a concerted effort to become the authentic Jewish Voice to the anger and dismay of the Jews.  ("The Bible", Armstrong)

Jerusalem 4 years later:

Titus to rebels after they were defeated: "First we [Rome] gave you the land to occupy; then we upheld the laws of your fathers and allowed you complete control of your internal and external affairs; above all we allowed you to raise taxes for God--so you could prepare at our expense to make war on us!

You bit the hand that fed you!  You took generosity for weakness!  After your defeat do you now invite me to a conference, you disgusting people??  (Josephus, "Jewish War")

:13-14  Paul magnifies his ministry to make other Jews jealous.

Oh really?

Christians were not well liked with in Roman society and Jews hated them as renegades who grabbed the Scripture and traditions of Judaism. 173,   ("Marcus Aurelius")

:15-24  The Jews rejection [of Christ] might mean the reconciliation of the [rest of the pagan] world.

Paul’s a Dreamer with a capital ‘D’ as most Greek pagans didn't like extremely narrow, monotheistic Near Eastern religions...  This was the 'great cultural divide' I mentioned earlier:

400-600

Missionaries found teaching pagans the message of Jesus to be an almost hopeless task.  174

:26  And so all Israel will be saved [from their enemies] as it’s written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion”. (Is. 59)

The later chapters of Isaiah (40-66) were the elite of Israel now captive in Babylon and were written by a different author.  Although some did return to their homeland most chose to remain. As usual, Paul is wrong:

The triumphant Cyrus of Persia was God's chosen agent: his messiah ('anointed one').  The first phase of man's restoration would be the Jews return to Jerusalem.     (Road from Babylon: the story of the Oriental Jews)

:28 As regards to the gospel they [Israelites] are the enemies of God.

How did Christianity move from a small sect with in Judaism to becoming a virulently anti-Jewish religion in less than 100 yrs? (Jesus, Interrupted)

Answer: because naïve early Christian's worshipped Paul collectively like John, Paul, George and Ringo!  Paul believed once they came to Christ they too would be “grafted in” but again the historical Jesus is sketchy at best as by their Law the Jews were forbidden to believe in multiple gods/deities.(Exodus 20, Deut. 5) Jesus was never in OT prophecies and so what’s to accept?? However, the damage this mistaken verse has caused over time has unfortunately been genocidal:

1298

Every Jew in Rottingen [Ger.] was burned to death on the charge of desecrating a sacrament al wafer…  For thousands of years Jews were discriminated against, pillaged, massacred, humiliated and condemned [by Christians] for crimes not his own. (175)

:29  For the gifts and call of God are irreversible.

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul finally gets it right here as its God that calls people--people can't always call God's attention to themselves no matter how much they try to be 'religious'.

b). One would think 1150 years later the Church could have stood this 'test':

1200

The power of Christianity lay in its offering to the people faith rather than knowledge, art rather than science and beauty rather than truth.  (Age of Faith)

30-32:  You pagans were disobedient to God but now have God’s mercy because Jews are now disobedient.  For God has willed all men to disobedience [Adam/Eve].

Some religious communities think Paul is 4-letter word who perverted the simple gospel of Jesus into a complicated, guilt-producing, misogynistic, anti-Semitic doctrine of wrath.  " 176

God has never “willed men to disobedience” as Paul believes the Adam/Eve version of sin and evil...  Admittedly certain people are naturally more sensitive spiritually than other people (who may in fact fall into ‘spiritual disobedience’ or ignorance--I've met many) but God has never “willed” them that way--that's the way they are and they're stuck with it until they find something better! Paul’s rather childish philosophy goes back with him (nor any Ancient) not knowing about self-consciousness and that their personalities are just spirits from another cosmos where God controls everything (fatalism).

:32-34 O the depth of wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments! “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?”

170

"The idea that ‘faith’ could reveal truth was awkward and no more advanced than the mentality of a child believing in fairy tales". Around Greek cities they loathed the Christian mantra ‘with God all things are possible’ regarded as an old cliché by 2nd c. (Galen)

This is Paul believing that his pseudo-theology and God's are exact since he believes that God has willed all men to disobedience and that God has somehow given him the 'thumbs-up' to preach the Cross!  A narrow message that most everybody at that time didn't like...

Chapter 12

:1 Present your bodies as a living sacrifice.

400 Alexandria, Egypt

It's evident that none come nearer to us [Christians] than the Platonist's in which peoples of the earth have given up earthly pleasures and impure desires.   Augustine "City of God"

This is 4 parts:

a). Paul got this idea from Leviticus in the OT where in pagan theology animals were sacrificed to the gods—not people--hence later changed by more 'progressive' Jews. This is Greek 'Platonic Paul' wanting to “sacrifice his body" it in lieu of a cosmic spirit who he believed was Jesus who he never met! Supposedly later he got his chance!

b). Astoundingly common church folk believed this nonsense for another 1600 years:

A Catholic sermon from 1700 advises, “to treat ones’ body as a sworn enemy”.  177

c). This verse can still can be taken metaphorically as more devout Christians use it more as a 'personal sacrifice' for the Lord for whatever they're doing. The Lord is worthy providing 'the sacrifice' is from the Lord and not man inventing the difficulty. Case in point Martin Luther King who ended up being a martyr for civil rights--not religion...

d). This is what Essene's did when they lived in caves for years, slept outside and didn't wear shoes so that it might come to some sort of 'truth'. 178

:2 Don’t be conformed to this world [Rome] but be transformed by the changing of your mind that you may prove what is the will of God.

Pleasure was important to both Greeks/Romans but not a motive to ancient Jews.

(Mysteries of the Middle Ages)

For the literalist Christian this verse has proved to be sheer hell for 2000 years and is in 3 parts:

a).  In scholarly circles it’s known that Paul preceded Jesus by at least 20 years when Mark was written and as we’ve seen so far Paul rarely jives with what Jesus says about anything.  But here Paul coincides with Gospel of John Jesus of who he probably heard bits and pieces of but the historical inference is Rome:

If you were of the world [Rome] the world would love its own; but because you [Jews that believe in the son of Man] are not of the world [Rome] therefore the world hates you.     (Jn. 15)

Statements like this would make Jesus a Gnostic as well (Gospel of John, 90-100, is rather Gnostic in its outlook) but what was the advantage for the common Jew to walk around in rags or wander around in the desert like a Paul?  Answer—nothing. Historically, Jews were into this life as their theology prevented them from looking beyond the grave.  Three to four hundred years later the Catholic Church would answer that with monks and nuns who took a vow of poverty and who like Paul falsely ‘renounced the world’!  And what did they accomplish?  And for today’s Christians to hang “N.O.T.W.” stickers on their bumper is to be rather ignorant of the verse's historical ramifications...

b). Transformed by the renewing of your minds.

Paul couldn't answer his own metaphors... Even he must have known he went too far that his passion out-stripped his reason.  (Who Wrote the NT)

As in 2nd Cor. 5: Paul believed that Jesus would somehow send a ‘lightning bolt’ of new thinking straight into the new believers mind and if that wasn’t true what ‘Jesus doctrine’ did these Galileans have at that time? Just a few basic traditions... Thus why Paul felt he needed to invent his own theology as Jesus never said this anywhere.

c). That you may prove what is the will of God.

“God wills it! God wills it!” was the cry of every mass murderer on record. God wills anything man is foolish enough to do.  (Deceptions & Myths)

This verse is the epitome of theological ignorance—how is man able to “prove” what the will of God is first?  Supposedly in OT God went first by ‘willing’ something then the Jew would step back and point to it as having been done. But here Paul tries to ‘put the cart before the horse’ by somehow reversing 500 years of Judaism with an arrogant stroke of a pen.  Also, this theology is nowhere in the Gospels...

:3  Believers should think only to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.

This verse coincides with the prior verse which these pagans are nothing more than 'puppets on a string' since God even "assigns faith" to them!  The later Catholic Church unfortunately believed this literally:

1500's

Even doubt is heresy.   179, 180

Today millions of Christian's still believe this nonsense...

In this chapter (v. 9) Paul talks about social issues—not religious evils. However, these verses don't match up against the prior Roman verses and were probably later insertions, some possibly genuine.  ("Letter of Paul to Romans", Blackman)

:9  Let love be genuine [to your pagan believers]...

Paul’s “love” was about making people cast their identities on an unknown deity (Jesus) and if they didn’t then they were somehow under a curse. He is very hypocritical as well as he hates everyone that wasn't in his cult who doesn’t believe like he wants--whether Jews, Greeks and pagan Gentiles. How these letters to pagans got in the NT as "inspired by God" is beyond belief:

Pagans became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.  They deserve to die.  (Rom. 1)

:11  Never stop in zeal [as we argue and fight against "unbelieving" Jews and other "unbelievers"].

The horrible bias and exaggeration of the NT leads many Christians to think that Paul was ‘some great missionary to the Jews’ when in fact they wanted nothing to do with him.  181

This is 2 parts:

a). I've shown the "zeal" Paul wants these pagans to have towards Christ is intangible as Christ himself is supposed to be doing that not Paul... Instead, Paul gave them OT puritan laws and told them to 'be religious' which they couldn't do for 1300 more years:

300-1300

People rarely talked of conversion and if they did it meant becoming a monk or a nun.  The later Reformation changed all that.  182

Lucky us...

:11b Be aglow with [or in] the Spirit.

The Trinity developed over 2 centuries by combining separate passages of NT scripture.   ("Early History of the Church")

This can be the essence of Christ or the Godhead but I believe in the original text "spirit" wasn't capitalized thus being personified as another distinct person. It was Tyndale in the 1600's that did the remapping and the capitalizing.

:12a  Rejoice in your hope [when Jesus returns].

Another apocalyptic verse... It could not mean death because who would or could "rejoice" in that--except nihilistic Paul?

12b Be patient in tribulation [with the Jews who don't believe our gospel].

Only the most Christian of Christian's can contemplate calling the Jews 'our elder brethren'.   (Europe: a history)

This sect wasn't under Roman persecution at this time so it must have been the other synagogues complaining about these Nazarene's making a bunch of noise about Jesus...

12c Serve the Lord...Be constant in prayer.

This is OT theology.

13: Practice hospitality.

This is 2 parts:

a). To get out of hock with the watching Romans and Jews this sect copied Jewish/Tribal practices from OT:

If one of your brethren is poor you shall not shut your hand against him.  (Deut. 15)

b). Some church's today, notably Catholic, reach out to the poor but that shouldn't be one of their main self-congratulatory missions as Jesus mentions:

The poor you have with you always. (Mk. 14)

:14 Bless those [Jews, Romans] that persecute you and don't curse [cast a spell] at them.

Christianity was exclusive. It insisted it held the Truth and every other religion was in error.  (Forged: Writing in the Name of God)

:16-18 If possible, live in harmony and peaceably with all.

As nice as it seems this verse is a big contradiction from his other verses as he argued with Jews, Judaizers and anyone else that disagreed with him all through the letters.  How can one "live in harmony" if you're always arguing with others?? This must have been a later insert...

And Paul was carried by the soldiers for the mob of people [Jews] crying, “Away with him!”  (Acts 21)

Paul was not a ‘man of peace’ like his Lord...

Chapter 13

:1-5 People are subject to the ruling authorities [Rome] and whoever resists them resists what God has appointed.  Resisting will incur wrath and/or judgment on the wrongdoer.

a). Considering what the Roman “ruling authorities under God” did to Paul a few years later makes him look not only stupid and ignorant but foolish as well!  Have Christians ever put 2 + 2 together on this one?

b). The later Catholic Church salivated over these verses to stay in ‘50/50’ control of society for another 1500 years:

1215 4th Council of the Lateran

To Catholics only a small minority of Christian's completely atoned on earth for their sins; the remainder of atonement would be exacted in purgatory.

(Age of Faith)

:6-7  You [pagans] should pay taxes for the authorities are the ministers of God.

Paul was naive--authorities are seldom the ministers of God as they usually have their own agenda diametrically opposed from the masses and even common sense. Just ask our government for an honest answer--even if you get an answer:

2002

When President Bush gave his "axis of evil" address the goal was retaliating for the Sept. 11 attacks with "rogue states"[Iraq] from acquiring WMD's. That Saddam Hussein was trying to develop these moved the U.S. toward preemptive war. 183

:8-10  [OT] love of your neighbor is the fulfilling of the Law [Lev. 19].

This is 2 parts:

a). Paul was a person of many masks--sometimes an OT Jew but more often a fanatical Essene:

Paul's Judaism was a mask he could adopt or discard at will.  184

b). This has to be a later ad lib because all through his letters he voided the Law by declaring he was "free" from it and thus could make up his own laws.

:11  You know what hour this is, time to wake from your sleep for salvation [Jesus Return] is near.

Another apocalyptic verse.

:12-14 Cast off works of darkness [idol worship] and put on armor of light  [Jesus] and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires.

Many of the mystics taught Christian's to cultivate the inner life and to shun the evil world which they couldn't control.   (Europe: a History)

This verse is 2 parts:

a). To Gnostic/Platonic Ancients the "light" equaled the sun, spiritual knowledge and salvation while “darkness” was mostly pagan Rome with soldiers walking around praying to unknown gods:

Gnostic man wears an antagonistic nature and anti-human nature. Now the divine spark [Jesus] falls into this world of fate, birth and death where new believers are now 'awakened'.  185

b). With Platonic/budding Gnostic Paul, the body, ‘the flesh’, was evil but nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus make that inference.  Jesus’ mention of the flesh was always in regard to people and never evil.  A few centuries later, thanks to Paul, Christians destroyed and burned everything that was considered “the flesh" including books where a later Bishop proudly announces:

400-500

“Every trace of the old philosophy and literature from the ancient world has vanished from the face of the world.” Archbishop Chrysostom   186

While in the later Dark Ages:

540-1300

The later Catholic Church taught that all aspects of “the flesh” should be reviled and even discouraged washing! Toilets disappeared as disease became common starting the bubonic plague with towns and villages decimated by disease. The Pauline Church explained this was an ‘act of God’ and as punishment for sin for not obeying Church authority.    187

Because of this seemingly innocent but extremely ignorant little verse some historians believe that 1/3 of Europe was wiped out causing death and unimaginable heartbreak for 10’s of millions of people.  Incredibly, even through this, Europe didn’t learn its lesson and still believed Paul literally:

(Dark Side of Christian History)

1500-1700

Since God was no longer found in the physical realm all through the Middle Ages and up to the Reformation sex was considered the devil’s handiwork, pleasure to be renounced.  Even love songs, public performances and plays were considered “pleasure” and not of God.  A grim cheerlessness came to distinguish Christians.  188, 189, 190, ("Sin & Fear")

Chapter 14

:1-6  These verses are about Jewish dietary Laws which pagans weren't under but which was disputed anyway whether or not they could become "full" Jews.

:7-8  None of us lives to himself.  If we live we live to the Lord.

The Lord redeems the life of his servants; none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.  (Ps. 34)

This is typical pious Jew theology that Paul didn't act on that because if he “lived to the Lord” the Lord might have made him friends instead of fierce enemies...And in Acts, even his own Jewish brethren handed him over to the Roman authorities over his radical ‘baptizing pagan’ practices which was meant to demean to Jews.  In reality Paul lived for who he thought was the Lord but ended up living for his own very strange viewpoints...

:9  Christ died and lived again that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead.

In the 1st century Christ's divinity was a big question mark but gradually evolved over the centuries into God.  (Who Wrote the NT)

This is a very interesting verse as Paul Christ might be a Lord in heaven but not the Lord in heaven...  I like it when religions express some 'grey area' or leave a window open because that means the people trying to explain it have some doubts.

:10-13  Let’s not pass judgment on one another.

Again Paul contradicts himself from the earlier chapters of Romans (1-4) where he judges and condemns pagans for 4 chapters straight! Unless this is a later edit-in Jesus might have some very nice words for him:

Woe to you Pharisees [Paul] for you traverse land and sea to make a single  convert and when he becomes a 'convert' you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves!  (Mt. 23)

:14-16  This is typical Paul of going off on a subject (food, v. 1-6) before picking it up again...

:17 For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

This is 2 parts:

a). In certain conditions, yes, the 'kingdom of God' can be very spiritual where the recipient can feel, 'God knows me! I'm important!' But the proper attitude should be (unlike Paul's) one of humility and humbleness. When it comes to God I sometime use JFK's axiom for myself:

Ask not what the Lord can do for you but what you can do for the Lord.

Sometimes I get an answer but it's not always positive...

325

b). The later Church battled over the concept of the Trinity/Holy Spirit which evolved from the Old Roman Creed and here historians don't really know what came first the chicken or the egg:

The Nicene Creed never referred to a Trinity and the strict interpretation of its text seems to exclude one.   (AD 381)

:18  He who serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

This is 2 parts:

a). Serving Jesus is acceptable if Jesus has something for you to do. Unfortunately most Christians just try to hop on the gravy train by acting religious hoping to ride it into Heaven!

b). Some people 'served Christ' as God's rep but for reasons not mentioned here most didn't for another 1700 years:

1300-1700's Europe

Forced conversions, expulsions, massacres and executions still occurred in the Enlightenment while the Inquisition suppressed all "deviates"--be they Protestants, heretical Catholic's, clandestine Jews or free-thinkers.      (18th c. Europe: traditions progress)

:19 Let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbringing [only within this church group].

This has to be another 'peaceful' insert as most of Paul's letter's were the opposite of this and about war for the "unbelievers"...

:20-21 Again he goes off on the Jewish subject of food.

:22 The faith [belief] that you have keep between yourself and God.

A very congenial comment by fiery Paul but unfortunately the later evil Catholic Church never listened:

400--1500

No one was ever safe from the bloodlust of the Church: the prosecution and destruction for a banned thought or feeling was an ever-present peril for all.

("Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology")

:23 For whatever [in life] does not proceed from faith is sin.

449

May those who divide Christ be divided by the sword, cut into pieces and burned alive.  2nd Council of Ephesus   191

This is normal Christian dogma where they like Paul believe that no one can go 'forward with their spiritual journey without faith and if you don't then its sinful and you're separated from God'!  Here Paul (and the later Catholic Church) joins both faith (belief) and sin (evil) as if they’re interconnected. But Jesus as a somewhat practical Jewish teacher (although not a great one) never said that unbelief is evil:

Everyone who hears these words of mine [as a teacher of the Jews around Jerusalem] and does them is like a wise man.  (Mt. 7)

Not an evil man like Paul says... Another reason people should watch out what religions say as most of them are very old.

Chapter 15

In this chapter the early Catholic Church went wild by inserting “Holy Spirit” into many of Paul’s sentences...

:1-2  We who are strong [in the faith] ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.

1680's  Massachusetts

The Pilgrims (Puritans) believed in the cosmic struggle between God's will and Satan's wiles as New England was a pivotal battleground for the fate of mankind.  Otherwise, God would withdraw his favor and permit Satan the triumph of destroying New England. 192

As a pastor, Paul felt very responsible for these struggling pagans--who ultimately should have been left alone with their own beliefs as to them Jesus was just another god...

:3 Christ didn’t please himself.

Among hardcore Christians this verse is often used as Christ’s “sacrifice” but philosophically (not theologically) this verse doesn’t make any sense for if Jesus was the Logos—God or part of God—and he knew what he came down to earth for—why do it grudgingly or not willingly? Supposedly Jesus said he came to do his Father’s Will:

For I have come down from heaven [another dimension/world] not to do my own will but the will of him [God] who sent me.  (Jn. 6)

Sounds more like a herald than God Himself doesn't it?

:4  The scriptures [OT] were written for our instruction that we might have hope [when Christ comes again].

The Essenes believed in religion for a religious elite. (And Man Created God), (Dead Sea Scrolls)

The $100,000 question here is are the fiery OT apocalyptic verses of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and others dualistic future prophecies like Hal Lindsey wrote about in "Late Great Planet Earth"? The answer is we don't know and nor should we speculate because it makes us into asses when we're wrong... However, historically it's not likely since the OT "prophets" were also consistently incorrect about what might happen to their Israelites. Realistically, Christians shouldn't have anything to do with OT prophecies anyway which makes them into huge hypocrites by wanting to believe the Jewish prophecies but hating their views about Christ otherwise!

:5  May the [OT] God of encouragement grant you to live in harmony with one another.

A congenial verse but this "harmony" didn't last very long:

380

The later Church went on to create the world's most dangerous vision—the Roman papacy.  (Christianity: the 1st 3K)

Because the Church used more of the words of men for their 'doctrine' over time their Foundation basically fell apart and failed as Martin Luther contests 1200 years later with his Theses:

1500's

We say that papal pardons cannot take away the least of venial sins.  (#76)

:8 Christ became a servant to the circumcised [Jews] to show [the OT] God's  truthfulness, in order to confirm the [apocalyptic] promises.

Jesus was not in OT prophecy--end of argument (more about this in volumes 2,3 & 4).

:9 In order that the pagans might glorify God for his mercy [on their new salvation]!

That Christians are "in Christ" was not a truth that Paul argued logically.

(Hist. of God)

The pagans probably never did "glorify God" because later Christian's literally pulled the rug out from under them as tolerant paganism was outlawed in 380 by the new Church!  How is that mercy?  (Marcus Aurelius)

:10-12  "Rejoice, O Gentiles [non-Jewish] with his [God's] people".  (Dt. 32)

This is another stupid example of Paul's because these pagans were converts to Judaism--not Christianity!  As I've mentioned, pagans were persona non grata among Jews as "Peter" supposedly said:

You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or visit any one of another

nation [country];  (Acts 10)

:13  That the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

513

[In Constantinople] a declaration of Christianity with 3 natures was accepted but no proper theological explanation was produced and the matter was not open to further discussion. 193

:15-16  I have to be a minister of Jesus to the Gentiles [non-Jewish pagans] in the priestly service of the gospel so that the offerings [to God] of the Gentiles may be acceptable.

For 700 years rulers and Bishops had so many problems with paganism that they passed severe laws against it starting around 380. The intolerant 'Church of Paul' had no business lording over people's personal lives:

780 Gaul (France)

Charlemagne's legislation decreed death for relapses into paganism.  194

:17  In Jesus Christ I have reason to be proud of my work for God.

Celcus felt that the Christ's argument from prophecy to fulfillment was a stupid one as the fulfillment wasn't nearly like the OT messiah.  This is an especially sore point in all of church history.   (History of the Christian Church)

Paul might be proud of starting several new house-church's in Asia minor with perhaps 1000 pagans who all left--but I've maintained his warped apocalyptic/Platonic/ Gnostic theology inadvertently helped destroy tens of millions of people down the centuries! I hope he's not proud now...

:18  For I don’t speak anything except what Christ has revealed to me to win obedience from the pagans!

Asceticism is inherently a threat to social normalicy.  (The Birth of Christianity)

Paul was a mystic and steeped in mystery religions like 1000’s of others like him in the 1st-2nd centuries...  He undoubtedly imagined many things and worse--wrote letters to pagans on how to act on them which the later Church picked up for much of its doctrine.

:19  By the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was mentioned in Matthew 28 (70) which was presumably grabbed from Paul's letters (55) but historically scholars again don't know what came first as these texts were worked on later for 100's of years by the early church trying to line up their new theology:

Trinitarian theology was worked out in the 4th century. There’s no evidence that Paul had clarity regarding the Personhood of the Spirit. (Intro to the NT)

Chapter 16

This chapter is mostly farewells.

:4 All the churches of the Gentiles [pagans] give thanks.

This church was called the ekklesia, the assembly of God or Christ, meaning "called out"-- to form the church universal, to become the true people of God.  (History of the Christian Church)

The early church meant a congregation--they weren’t a building or Christian movement or a institution till the 3rd century.  Early Christians didn’t ‘invent’ the concept of a church either but used Judaism for its worship models.  (Who Wrote the NT)

:17  Take note of those [Jews] who create dissentions and difficulties in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught [by me].

The Bible itself speaks of Paul as the real trouble maker:

This is the man who is teaching people against the Law and the Temple; he has also brought pagans into the Temple and has defiled the Holy place.  And the people [Jews] dragged Paul out of the temple and beat him.  (Acts 21, 90AD)

:18 Those who disagree with us avoid them as they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded [other pagans].

451

Battles over Christ's nature raged far beyond the church itself as vicious civil wars reverberated 200 years after Chalcedon as each side had its 'absolute truth'.  ("Jesus Wars")

This verse is the main reason why most people avoid Christian's like the plague—not just the other way around!  Through personal history I’ve found many Christian's argumentative and like Paul, very dogmatic and stubborn. The main problem is they believe a handful of letters 1000’s of years old which were addressed to pagans as unchangeable Scripture... Of course, if they trash both the Paul/Pauline letters then they're good!

:19-20 When you’re guiltless then Jesus will soon crush Satan under your feet [when He returns].

Paul's cosmos is a cosmos in rebellion--currently controlled by Satan.  (Paul & Jesus)

This is an apocryphal verse that has never materialized... Apocalyptic ancients, especially in the 1st century, were obsessed by ‘good triumphing over evil’ who no doubt were the heathen Roman armies around them. But to a select few Jesus was the fulfillment of the Major prophet's in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

And he will come to Zion as Redeemer.  (Isaiah 59)

For the Hebrews this part never materialized as Christ never “redeemed” Israel while he was on earth thus I'm afraid was a false messiah. The Jews and converts outnumbered the Jesus movement people a 100,000 to 1 so who’s argument would be greater at that time?  Paul's??

:25 To him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus.

100

The accused Galileans were in a habit of meeting before it was light and they sang hymns to Christ as to a god.  With the assistance of torture I could find nothing more than a depraved and excessive superstition. Pliny Letters

This verse is 2 parts:

a). This is a hopeful  verse but not from Jesus who never said he would ‘strengthen’ Christians anywhere in the Gospels--hard as that is to believe.

b). Here we get some real honesty from dishonest Paul where he calls this letter “my gospel”.  No wonder so much of Christianity failed its promises as most of Paul's teaching are very mythical as few have materialized.

:26  But now Jesus is disclosed through all the prophetic writings, according to the command of the eternal God.

Clues to the ‘hidden meaning’ of Jesus in prophecy and fulfillment were scattered and fragmentary. There was no single story or story line in Jewish scripture that could decode the Jesus story as relevant to Israel. (Who Wrote the NT)

Conclusion

As the title suggests the new religion of Christianity strayed far, far away from its parent faith where today both Jews and Christians still don't see eye to eye on just about anything except a very general faith in God. Jesus was a Jew yet I've pointed out that the later disciples obviously painted over his words and meanings to twist them into a new and contradictory religion begun 300 years later. For as it sits now Christianity differs with Judaism on Christ's divinity, salvation only through Jesus and not the OT God, the Trinity, 2nd Coming and of course all of the "disciples" letters.

On a more human level, kids can grow up to be quite opposite of their Parents and should we assume that nascent 1st century Christianity be any different?? Where the apple falls far from its tree while the Parent stares in stunned disbelief at the noncompliance?? What if you were a believing Jew and felt another religion pulling the rug out from under your feet? How would you feel? I believe Jews have felt this way for 1700-1800 years and some still to this day. I don't think I'm being overly dramatic here...

Today most Christians arrogantly claim that their religion superseded Judaism by Christ dying on the Cross offering salvation to all (some?) believers. But historically that can't be true because Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian and why would a Jew offer salvation to those outside of their tribe?? It doesn't make sense... However it would make sense if we see the early Christians meddling in the NT scriptures trying to make sense out of it as Mack has claimed.

Although both religions claim to offer salvation which one is correct since neither religion acknowledges the other?? This is a quicksand for both... I've come to some conclusions that Christians should heed the Old Testament (Hebrew scripture) a lot more, get acquainted with its history in relation to the masked-over "New" Testament and realize the incredible suffering that Jews have endured since Roman times merely by staying with their own scriptures. It is the early Jews who were the 1st martyrs--not Christians as I've explained.

Over the centuries Christianity's children have multiplied by strength in numbers a billion + strong becoming at one point a bully while Judaism still remains a relatively small unglamorous religion. I say to that, 'so what?' Read the Old Testament and see if we can't find God in there--who is what Christians claim to be looking for. Inside its pages is a real God of humility that realizes human frailties. That we aren't supposed to be Supermen--like the Christian legend of the Paul's and the Peter's extol--crucified upside down or other such nonsense.  I believe we can because the Lord is a God of Principle--a characteristic that Christianity has obviously lacked.

Notes

1.“Europe: a History”, Davis,  1996

2. "Marcus Aurelius", McLynn, '09

3 "Intro to the NT",  Raymond Brown, 1997

4."The Classical World", Fox, ’01

5 Mary Beard, professor of Classics, Cambridge, from "Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalene: the followers of Jesus in history and legend", Erhman, '06

5."Rome" Gabbuci, '06

6,"Great Big Book of Horrible Things: history' s worst atrocities", White, '12

7 "Oriental Religion’s in Roman Paganism", Cumont, 1956 Note--Cumont was a rather famous archeologist and historian and despite the publication of these earlier works their finding are still valid until a later author supersedes them.  Stark calls him "a great historian".

8 "Continuity and Change in Roman Religion",  Liebeschuetz, '79

9 "Peoples History of the World", Zinn, '08

10  "The Triumph of Christianity" Stark 2008

11 "From Jesus to Christianity", White, '04

12 "Gods and the One God", Grant, ’86

13 "Rome", Hughes, 2012

14 "The Inheritance of Rome: illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000", Wickham, '10

15 "Religions of Rome", Beard, North & Price, 1998

16 "Essays on the Historical Religions", Pettazoni, 1954

17 "Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome", Bailey, 1932

18 Seneca, 1st Christian Roman philosopher, Letters 90

19"God in Search of Man: the  Philosophy of Judaism", Heschel, 1955/1983

20  "The Book of Genesis: a biography", Hendel, 2013

21  "Mysteries of the Middle Ages", Cahill, '06

22 "The Passion of the Western Mind", Tarnas, 1991

23"The Philosophy Book", '11

24."Christian Ethics" Wogaman, 1993

25 "Christianity: the 1st 3K", MacCulloch, '11

26  "Ancient Guide to Modern Life", Haynes, '10

27 "A New History of Early Christianity", Freeman, '09

28 "Roman Background of the NT", Stanley, Interpreter's Commentary

1971  note--This 1300 pg. commentary on both OT/NT is a goldmine of unbiased historical info covering every facet of ancient history.  Every Christian's nightmare!

29  "The Swerve: how the world became modern",  Greenblatt, 2011

30 "The Faith: history of Christianity",  Moynahan, '08)

31 "AD 381:Heretics, Pagans & the Christian State", Freeman, 2009

32 "Mythology of all Races", Egypt, 1946

33 "Rise of the West: history of the human community", McNeill, 1963/1991

34 "Pictorial Atlas of Ancient Civilizations", Haywood, 2005

35  Illustrated Ency. Of World Mythology", Cotterell/Storm, '12

36 "Mythology", Egypt

37 "Ancient Egypt", '97 Silverman, ed.

38 "Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt", Baines/Malek, 2000

39 "Adonis, Attis, Osiris", Frazier, l907

40 "The Mothers", Briffault, 1927

41 "The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt", Thomas, ’95

42 "Dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldera", Maspero,  1897 note--

Maspero was a French Egyptologist.

43 "Mythology of all Races", Muller, 1946

44  "Ancient Egyptian Religion", Frankfort, 1961

45 Illus. Ency. World mythology

46  "Mesopotamia", Roaf, '90

47 "Babylonian Wisdom", Langdon, 1923

48  "History of the Ancient World", Bauer, 2007

49 "Myths from Mesopotamia", Dalley, 2009

50 "Egyptian Dynasties", Haynes, 1999

51 "The Gifts of the Jews": how a tribe of desert nomads changed the ways

Everyone thinks and feels", Cahill, '98   note--this is book 2 out of 7.

52 "The Sumerians", Wolley, 1928

53  "The Story of Civilization: our Oriental Heritage", Durant vol. 1, 1935 Note--Durant with his wife wrote "Story..." in 11 volumes--a sociologist's paradise.

54 "The Road from Babylon: Story of the Oriental Jews", Rapheal, '85

55 "Discovering God", Stark, 2007

56 “A Radical Jew: Paul and the politics of identity", Boyarin, 1997

57 Catholic Encyclopedia

58 "The Complete Roman Army", Goldsworthy, '03

59 "Searching for the Original Bible", Price, '07

60 New Oxford Bible Commentary, 1962

61 "Radical Judaism:  Rethinking God & Tradition", Green, ‘10

62 "Book of Genesis", Marks, Interpreters Commentary, 1971

63 "Understanding the Hebrew Bible", Rabin, '06

64  "The Great Transformation: the Beginnings of our Religious Traditions",

Armstrong, '06

65 "Who really wrote the Bible?" Rav-Noy/ Weinreich, ’10

66   "Who wrote the Bible?", Friedman, 1987

67 Sand, "Invention of the Land of Israel", '12

68 "Everybody's Talmud", Cohen, 500-600 AD note--these are collections of thought regarding the Hebrew OT including Mishna commentary.

69 Pictorial Atlas of Ancient Civilizations, Haywood, 2005

70 "And Man Created God", O'Grady '12

71 "Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria", Jastrow, 1910-5.  note--Jastrow was a Jewish archeologist.

72 "Mesopotamia", Delaporte, 1925

73 "Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East", Engnell, 1943

74 "The OT and Modern Study", Rowley, 1951

75 "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible", Graham, 1975  note--this is the book that started the thinking process for this book--although I don't agree with his OT interpretations as Jews have revised their Genesis story. Regardless, very philosophical and highly recommended.

76"Backgrounds for the Bible", David Freedman, ’87

77  "The Monotheist's: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Conflict", Peters, 2003

78 "Excavating Jesus", Crossan, 2002

79 "Why Christianity must change or Die",  Spong, 2009

80 "Aspects of Rabbinic Theology", Schechter, 1890's

81 "The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot", Ehrman, '06  note-- Ehrman used to be a "devout Born Again Christian" under he started studying his religion in college and became a real doubter in the Bible by Grad school. I've read about 5 books by Ehrman (written 20 overall) and his arguments against Christianity are more historical than personal.

82 "Did Jesus Exist?", Erhman, '12

83   "Who wrote the NT?", Mack, 1995

84 "1st Century Judaism in Crisis", Neusner, ’75

85 "History of Christianity",  Johnson, 1976

86 "A People’s  History of the World", Harmon, '08

87 "Short History of the Jews", Brenner, '10

88  “Mere Christianity”, C.S. Lewis, 1940's note--This book was compiled by a series of lectures on radio.

89 "The God Who Hates Lies: confronting and rethinking Jewish tradition", Hartman, '11

90 "Birth of Classical Europe", Price/Thonemann, 2010

91 "Adam/Eve and the Serpent", Pagels, 1988

92 Interpreters, "Book of Genesis", Marks, 1971

93 "Schindler's List", Keneally, 1982

94 "The Judaic Heritage: Its Teachings, Philosophy", Brasch, 1969

95 "A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles", Gasque, 2000

96 "Knowing Scripture", R.C. Sproul, 2009

97 "The Bible in Translation", Metzger, '01

98 History of Christian Doctrine, "Christian Theology in the Patristic Period",

Lampe 1978

99  "Ancient Rome: the Rise and Fall of an Empire",  Baker, '06

100 "The Battle for God", Karen Armstrong, 2001

101 "The Bible: a biography", Armstrong, 2008

102 Interpreters Commentary, "The Unity between the Testaments", Floyd Filson,1971

103 "History of Ancient Israel", Soggin, ’84

104 Interpreters Commentary, "Early History of the Church", Norwood, 1971

105 "History of Christian Thought", Tillich, '68

106 Inter. Commentary, "Letter of Paul to the Colossians", Furnish, 1971

107 "Birth of Christianity: what happened after Jesus' death", Crossan, 1999

108 “Christian Mystics” Ursula King, ’01

109 "The Historical Jesus", Crossan, 1993

110 "Paul & Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity", Tabor, 2012

111"Hillel: if not now, when?", Rabbi Telushkin, '10

112   "Evocatio Deorum & the Dating of Mark" , Journal of Biblical Literature,

Kloppenborg, 12 4:3, 2005)

113 "Don't Know Much about the Bible", Davis, 1998

114 "Closing of the Western Mind", Freeman, '05

115 "The Other Talmud: unlocking the secrets of the Talmud for today", Rabbi

Judith Abrams, 2012

116   "Constantine's Sword: the Church & the Jews, James Carroll, '01

117 "Jesus, Interrupted", Ehrman, '09

118 "The World of St. Paul", Callewaert, 2011

119  "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Metzger, 2005

120  Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, "The Jerusalem Church", Hill, '07

121  "Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus dilemma", Boyd/Eddy, 2010

122  "NT Interpretation of Jesus", Laymon , Interpreter's Commentary, 1971

123 "The Power of Parable: how fiction by Jesus became fiction about Jesus",

Crossan, '12

124 "The Bible and Preaching", Buttrick, Interpreter's Commentary, '71

125 "A Convenient Hatred: history of anti-Semitism", Goldstein, '12

126 "War of the Jews", Josephus,  note- Josephus was a 1st c. Jewish eyewitness to the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 66-70 AD. Later he was branded as a hero to the Romans and spent his remaining days in Rome as a minor celebrity!

127  "Concise History of the Catholic Church", Bokkenkotter, 2005

128 "Civilization: new history of the Western World", Osborne, '08

129  "A World Lit Only By Fire: the Medieval Mind", Manchester, '93

130  "The Specter and the Star: The Messiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Collins, '95

131  "History of the Conquest of Peru", Prescott, 1847

132"Illustrated History of Western Philosophy",   Kenny, '06

133  Jon Meacham, Time, March 25, '13

134 How Jesus became Christian, Wilson, '09, "The Mythmaker", Maccoby

135 Sierra Reference Encyclopedia, ’96

136  "Triumph: power and glory of the Catholic church", Crocker, 2001

137  "Pagan Christianity?", Viola/Barna, ’08

138 "Paul: the Author of Christianity", Loflin blog

139 "Paul Was Not a Christian", Eisenbaum, '09

140  "The Gospel According to Paul", Griffith-Jones, '04

141  “Paul: a Radical Jew” Daniel Boyarin, '97

142 Interpreters Commentary, “Letters of Paul", Gilmour, 1971

143  Interpreter's Commentary, "NT and the Christian Community", Johnson,

1971

144"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", Spong note-- Spong's a Catholic Bishop

145  "The Historical Evidence Of Jesus" ,Wells, ’82

146 "The Rise and Fall of the Bible: the unexpected history of an accidental book",   Beal, 2012

147 "Encyclopedia of witches & witchcraft", Guiley, ’99

148 Interpreters Commentary, "Letter of Paul to Romans", Blackman

149 Interpreters Commentary, "The NT and Christian Origins", Grieg

150   Origen: Contra Celsum, 1965, from "Constantine's Bible: politics and the making of the NT", Dungan,  2007

151  "The Grand Inquisitors Manuel: A history of terror in the Name of God", Kirsch, '08

152 "Don't Know Much About Mythology", Davis, '05

153 "Christianity & Morals", Westermarck, 1939

154 The Gnostic Bible, note--The GB is a compilation of 2nd-3rd c. Gnostic texts, most no more than a page.

155 "The Gnostic Gospels", Pagels 1989  note--This is Pagel's commentary of recently found early Gnostic texts found in Egypt.

156  "Bad Religion", Douthat, 2012

157 "The Great Angel: a study of Israel's 2nd God", Baker, '02

158 "Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinical Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism", Segal, '02

159 "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew", Ehrman, 2005

160 "Jesus: Myth or History?, Robertson, 1946

161 "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", Gibbons, 1770's

162 ("God's  Lunatic's: lost souls, false prophets, martyred saints and other victims of man's eternal search for the Divine", Largo, '10)

163 "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: the stairway to enlightenment", Hawkins, MD,  '06

164  "Opening the Covenant: Jewish Theology of Christianity", Kogan, '08

165 "Paul Among Diaspora Jews", Barclay, Journal of the Study of the NT, #60

166 Interpreters Commentary, "Gospel According to Matthew", Kee, 1971

167 "Civilization: New History of the Western Empire", Osborne, '06)

168 "The Art of Loving", Eric Fromm, 1956/'06

169  "Civilization of the Middle Ages", Cantor, 1994

170 "Jesus, Interrupted", Ehrman, '09

171 "Forged: Writing in the name of God: why the Bible's author's are not who

we  think they are",  Ehrman, 2011

172 "The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion", Haidt, '12

173  Interpreter's Commentary, "NT and the Christian Community",

Sherman Johnson, 1971

174 "The Dark Side of Christian History", Ellerbe, 1995

175 "The Age of Faith: 325-1300", Vol. 4 , Will Durant, 1950  note-- Durant was a historian/sociologist of 1st rank. An extraordinarily detailed history of the early Church with all the 'dirt' people like. A must read for anybody in the Christian religion.

176 "Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalene: the followers of Jesus in history

and legend", Ehrman, '06

177 "Sin & Fear: Western Guilt Culture", Fr., Delumeau, 1990

178 "The Origin of Satan: How Christians demonized Jews, Pagans and heretics", Pagels, '96

179 "New American Commentary: Romans",  Lea/Griffith, 1992

180 "NT: its background & message", Lea, 2003),

181 "The Rise of Christianity", Frend, ’84

182  "The Conversion of Europe: From Paganism to Christianity 371-1386

AD", Fletcher,'97

183 "The Iraq Papers", 2010

184 "Interpreters Commentary on Cor. 1", Barrett, 1971

185 "What is Gnosticism?", King, '05

186  “Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions", Doane, 2006

187 "The Birth of Christianity: reality and myth", Carmicheal, ’92

188 "Sex in History", Tannahill, ’92

189 "The Puritan Heritage: America’s Roots in the Bible", Gaer/Siegal, ’64

190 "Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things", Panati, ’87

191   (quote from "Jesus Wars")

192 "American Colonies: the settling of North America", Taylor, '02

193 "The Church in Ancient Society", Chadwich, '01

194   "History of Civilization", Guizot, 1898

End of Romans

Table of Contents

copyright

Intro--

Liberalism

PREREQUISITE: ANCIENT ROME

Popular philosophies of the time

Other Ancient Religions— Egypt

Babylon --1200 BC

Old Testament 1200 BC

New Testament History—

New Testament Apocalyptic

New Testament Philosophy –Gnosticism

The Gospels

Acts of the Apostles and the New Jesus Movement

Saul of Tarsus, Turkey

Romans (56-58 )

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Conclusion

Table of Contents

copyright

Intro--

Liberalism

PREREQUISITE: ANCIENT ROME

Popular philosophies of the time

Other Ancient Religions— Egypt

Babylon --1200 BC

Old Testament 1200 BC

New Testament History—

New Testament Apocalyptic

New Testament Philosophy –Gnosticism

The Gospels

Acts of the Apostles and the New Jesus Movement

Saul of Tarsus, Turkey

Romans (56-58 )

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Conclusion