CC47: Hidden in Plain Sight: The Cunning of Paul

You may recall that in an earlier post I put forward the thesis that the Gospel of Mark was written as a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians ("The Gospel of Mark as a Rebuttal of First Corinthians," August 18, 2010). Today I'd like to talk about that in more detail.

Maybe you're thinking that sounds pretty boring, and you'll go read the sports page for a little blow-by-blow excitement. Bear with me, though. This story is packed with more drama than an NHL brawl combined with a daytime Soap Opera.

“Toews2010WinterOlympics” from Wikimedia Commons – author Rosie Perera – originally posted to Flickr as G9-20100221-3457

 
On one side, we have Team Salvation (blue and white). Team Salvation comes onto the ice first with the biggest, meanest lines you'd ever want to see. Paul is the Captain. His best forward is Luke and his strongest defenceman is Matthew. These guys have stamina and brute strength in spades. They're not nimble. They're not fast. Their wrist shot sucks. Their overall strategy is to slam the other team into the boards, start fights, and keep the puck moving fast so the audience has trouble following the play. They've done this many times before, and they're the crowd favourite, so they're convinced their strategy will work.

On the other side, we have a rookie team, Team Redemption (red and black). Team Redemption is late getting on the ice. Mark is the Captain. His forwards are unknown draft picks. But they're fast and smart and they skate and stickhandle like a young Wayne Gretsky. Team Redemption has only one line, but they play with everything they've got. They put their heart and soul into the game.

Paul scores an easy first goal, as he expected, but then Mark gets the puck. Mark is not like any of the opponents Paul has played before. Paul keeps trying to check him, but Mark seems to have wings on his skates, and he dekes the goalie to score three quick goals. Paul starts a fight and slams Mark's head into the boards. Mark won't quit. So Matthew gets the puck and moves the play across the centre line. It's offside, but the refs don't call it because they're paid on the sly by Paul's team. Mark's wingers retrieve the puck, score another goal with a beautiful slap shot. Paul is furious. He tells Luke to kill the clock until Team Redemption's line drops from exhaustion. Which they do.

Just for the thrill of it, Paul pummels every red jersey who drops to the ice.

Okay. That's the gameplay for the 1st century battle between Paul's team and Mark's team. Only the stakes were much higher for Paul and Mark, and the play was much more brutal than anything you'd see in a 1980's NHL game.

And you thought the New Testament was talking about boring ol' topics like peace, love, and hope!

The biblical book known as First Corinthians is a letter that was written by a confident "team captain." You can tell by the tone of the letter that Paul believes his preaching mission is going fairly well, despite some kinks that have be worked out with the Christian groups who live in the Greek city of Corinth. He's sure of his own authority. He describes himself in glowing terms as "like a master builder [who] laid a foundation" (1 Cor. 3:10). "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ."

In other words, Paul, the master builder, has chosen as the foundation for all his authority, all his church building, and all his theology one man whom he calls Jesus Christ. This man Jesus is already dead. So Paul figures he can use this man's name and this man's "face" with impunity.

For a while, he gets away with it. (Goal #1). But he doesn't count on a direct challenge to his fabricated claim about "the Christ." He doesn't count on copies of his letter to the Corinthians ending up in Palestine. He doesn't count on somebody -- a somebody who knows a lot about the actual Jesus in question -- reading the copied letter and objecting vehemently to the content. He doesn't count on this somebody writing a searing point-by-point rebuttal of Paul's claims. He doesn't count on the courage of a man who wants to tell the truth about the life and teachings of Jesus son of Joseph.

By the time Mark writes his rebuttal in the early to mid 60's (a few years before the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple), Paul himself can't do anything about it. (He seems to have stopped writing in the late 50's, and we don't know for certain what happened to him.) But his successors can do something to undermine the dangerous assertions made by Mark. They can take Mark's manuscript and do a hatchet job on it, cutting and pasting the various fragments into new compositions (the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke), new compositions that change the original meaning and intent of Mark's portrayal of Jesus. They can try to force a blue and white jersey onto a physician scholar who was clearly playing for the red and black team, and if they're lucky, the audience will be so confused by the changing scorecard that they won't contest the final score of the game.

Based on the lasting success of Paul's strategy, along with his successors' strategies in the orthodox Western Church, I'd say his plan was quite effective. Ruthless. Heartless. Cruel. Inhumane. But very, very effective.

CC35: Would You Like To Super-Size That Stampede?

In last Saturday's Toronto Star (Sat., Sept. 18, 2010), an article on page 2 stopped me in my tracks. Entitled "Believers fine with the Rapture, but what about Fido?" (written by Lesley Ciarula Taylor), the story described a new Internet-based business called "Eternal Earth-Bound Pets." This business, founded by a gentleman named Bart Centre, already has 225 clients who have paid $110 U.S. per pet to have their pets rescued and cared for after May 21, 2011.

Why are these clients so confident their pets will need to be rescued after May 21, 2011? Well, because the Rapture has been prophesied for that day, and as every Rapture-believing evangelical Christian knows, that's when "true believers" will be saved -- taken directly up into Heaven, body and all, in the twinkling of an eye -- and all the rest of the poor slobs on Planet Earth will left to contend with the dreaded Doomsday, currently prophesied to be coming soon to a sinful city near you on October 21, 2011.

Of course, since only the chosen among human beings will be beamed up to Heaven during the Rapture, there's the dicey question of who will look after all those soulless pets, the pets that will be abandoned by their Christian owners when the "stampede of saints" comes next spring.

This painting of an angel with an incense censer was created by the circle of Bernaert van Orley in about 1535-1540. Originally part of an altarpiece, its purpose would have been to help churchgoers imagine the glory of heaven for the chosen. On display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

Enter Eternal Earth-Bound Pets. Mr. Centre, you go for it! I wish you luck in your money-making enterprise. I have no sympathy for orthodox Western Christians who choose to believe in apocalyptic bullshit like the Rapture. If their narcissistic, status-driven beliefs make them vulnerable to niche marketing schemes, that's okay. Maybe some of these idiots will learn the hard way not to listen to religious prophets.

Of course, these particular Christians are listening to the teachings of Paul, and Paul was himself an apocalyptic religious prophet. Paul was going around telling people that Jesus was coming back "really, really soon," and that people who gave over their lives to complete faith in Christ would not die, but would be saved, body and soul, and taken up into Heaven. ("Beam me up, Scotty.")

Give me a break. Paul was making absurd promises to people. He was telling people they could escape death on one condition: they had to fully accept Paul's teachings. Notice how he left himself "an out," though. If they happened to die before Christ's return, it was their own fault. They must have fallen short in their belief.

Too bad for you, buddy (said Paul). Your faith wasn't good enough (said Paul). You should have tried harder to follow my own special brand of teachings (said Paul). Repent, repent!

Paul talks a lot in First Corinthians about escaping sin and death. But he never talks in this letter about healing miracles.

Ah, you say, what about Acts 20:7-12, where Paul heals the young man who fell out of the window! That sounds like something Jesus would have done!

True, but Paul didn't write the Acts of the Apostles. Somebody else wrote it decades later, and, if scholar Barrie Wilson is correct, "Luke" wrote this book for the express purpose of bridging the doctrinal gulf between the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem (the Ebionites) and the followers of Paul (proto-orthodox Christians in Hellenistic cities like Antioch). It's cheating to rely on the Acts of the Apostles for confirmation that Paul cared about physical healing for low-status people. In the seven biblical letters written by Paul himself, there's nothing to suggest he cared a whit about the healing miracles ascribed to Jesus son of Joseph.

Paul wasn't teaching people about the kind of everyday psycho-spiritual-physical healing that Jesus carried out during his tenure as a physician-scholar in Galilee. Jesus, after all, was interested in healing the physical bodies and physical brains of marginalized people (women, lepers, the blind, the deaf, the "possessed" who suffered from neurological and psychiatric disorders). Paul, meanwhile, was only interested in mystical teachings about spiritual wisdom, ritual purity, prophecy, mystery, spiritual powers, and spiritual authority.

Paul taught apocalyptic bullshit. Jesus did not.

If Paul were alive today, he'd no doubt be preaching the Rapture, and telling his faithful flock how to piously prepare for the "stampede of saints" so they won't be Left Behind.

I'm looking forward to May 22, 2010, when I'll be getting up and having my morning coffee and looking out my window at the beautiful world God the Mother and God the Father have created for all their children.

Even the four-legged ones.

CC29: The Gospel of Mark as a Rebuttal of First Corinthians

There's no excuse any longer for people of faith to accept the Church's interpretation of the Bible.  

For almost 2,000 years, the orthodox Western Church has successfully hoodwinked people into believing that Paul was an apostle of the man called Jesus of Nazareth. If the New Testament can be said to be a "testament" at all, it should be understood as a testament to the determination and marketing genius of certain men and women who wanted the kind of power that only comes through a theocracy. 

I can certainly understand how regular people would fail to understand the implications of what Paul and Mark wrote. Even though I had two university degrees before embarking on a Master's degree in theological studies, I had no understanding until the age of 49 that the Church had been lying to me all my life. I naively assumed until then that the Church was telling me the truth about Jesus, and that the Church was wanting to tell me the truth about Jesus.  

Then I went back to university. There, using the research tools my professors taught me, it soon became clear to me that the pages of the New Testament don't say what they're "supposed" to say if you're a good, pious, orthodox Christian. Instead, the pages tell a story about a family ripped apart, a man who longed to know God, a death that didn't come to pass, and the frantic attempts of other people to hide the truth about this man, this man's family, and this man's "non-death." 

One thing that's very clear in the Gospel of Mark is the rejection of Paul's implied teaching that everybody who knew Jesus loved him and stood by him till the bitter end. Peter, who is loudly proclaimed by the Church as Jesus' "rock," is shown by Mark to be a coward and liar who is never reconciled with Jesus: "While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, 'You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.' But he denied it, saying, 'I do not know or understand what you are talking about.' And he went into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, 'This man is one of them.' But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, 'Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.' But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, 'I do not know this man you are talking about.' At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, 'Before the cock crows thrice, you will deny me three times.' And he broke down and wept" (Mark 14:66-72, NRSV translation). Shown here is the head of Sulis Minerva found on the site of the Roman Baths, Bath UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

  

What surprised me even more than what I saw in the pages of the New Testament was the reaction of my professors and classmates to what's written there. They did NOT want anyone to point out that Paul's theology is completely different from Jesus' theology as presented in Mark. They wanted to keep the myth that Paul was chosen by God to preach "the good news." They seemed content to ignore the avalanche of research material that now makes it impossible for a person of academic integrity to claim that Paul and Mark were even "in the same book," let alone "on the same page." The proof is right there in black and white for anyone who wants to take the time to examine it objectively.  

So different are Paul and Mark's theologies, in fact, that I contend here that Mark wrote his narrative biography about Jesus as a direct written rebuttal of the letters written by Paul in the short collection we now call First Corinthians.  

The vast majority of Christians have no idea (and why should they?) that the Gospel of Mark was written several years after the letters of Paul. Christians assume (and why shouldn't they?) that the books of the New Testament are arranged and printed in the order in which they were written. So they read Matthew's Gospel, with its detailed Nativity story, and they conclude the Bible is reciting Jesus' story to them from the beginning (which only makes sense). But, as most biblical scholars will tell you, the Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark, not before. And Mark, in turn, was written several years after the uncontested letters of Paul.*  

The books of the New Testament would look a lot different if they were printed in the order in which they were written. If they were printed in this order -- first the Letter of James, then the Q Source, then parts of the Gospel of John, then Paul's 7 letters in the order mentioned in the footnote below, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and Acts back to back (because Luke and Acts were written as a two-part story by the same author), then the rest of John's writings (which grew increasingly erratic, paranoid, and apocalyptic over time) -- you'd be able to see without too much trouble what was actually going on during the time of Jesus and his immediate successors. 

To make the differences between Jesus and Paul even easier to see, all you have to do is find an internet site that offers the complete text of a solid Biblical translation such as the RSV, the NIV, or the NRSV, then cut and paste the text of First Corinthians into a word-processor chart beside the text of Mark's Gospel (minus Mark 16:9-20, verses that scholars generally agree were tacked on by a later scribe). Now you have your very own free Biblical Synopsis chart like a biblical scholar with a PhD!  

You'll probably find the hardest part of this exercise is the mental effort to ignore what Matthew and Luke say. Pretend Matthew, Luke, and Acts don't exist (because they didn't exist when Mark was written). Focus only on what Paul says and what Mark says a few years afterwards. Focus on what Paul doesn't say about Jesus. Then notice what Mark does say about Jesus. Don't you think it's strange that the later source -- Mark -- refuses to agree with Paul about who Jesus was and what Jesus taught? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of grace? Or "foolishness" in Christ? Or Spirit's gifts of prophecy and tongues? Or the movable Temple that is Spirit dwelling in your body? Don't you think it's strange that Mark makes no mention of the chosen prophet Paul (an historical figure by the time Mark wrote), nor of "our Lord Jesus Christ" (supposedly also a famous historical figure by the time Mark wrote)? Don't you think it's strange that Mark's account of the Tomb scene is nothing like the proclamations of mystery made by Paul?

Are where, for that matter, can we find Mark's themes of forgiveness, courage, and healing miracles in Paul?  

We can't. Because they're not in Paul. Paul isn't interested in the theme of forgiveness. That's because forgiveness and grace are antithetical to each other. Paul chose grace. Jesus chose forgiveness.  

Choose one. Because you can't have both. 

If you prefer Paul's theology, that's fine, but at least have the decency to be honest about it. Don't pretend you're following in the footsteps of Jesus when you're not. Have the courage to stand up and be counted as a follower of Paul. Then let the followers of Jesus' teachings go their own separate way, as they've been trying to do for almost 2,000 years.  

Can you tell I'm tired of the bullshit?  

* Biblical scholars have used a variety of tools to establish that some of the canonical books traditionally attributed to Paul were almost certainly written by other authors, not by Paul himself. There are 7 books that are generally agreed upon as authentic to Paul himself. These books are First Thessalonians; Galatians; First Corinthians; Second Corinthians; Philippians; Philemon; and Romans. There is no general agreement on the order in which these 7 books were written. I place Romans last, though others think Philippians was written last. Second Corinthians is also problematic because the letter as we know today it is actually a compilation of at least three different letters written at different times.

CC27: Jesus: The Anti-Status Teacher

There is currently no major world religion that bases its doctrines and spiritual practices on the teachings of the man who once lived as Jesus.

There are several world religions that owe a significant doctrinal debt to ancient Egyptian mystery cults. There are several world religions that would not be recognizable in their current form without the legacy of ancient apocalyptic groups. There are several world religions that have incorporated the teachings of ancient Wisdom literature into their texts. But there are no major world religions that approach the deep questions of spirituality and relationship with God in the way that Jesus approached these concerns.

This isn't new. At the time Jesus was teaching and healing, many different religions and philosophies were competing with each other to attract devoted followers. Many of these "pagan" religions were quite successful, far more successful than the modest house churches that sprang up in response to Jesus' message. So successful were these "pagan" religions, in fact, that in the end they won out over the teachings of Jesus.

Most Christians believe it's the other way around, that Christianity's "truth" won out over paganism's "heresy." But orthodox Western Christianity isn't based on the teachings of Jesus. It's based on the teachings of Paul and his vigilant successors -- men such as the author of Matthew and the author of Luke-Acts (whose writings were decreed canonical), and men such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian of Carthage (whose early Christian writings helped shape orthodox thought). These men took the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages, and repackaged them -- rebranded them -- into a "new and improved" religion called Christianity.

So while early orthodox Christianity had everything to do with Christ -- an ancient saviour figure who was central to Egyptian, Persian, and Greek mystery cults -- early orthodox Christianity had nothing to do with the teachings of the physician-scholar named Jesus son of Joseph. In fact, the doctrines promoted by Paul and the men of the "apostolic succession" are the antithesis of Jesus' teachings about God.

Paul wanted desperately to preserve the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages because these three approaches to religion, though very different from each other on the surface, all share one fundamental feature: they encourage people to become addicted to status.

Paul offered people a new religion that gave them "bonus points" in their drive for status. Paul promised people more status, extra status, new and improved status, special status, irrevocable status. It's a status-addict's dream! 

Jesus, meanwhile -- as evidenced in the Gospel of Mark, the reconstructed Q source, and parts of the Letter of James -- desperately wanted to get rid of the ancient teachings of the mystery cults, the apocalyptic groups, and the Wisdom sages. Why? Because he understood that widespread addiction to status was the single greatest impediment to people's understanding of God.   

"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gang or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends (1 Corinthians 13: 1-8a)." Shown here is Hawthorn Cottage in Kingston, ON. It was built of sturdy limestone in 1866 to house a family of villagers; eventually, it became part of the Pittsburgh branch of the Kingston Frontenac Public Library. It may not be the grandest of buildings, but its simple elegance has long served its families and its community with enduring comfort. Photo credit JAT 2020.

You've probably heard the biblical saying that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25). This is usually interpreted as a condemnation of money and wealth, the idea being that if you give away all your money and wealth, you'll be closer to the kingdom of God.

This is too simplistic. "Rich" people can give away all their money and wealth, and still not feel God's presence because all they've done is exchange one form of status addiction (wealth acquisition) for another form (asceticism, a.k.a. purity acquisition). Money per se isn't the problem. Money can be used for hospitals, schools, meal programs, and so on. It's not money that's the root of all evil -- it's status addiction.

The only way for people to feel God's ongoing presence in their lives is for them to acknowledge their addiction to status and to make a commitment to heal this addiction.

It goes without saying that status addiction is rampant in our society. It's not an easy thing to heal (about as easy as that camel going through that narrow gate). But it can be done. To be free of status addiction is to be kind and loving towards others in the guileless manner of a young child.

For this reason, Jesus compares those who want to enter the kingdom of God to little children (Mark 10:13-16). Young children haven't yet been taught to hate others on the basis of class, race, or gender. They haven't yet been taught that they're "better" than others, that they're more loved by God than others, that God will save them and their families but not others. They haven't yet absorbed the cultural norms of competition, superiority, perfectionism, or purity (all forms of status addiction). Young children are still free. They still have free will. They still have the ability to love. They still have the ability to forgive. They still have the courage to look at other people and see them as people, not as slaves, property, or lesser beings.

A young child knows nothing of Law or Covenant (both of which are hopelessly interwoven with status). Nor does a child care about "whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Mark 12:33). What a young child cares about is love -- love that's infused with respect, and dignity, and egalitarianism, and empathy, and mature relationship, and simple kindness. Love that doesn't boast (since boasting is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't presume to prophesy (since prophesying is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't claim to be centred in the Mind (since pure logic is food for status addiction). Love that doesn't punish the body through ascetic practices (since asceticism is food for status addiction). Love that never seeks revenge (since revenge is to status addiction what crack cocaine is to substance abuse). Love that can't be taken away or withheld as a form of punishment. Love that isn't co-dependent. Love that isn't synonymous with "obedience." What a young child wants is love that forgives. Love that's . . . well . . . divine. 

What children need, and what they in turn give to others, is divine love -- the kind of love our God (God the Mother and God the Father) feel for all their children. The kind of love that Jesus wrote about in a text that Paul subsequently "borrowed" for his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 13:1-8a).* The kind of love the orthodox Western Church doesn't teach you about.

This is a love based on the power of the soul, the power of free will, the power of forgiveness, and the power of redemption. It has nothing to do with sin, separation, sacraments, and salvation. It's a love that can be difficult for human beings to understand. It's a love that can be difficult for adults to master (the whole "camel squeezing through the narrow gate" thing). But once it's yours, nobody -- not even an angry Church cleric or an angry Temple priest -- can take it away from you, because it's a sacred trust that exists between you and God.

It's a sacred trust that fills you with wonder, and devotion, and gratitude, and humbleness. It's a sacred trust worth dying for, as the man named Jesus once knew. It's a sacred trust that opens the door to the kingdom of God while you're living here as a somewhat confused but unquenchably hopeful human being on Planet Earth.

The keys to the kingdom are not found in the person of Jesus. The keys to the kingdom are found in the teachings that Jesus introduced to anyone who wanted to listen to his annoying and exasperating attacks on the status quo.

If you're a Christian, and you want to start to work on the problems of status addiction in your own life, you're going to have to let go of the doctrine that Jesus is your Saviour. This doctrine is food for your status addiction. There is no Saviour. You don't need to be saved, because God don't make no junk. There's nothing wrong with your soul. Your soul is just fine, thank you very much.

It's okay to think of Jesus as a teacher and mentor in the same way you think of Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama or Martin Luther King, Jr., as inspiring teachers and mentors. But please don't put Jesus on a pedestal. That's the last thing he'd want anybody to do. 

Jesus wasn't trying to teach his followers about himself. That would have been the height -- the very pinnacle -- of status addiction. He was trying to teach his followers about God the Mother and God the Father. He was trying to take out the "middle men" -- the prophets, priests, and philosophers -- whose grandiose, narcissistic musings about the One God had made it all but impossible for anyone to have a loving, trusting, forgiving relationship with the God who is Two.

If the church of the third millennium wants to follow the teachings of Jesus, it must let go of its apocalyptic, mystery-ridden, wisdom-elevated "Saviour," and shift its focus to God. Now there's a radical idea.

* It's fashionable these days for theologians and biblical scholars to express their profound regret that Jesus wrote nothing down because he was an illiterate Galilean carpenter who spoke only Aramaic. This is nonsense. No lasting Indo-European movement has ever got off the ground without an articulate, knowledgeable leader and a written record of the movement's main tenets. To those scholars who insist that Jesus couldn't write down his own original and penetrating observations about God, healing, and psychodynamics, I want to say, "Get a life , , , and a history book!"