Right, the context there is about entering the kingdom of heaven which does require repentance. The Greek word is μετάνοια (metanoia), which signifies a transformative change of heart or mind. It implies a profound shift in perspective, a reorientation of one’s thinking, and a turning away from a previous state or belief system. The result is the poverty of spirit (humility) Jesus spoke of as “blessed” or “blissful” in Matthew 5:3. As he says in John 3:3 you must be born from above and in Matthew 18:3 become like a little child. All refer to the same state.
There’s no contradiction here. The verse you cited is about outward religious practice without spiritual reality. It’s very common. The word for it these days is “performative.”
In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, verse 113, Jesus’ disciples say to him, “When will the kingdom come?” He answers “It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.” That’s how it is.
I understand that MacDonald’s beef is basically all beef, and amongst the best examples of burgers out there, being basically 2 ingredients beef and salt.
It’s all the shite that comes with the meal, like the bun, the fries, the shake and the coke that are the poison.
Dr Thomas Seyfried is an interesting character. The idea that you can swap the nucleai of cancer cells with healthy cells and the the cancer stays with the cell and not with the nucleus is a staggering find - apparently replicable!!
This would completely upend the conventional wisdom making cancer a mitochordrial disease and not a genomic one.
I think there is more work to do here before the science is completely overturned, and new paradigms can take decades.
Cancer is on its fourth paradigm already, but previous notions are not completely incompatible I read Jason Fung’s “The Cancer Code” which you might find interesting.
On the idea that sugar and glutamine feeds cancer. This could be good news for the keto, low carb crowd like myself. However I wonder if this is because most people’s mitochondria is sugar adapted, and so this is just statistical.
Maybe if there were more fat adapted people then their cancer cells would be thriving on fat??
IN any event there are great reasons to avoid sugar, and if cancer is another one, then I I have problem with that.
As for glutamine - this would be more difficult to limit, since our bodies make our own. Surpressing it in the diet means we would make more ourselves.
IN any event there is no way I’d use it as a suppliment!!
im saying that if the garden of eden was a true story, then it could be explained as a virtual reality kind of story, and lost in translation by the primitives.
The fact that no one eats those fruits is because they die.
But with each generation, new life, is tempted by such fruit. (and intereestinf resonance with Eden). You do realse that they have to be TOLD not to eat such fruit and that even with humans such accidents happen. Many toxic fruits thrive on the dump of vomit or the corpse.
I’ve no idea what a “gen-z” is and I do not care.
Lowering UPF and carbs in general have made me healthy, lighter by 50lbs and taking 5 fewer medications.
I’ve tried carnivore and consider it a perfectly good way to live, - better than the other polar opposite Veganism - and I can tell you why in great metabolic detail. I found it a bit boring and went back to a meat focused diet with green carbs, and stiking the best healthy balance.
You should temper your prejudice with some book learning. I’ve posted by bibliography here already, but if you did not see it I can post some suggestions for you, if you like.
Ancient hunter gatherers only got 20-40% of calories from meat.
General range: Most hunter-gatherer groups consumed between 2,000 and 3,000 kcal per day, depending on food availability and environmental richness2.
These diets were generally nutritious and well-balanced, with a relatively high proportion of calories from animal products (20–40% of the diet), though total caloric intake could be limited by environmental constraints2.
.
.
Even if you somehow had 100% of your calories from meat you would be nutrient deficient. Ancient hunter gatherers were not carnivores and there is no evidence being a carnivore is how humans evolved in nature.
If you consumed 2,500 calories per day entirely from meat, you would likely be deficient in several essential vitamins and nutrients unless you included a variety of animal products such as organ meats and certain seafood. Here are the main concerns:
Vitamin C: Muscle meat contains almost no vitamin C. Even grass-fed beef provides only a fraction of the daily requirement, leading to a high risk of deficiency and potential for scurvy over time1246.
Vitamin A: Muscle meat is low in vitamin A; significant intake comes only from organ meats like liver. Without regular liver consumption, you would be at risk of deficiency12.
Folate: Meat-only diets are typically low in folate, which is mainly found in plant foods26.
Thiamin (Vitamin B1): Most versions of a meat-only diet are low in thiamin, unless you include pork or organ meats2.
Calcium, Magnesium, and Potassium: These minerals are often insufficient in a meat-only diet, especially if dairy is excluded, increasing the risk for deficiencies that can affect bone and muscle health24510.
Fiber: A meat-only diet contains no fiber, which is essential for gut health469.
While some anecdotal reports suggest people feel well on carnivore diets, clinical evidence shows that long-term exclusive meat consumption can result in multiple micronutrient deficiencies unless carefully managed with organ meats and possibly supplements124678910.
I believe, judging by the words attributed to Jesus, he was in the line of the prophets and possibly saw himself as the first of many to lead Israel into the role of the suffering servant, a light to the nations and salt of the earth. It was, as Mark’s Gospel suggests, a tragedy that the High Priests had a role in his death, but the ground was laid.
I think that Paul’s interpretation of scripture was a problem rather than the Gospels. Jewish scholars have long viewed the Pauline Epistles with particular concern, often seeing them as the most theologically problematic and polemically charged texts in the New Testament.
In Romans 10:4, he writes, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
The Jewish critique is that this invalidates the ongoing covenant between God and the Jewish people, thereby undermining the Torah. Paul portrays Jewish law as a burden or temporary framework rather than a divine way of life. This is problematic because being Jewish is connected to following these traditions, and many scholars point out that the Tanakh was compiled precisely to provide this tradition.
Consequently, his theology paved the way for centuries of Christian assertions that Judaism is obsolete and antisemitism.
In Galatians 2:16, Paul says, ‘A person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.’ He reiterates this in Galatians 3:10: ‘All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.’
The Jewish critique is that he misrepresents the Torah. Jewish tradition does not view the Law as a means of ‘earning’ salvation, but rather as a loving response to God’s covenant. The Torah is seen as a blessing, not a curse (see Psalm 119). Many Jewish scholars argue that Paul sets up a false opposition between faith and law, which are closely intertwined in Jewish thought.
In Romans 4:1–5, Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith ‘before’ circumcision, implying that it is unnecessary.
However, in the Midrash and the Mishnah, Abraham’s faith and his actions (including circumcision) are considered equally significant. Paul uses the example of Abraham to bypass Jewish identity markers such as circumcision and the Sabbath, which are central to the concept of the covenant.
In Galatians 3:28, Paul writes: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’
While this is noble in its universalism, the Jewish critique is that it flattens Jewish distinctiveness and implies that Jewish identity is a temporary stage rather than a permanent calling. It also transforms the Jewish Messiah into a universal saviour who is unrecognisable to Jewish expectations (e.g. a king who restores Israel and rebuilds the Temple).
Paul’s letters contain both positive and negative statements about Jews, leading to centuries of ambivalence and hostility.
On the positive side, he writes in Romans 9:4 that ‘Theirs is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law…’
However, he also writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, ‘…the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out…’
Jewish critics argue that, while Romans 9–11 is admired by some for its nuance, it ultimately concludes that Jews must convert. If authentic, 1 Thessalonians 2:15 has been used to justify anti-Semitism, particularly in medieval and early modern Europe.
This ambiguity has had real-world consequences. Paul’s theological logic justified Christian anti-Judaism.
Joseph Klausner saw Paul as distorting Jewish thought, labelling him “the second founder of Christianity”.
Daniel Boyarin argues that Paul was a ‘radical Jew’ who tried to include Gentiles while breaking Jewish norms, not anti-Jewish, but deeply conflicted.
Amy-Jill Levine engages with Paul’s work critically, encouraging Christians to recognise how anti-Jewish interpretations of Paul have developed, and to re-read his work responsibly.
Rabbi Jacob Neusner acknowledges Paul’s brilliance but argues that his theology is incompatible with Jewish law and identity.
For a Jewish personality to cause so much controversy among his own people seems to suggest he was ignoring his own traditions or radically re-interpreting them.
Now, you and I may be able to glean something from the NT, but the fact that Paul doesn’t quote Jesus does beg the question why his interpretation should be better than that of James, supposedly Jesus’ brother. There are areas where Paul could be said to be continuing a gnostic version of Christianity, but the so-called Gnostic Gospels are closer to the canonical Gospels than Paul’s letters.
When we look at later Christian Dogma, it leans far more on the Epistles than on the Gospels and includes the neoplatonic influences that Paul had invited.
I have a degree in Archaeology, and your copy & paste is incorrect.
I do not know, nor do I care where you get your misinformation from.
But it is completely wrong, on every point.
But it is pointless arguing with you as a proxy for vegan propoganda.
I shall address the first point.
Human carnivores who avoid carbohydrates require only trace amounts of vitamin C because glucose and vitamin C compete for the same cellular transport mechanisms. When carbohydrate intake is low, blood glucose levels drop, reducing this competition and allowing the body to absorb and utilize vitamin C more efficiently. Low-carb diets also lower oxidative stress, which decreases the body’s overall need for vitamin C as an antioxidant. Furthermore, animal-based foods—especially organ meats—contain small amounts of vitamin C that are sufficient to meet these reduced needs, making deficiency unlikely in the context of a well-formulated carnivore diet.
This was demonstrated by Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived with the Inuit around 1906 and adopted their traditional all-meat diet for nearly a year. Despite consuming no fruits or vegetables, neither he nor the Inuit showed signs of scurvy. Later, Stefansson replicated this experiment under medical supervision in New York, again remaining healthy on an all-meat diet. His experience provided early evidence that when carbohydrates are eliminated, the human body can thrive on minimal vitamin C obtained from animal foods alone.
Last word.
If you had been more careful to read what you copied off the Internet and had a tiny bit of archaeological knowledge you would realise that your words are self defeating. No hunter Gatherer ate JUST fine cuts of meat , but had the whole animal available. and that provides 100% of nutrition.
Citing a degree as proof of irrefutable godhood and expertise.
Not caring where I got my information from, but in the same breadth assuming it is incorrect.
Unable to detect common Ai writing styles
If you did detect it was Ai, you would probably automatically accuse the Ai of lying.
The AI posted real sources of information, which you did not click.
Your first post in my thread was some BS about how the first garden of eden didn’t have vegetarians, because you misread/misunderstood the Bible
You accuse me of having an extreme position of a vegan agenda, when I posted that humans are omnivores, this is a common tactic and fallacy in debates.
Does everyone with a degree, automatically agree with every other person with a degree?.. every other expert, agrees with every other expert, there is no debate about anything, no experts challenging other experts. When someone with a degree says something, it is automatically, and absolutely, true, and can never be debated, now and always and until the end of time.
And since you did not read what you pasted in you destroyed your own argument..
A “Carnivore” does not just eat lean meat.
Go back and read each point, from what you, yourself posted.
Hunter gatherers always prioritised the liver. A small amount of liver provides all the vitamins you need.
And BTW an egg can do that too.
H/g also eat fish.
Really it is just pointless arguing aginst the ignorant
Yes, unlike mainstream Judaism the New Testament identifies Jesus with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the Gospel of Luke has Jesus himself identify with that prophesy. Subsequently, Jewish scholars came to identify the suffering servant with the nation of Israel herself.
Bob>“I think that Paul’s interpretation of scripture was a problem rather than the Gospels. Jewish scholars have long viewed the Pauline Epistles with particular concern, often seeing them as the most theologically problematic and polemically charged texts in the New Testament.”
According to most critical historical scholars, the canonical gospels came after Paul’s letters and influenced them to varying degrees. So we should expect to find Pauline elements in them. The eucharist is an example. It is found in some form in all four gospels. But it first appears in Paul’s epistles. It is a rare example of Paul quoting Jesus. The language is somewhat ambiguous, but apparently it was delivered to Paul by Jesus in a vision. So when the same language appears in the Gospels, the question arises, was this an historical event or did the authors get this from Paul’s record of his vision?
Jewish scholars are looking back at Paul from where they stand on a different path. As a universalist, I see religions as different paths leading to the same ultimate goal. That said, history as a study of the of evolving religions as natural phenomena reveals strife and competition between them. It is a field littered with conflicts between the paths taken. Close proximity and similarity seems to exacerbate rather than relieve conflict. The strength of motivation toward the goal seems to increase the tension.
Bob>“In Romans 10:4, Paul writes, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The Jewish critique is that this invalidates the ongoing covenant between God and the Jewish people, thereby undermining the Torah. Paul portrays Jewish law as a burden or temporary framework rather than a divine way of life. This is problematic because being Jewish is connected to following these traditions, and many scholars point out that the Tanakh was compiled precisely to provide this tradition.”
As I pointed out in my previous post, in first century Judea there were a number of different sects claiming to be the true Israel. The Jesus movement was one of them. According to the book of Acts, Paul claimed to be a Jew. In his letters he calls himself an Israelite, a Hebrew and a Pharisee. He also claims to be an apostle of Christ. Yet, he admits, one might say he even boasts of being at variance with James the brother and disciple of Jesus and Peter another leading disciple. They were keeping the kosher laws. And Paul points out that Peter was was doing this inconsistently and, in his judgment hypocritically.
In my Protestant background, Jesus was the savior and Paul was the prototypical Christian. During the years since the holocaust , historical scholarship has really been course correcting to highlight the fact that Jesus and the first generation of his followers including Paul were Jewish. Whether or not Paul fits our idea of a first century Jew or Pharisee, it is clear that he never self identifies as a Christian in any of his letters. So, what kind of Jew was he? There is evidence that he was a Jewish mystic in the Merkavah tradition.
“In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul mentions an ecstatic experience that he had “fourteen years ago” in which he was taken up into the heavenly realms, and even entered paradise, seeing and hearing things that were so extraordinary he was not permitted to reveal them. He uses the third person, for irony’s sake, but in the context he is obviously talking about himself: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. (2 Corinthians 12: 2–4)
The idea of ascending to the third, or highest, level of heaven and gazing upon the glory of God was viewed within the mystical Jewish circles of Paul’s day as the highest and most extraordinary experience a human could have. Moses alone had been allowed to ascend Mount Sinai and communicate directly with God and Elijah had been taken up to heaven in a fiery heavenly chariot (Exodus 24: 15–18; 2 Kings 2: 11–12). In the two centuries before Paul’s time, texts like the Similitudes of Enoch, 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, and the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Enoch and Isaiah ascend to the highest heaven, gaze upon God’s throne, and experience a transformed glorification, were widely circulated. We don’t know the precise year Paul writes this report in this section of 2 Corinthians, but it falls into the general range of his time in Arabia.
One should not imagine Paul’s “conversion” as necessarily a sudden one-time event on a single day, as reported in the book of Acts. What he calls his “revelation of Jesus Christ” was something he was “taught,” which implies a period of heavenly tutoring that would have involved multiple “visions and revelations of the Lord” (Galatians 1: 12; 2 Corinthians 12: 1). This particular ascent experience was one of many visions and revelations he had received, and his experiences were so extraordinary that there was some danger that he would fall victim to pride—knowing that he among all human beings had been allowed to see and hear such forbidden mysteries. Consequently, Christ allowed a messenger (Greek angelos) of Satan to harass Paul with some kind of physical affliction he describes:
And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12: 8–9)”
James D. Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity
“Ancient Jewish Merkavah Mysticism sought to ascend into the palaces of the divine realm, bypass fearsome angels of destruction to gain a vision of the very Chariot-Throne of God. By beholding the divine glory (kavod) one could gain magical powers and even be transformed into an eternal Angel. And it was this form of esoteric mysticism that it appears profoundly transformed none-less than St Paul. From his ascent into the Third Heaven to even his ‘mission to the gentiles,’ historical evidence now strongly indicates that Paul was a secret practitioner of this form of mystical ascent. And, recent studies are now revealing that his very Theology, Christology and Theory of Salvation likely drew upon this ancient esoteric Jewish ascent.”
That being the case it is not surprising that he put more stock in God’s revelations to him than he did in traditional Jewish practices.
Bob>“Consequently, his theology paved the way for centuries of Christian assertions that Judaism is obsolete and antisemitism.”
Allow me to push back on that assertion with the following arguments:
Paul’s Jewish Identity: Many scholars emphasize Paul’s strong Jewish identity and his continued commitment to the Jewish people. They argue that he saw himself as a Jew who believed the Messiah had come and was striving to reconcile this belief with his Jewish heritage.
Contextualizing Paul’s statements: Paul’s statements about the Law are seen by some scholars as primarily addressing specific issues within the early Christian communities, particularly regarding the inclusion of Gentiles, rather than a wholesale condemnation of Judaism itself. His concern was ensuring that Gentiles could become full members of the Church without converting to Judaism.
God’s continuing relationship with Israel: Paul’s writings, particularly Romans 9-11, are interpreted by some as emphasizing God’s enduring covenant with Israel and the ultimate hope for their salvation. This counters the idea that Judaism is entirely replaced or obsolete.
Paul’s anguish and love for the Jewish people: Paul’s expressions of anguish and his desire for the salvation of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” in Romans 9:1-5 are cited as evidence of his deep love and concern for the Jewish people, which contradicts the notion of antisemitism.
While some interpretations of Paul’s theology have been used to support antisemitic views and the obsolescence of Judaism, this is not a universally accepted understanding. Modern scholarship, including the “New Perspective on Paul”, seeks to understand Paul within his Jewish context and highlights his continued connection to his Jewish heritage, his focus on the inclusion of Gentiles, and his belief in God’s enduring promises to Israel.
Bob> “In Galatians 2:16, Paul says, ‘A person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.’ He reiterates this in Galatians 3:10: ‘All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.’ The Jewish critique is that he misrepresents the Torah. Jewish tradition does not view the Law as a means of ‘earning’ salvation, but rather as a loving response to God’s covenant. The Torah is seen as a blessing, not a curse (see Psalm 119). Many Jewish scholars argue that Paul sets up a false opposition between faith and law, which are closely intertwined in Jewish thought.”
I assume you have read the Torah. Now, I stand by what I said above about “many paths”. That said, there’s much in there that is repulsive to my sensibility. Over the centuries rabbis have had to twist themselves into hermeneutic pretzels to rationalize the apparent absurdities and offenses it contains. Jewish scholars are divided on how to interpret it themselves. So, we are in proverbial “glass houses territory” here. And the repulsion to the carnage of sacrifice and the injustices of torah law didn’t start with Paul. It is recorded in the Hebrew Bible itself. For example “I desire mercy, not sacrifice" appears in Hosea 6:6
Let’s take the Holiness Code in the Torah for an example.Primarily found in Leviticus 17-26, it outlines laws for the Israelites to live a life of holiness and moral purity, separate from the practices of surrounding nations. While the code includes many laws considered positive and ethical, such as promoting honesty, justice, and compassion, certain aspects raise moral objections in contemporary thought.
These objections often center on:
Inequality and Discrimination: Some laws appear to reflect and reinforce social hierarchies and inequalities present in ancient society. For instance, interpretations of laws regarding women, slaves, and foreigners raise concerns about discriminatory practices.
Sexual Ethics and Homosexuality: The prohibition of sexual relations between males in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 has been a major point of contention and debate in modern ethical discussions about homosexuality and same-sex relationships.
Punishments and Justice: From a modern ethical perspective, the severity of punishments prescribed for certain transgressions within the Holiness Code, including the death penalty for various offenses, may be seen as disproportionate and unjust.
Ritual Purity and Exclusion: Some purity laws could be interpreted as creating arbitrary distinctions between people and practices, potentially leading to social exclusion or marginalization based on factors like physical blemishes or conditions of ritual impurity.
It is important to acknowledge that the Holiness Code is a product of its time and culture. Its interpretation and application are subject to ongoing discussion within religious and academic communities. Understanding the historical and cultural context is essential for analyzing these texts and considering the ethical implications of their teachings. The Christian ethic of love, rooted in loving God and loving one’s neighbor, offers distinct advantages over reliance on Torah law in guiding behavior and fostering a moral society.
Bob> “In Romans 4:1–5, Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith ‘before’ circumcision, implying that it is unnecessary. However, in the Midrash and the Mishnah, Abraham’s faith and his actions (including circumcision) are considered equally significant. Paul uses the example of Abraham to bypass Jewish identity markers such as circumcision and the Sabbath, which are central to the concept of the covenant.”
Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. Infants cannot consent to this irreversible procedure, violating their right to bodily integrity and autonomy. Religiously based decisions about a person’s body should be made by the individual when they are old enough to understand and consent.
Bob> “In Galatians 3:28, Paul writes: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. While this is noble in its universalism, the Jewish critique is that it flattens Jewish distinctiveness and implies that Jewish identity is a temporary stage rather than a permanent calling. It also transforms the Jewish Messiah into a universal saviour who is unrecognisable to Jewish expectations (e.g. a king who restores Israel and rebuilds the Temple).”
During Paul’s time the temple was still standing. There wasn’t a single unified Jewish expectation. There were multiple variations on a messianic theme. There isn’t even a single unified “Jewish critique”. There are a bunch of them based on divisions that exist among Jewish sects themselves and some of them contradict each other.
Bob> “Paul’s letters contain both positive and negative statements about Jews, leading to centuries of ambivalence and hostility. On the positive side, he writes in Romans 9:4 that ‘Theirs is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law…’However, he also writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, ‘…the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out…’ If authentic, 1 Thessalonians 2:15 has been used to justify anti-Semitism, particularly in medieval and early modern Europe.
That’s an unfortunate translation of the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος which is better translated “Judeans”. Even so, it seems to imply a connotation of racial or national guilt and as such,could inspire or be used to justify a possible basis antisemitism.
Bob>”Jewish critics argue that, while Romans 9–11 is admired by some for its nuance, it ultimately concludes that Jews must convert. This ambiguity has had real-world consequences. Paul’s theological logic justified Christian anti-Judaism. Joseph Klausner saw Paul as distorting Jewish thought, labelling him “the second founder of Christianity”.Daniel Boyarin argues that Paul was a ‘radical Jew’ who tried to include Gentiles while breaking Jewish norms, not anti-Jewish, but deeply conflicted. Amy-Jill Levine engages with Paul’s work critically, encouraging Christians to recognise how anti-Jewish interpretations of Paul have developed, and to re-read his work responsibly.Rabbi Jacob Neusner acknowledges Paul’s brilliance but argues that his theology is incompatible with Jewish law and identity.For a Jewish personality to cause so much controversy among his own people seems to suggest he was ignoring his own traditions or radically re-interpreting them.”
Boyarin does acknowledge Paul’s radical critique of certain aspects of first-century Jewish culture as demonstrating the “genius of Christianity,” specifically its concern for all people (Jews and Gentiles alike), as articulated in Paul’s famous formulation: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, no male and female in Christ”. Amy-Jill Levine points out that Paul, despite being associated with moving away from Judaism towards Christianity, did not seek to undermine the Torah’s importance. Levine notes that Paul viewed the law as holy, and the commandments as holy, just, and good.Contrary to your assertion above, Levine states that in Romans 9-11, Paul asserts God has not rejected the Jewish people and remains faithful to them, whether they accept Jesus as Messiah or not. Levine’s approach emphasizes understanding Paul within his first-century Jewish context, challenging interpretations that portray him as entirely anti-Jewish or that separate Jesus and Paul from their Jewish roots. She aims to clarify misconceptions and promote a more nuanced understanding of Paul’s role and teachings within early Christianity.
Bob>”Now, you and I may be able to glean something from the NT, but the fact that Paul doesn’t quote Jesus does beg the question why his interpretation should be better than that of James, supposedly Jesus’ brother. There are areas where Paul could be said to be continuing a gnostic version of Christianity, but the so-called Gnostic Gospels are closer to the canonical Gospels than Paul’s letters.”
James and Paul took different paths to God presumably based on their diverging good faith understandings of Jesus whom they both held to be the Messiah. Paul’s school of thought won and that of James was suppressed. Yes once you see how little Paul quotes Jesus you can’t unsee it. His relationship was entirely with the resurrected life-giving spirit of Christ as he said in I Corinthians 15:45. He even says in II Corinthians 5:16, “So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we do so no longer.”
Historian Elaine Pagels’ work, particularly The Gnostic Paul, suggests a Gnostic interpretation of Paul’s epistles that she finds valid and insightful. She argues that Gnostic interpretations, far from being a deviation from Paul’s true message, actually offer a deeper understanding of his complex and often ambiguous writings. Pagels explores how Gnostic Christians of the second century read and interpreted Paul’s letters. She demonstrates that they didn’t simply reject Paul’s teachings, but rather, engaged with them in a way that highlighted the more mystical and spiritual aspects of his thought. This involved a focus on the inner, spiritual experience of faith, rather than solely on external rituals or historical events. Pagels’ analysis challenges the traditional view that Gnosticism was a later heresy that arose in opposition to Paul’s true message. Instead, she suggests that Gnostic interpretations of Paul can be seen as a valid and legitimate way of understanding his writings, one that emphasizes the importance of individual spiritual awakening and transformation. Furthermore, Pagels argues that the Gnostic interpretations of Paul can shed light on the diversity of early Christian thought and the various ways in which individuals and communities understood the teachings of Jesus and his followers. She suggests that the Gnostic perspective offers a valuable alternative to the more institutionalized and hierarchical structures that came to dominate mainstream Christianity.
Bob>”When we look at later Christian Dogma, it leans far more on the Epistles than on the Gospels and includes the neoplatonic influences that Paul had invited.”
I take it you mean that creedal church teachers should put more emphasis on the life and teachings of Jesus and less on Paul’s. I agree. Technically speaking it was Middle Platonism during Paul’s time. Neoplatonism came later had a strong influence on later theologians like Augustine and mystics like the nondualist Meister Eckhart.
After the invasion of Alexander, Hellenism including Greek philosophy had a pervasive throughout the Roman empire including in Judea. Greek philosophers, especially those from the Eleatic school and later the Stoics explored the idea of a single, underlying principle governing the universe. Xenophanes, for instance, criticized the multiplicity of traditional Greek gods and posited a more unified divine reality. Plato’s concept of the Good and Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” provided models for understanding a supreme, unifying omni-benevolent being behind the world. These ideas, though not always strictly monotheistic in the modern sense, paved the way for the concept of a single, all-encompassing God in later religious traditions. Jewish thinkers in Alexandria, like Philo of Alexandria, engaged with Greek philosophy, particularly Plato and Aristotle, to interpret Jewish scripture and develop a more philosophical understanding of God. A growing body of evidence suggests that it wasn’t until this period that the Hebrew Bible was compiled translated into Greek. Recent archeological evidence supports the conclusion that a widely practiced Judean way of life governed by the Torah never predates the second century BCE.
This immediately addresses the problem that becomes significant along the way, namely that we are talking about a historical or an envisioned event. This may certainly be explosive within a generation and locally, but the reverberations throughout the rest of the world came later when the original story had changed significantly. When it is no longer “I have a vision …” or “the Master told us to do this …” but wrapped up in the portrayal of a divine being that incarnated as a human being, you can see how things have significantly changed. We have entered the area of mythology.
It is for this reason that perhaps the criticisms of Judaism came later, when this transformation had taken place, because as long as they were talking about visions or masters, as you say, there were many of them, depending on the interpretation. But when the idea of the Messiah becomes mythology, it undermines the more realistic hope of a human messiah. When Christianity is transported as a “cosmic” event but the world looks unchanged, and the superficial shifting of power doesn’t change the experience of everyday life, you have to ask what is real.
As universalists, we both acknowledge the positive contributions of wisdom cultures around the world. There is an agreed goal, which, to me, seems to require acknowledging unity among human beings and, possibly, with all life. This means recognising that we are all interconnected and that we interact with and confront each other with our different perspectives. Cultural differences are like the colours emerging from a prism. But it is all light. If we come to a point in which traditions say that they are the only true religion like the Abrahamic traditions, this contradicts our universalism.
Okay, so that we know what we’re talking about: Merkavah mysticism (from the Hebrew for “chariot”) is an early form of Jewish mysticism that flourished from roughly the 1st to the 10th centuries CE. It is centred on visionary experiences inspired by the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the divine chariot (merkavah) described in Ezekiel 1. The tradition is characterized by attempts to ascend spiritually and experience the heavenly realms, culminating in a vision of God’s Throne.
Practitioners sought to recreate Ezekiel’s vision by ascending through the heavens, often described as a journey through seven “palaces” (hekhalot) guarded by angels. The ascent was both a metaphysical and ecstatic experience, involving altered states of consciousness, ritual purity, and meditative techniques. It sounds a lot like other ecstatic revelations, past and present, that has its place in many traditions. Practitioners across traditions report entering trance-like or ecstatic states, often accompanied by visions, euphoria, and a sense of timelessness. Many traditions describe encounters with divine beings, angels, or manifestations of the sacred, often as the culmination of spiritual ascent or deep meditation.
Scholars note that ecstatic and visionary elements are a recurring motif in religious history, from the Maenads of ancient Greece to Christian saints and Sufi mystics. Modern research suggests that while the phenomenological content (visions, ascents, union with the divine) is similar, each tradition interprets and integrates these experiences according to its own beliefs and cultural context.
This is what takes precedence over the Sermon on the Mount? We must also recognise that Acts is generally a book introducing Paul as ‘the’ Apostle and early Christian rites, including the Eucharist, were influenced by Greek mystery traditions, particularly in their symbolism of death, rebirth, and spiritual transformation. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that this tendency was observed by Rabbis and criticised.
You can see how far we have moved away from the Galilean teacher who proposed that compassion transforms people into the ‘light of the world’ and ‘salt of the earth’. He claimed that it is this compassion that is divine and consumed him as it could consume his followers. They could be one in this transcendent power and it could change the world. He was of course right, but compassion is a universal value, recognised by most traditions.
In Buddhism, compassion (karuṇā) is one of the Four Immeasurables and central to the path of enlightenment. The Buddha taught that compassion for all beings leads to liberation. In Hinduism, the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) is rooted in deep compassion for all living beings. Unfortunately, many modern spiritual practices have shifted toward ritual, ecstatic experience, or personal enlightenment, sometimes at the expense of the simple, radical call to compassion.
The Galilean teacher’s insight, that compassion can consume and unite, making people “one” in transcendent power, remains as relevant as ever. Compassion is not only a personal virtue but a social force capable of healing divisions and inspiring justice. As Christianity evolved, especially under the influence of Paul’s epistles, the focus of the faith shifted in notable ways from the simple, transformative compassion at the heart of Jesus’ message to more complex theological constructs centred on faith, grace, and atonement.
If such ecstatic experience is the basis of a revelation, surely the call is to all followers to pursue this kind of experience! Is this the metanoia that Paul spoke of? Its meaning is broader and deeper than simple repentance as commonly understood. In the original Greek, metanoia means a “change of mind” or a “transformation of heart and consciousness”—a radical reorientation of one’s entire way of thinking and being.
But the parallels between the metanoia associated with early Christian transformation and the spiritual journey at the heart of the Eleusinian Mysteries come to mind. Both traditions centre on a profound, often life-altering change in consciousness, facilitated by ritual, symbolism, and communal experience. In both traditions, metanoia is not merely repentance but a radical transformation of being—a new way of seeing oneself, others, and the world.
Aristotle noted that initiates “have not a lesson to learn, but an experience to undergo and a condition into which they must be brought while they are becoming fit for revelation.” This is a long way off from the Roman idea of faith and makes me ask what is not being said about Paul and his conversion.
Indeed! But this is what I mean. It is something completely different and Jews will have noticed this. It also makes the following arguments somewhat irrelevant.
If Paul is promoting a radical metanoia as described above, then we have to ask whether following old traditions is something he can agree to. His public confrontation with Peter over table fellowship with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14) was a clear demonstration that he would not tolerate what he saw as hypocrisy or a retreat to old divisions. He would clearly be unhappy with what is passed as Christianity or Judaism today.
He creates a tension he never fully resolves, as seen in his nuanced discussions in Romans and Galatians. History reveals how his struggle was passed on to later generations. Paul’s letters reveal ongoing disputes—not just with Peter, but with the “super-apostles” in Corinth and with communities that question his authority. He defends his apostleship with passion, but also with a sense of vulnerability and woundedness. Modern scholars and psychologists often see Paul as a figure of great internal complexity.
Paul’s writings reveal a man who was not at peace with himself, but who channelled his inner conflicts into a passionate and transformative vision.
However, if he had spoken about a kind of “repulsion” to the aspects of the Tanakh that you mention, rather than saying the law was a burden, he would probably join some gnostic sects in saying the God of Jesus is not the God of the Tanakh. I agree with all the critical points you make regarding the ‘Holiness Code’ and am obviously not a Jew because of that.
Paul’s teaching represents an “extreme distancing” from the Holiness Code’s ritual obligations, especially for Gentiles. He promoted a new way of covenant participation based on faith in Christ and the transformative work of the Spirit, rather than on ritual purity or legal boundary markers. This was a significant departure from the Torah’s original framework, and it set the trajectory for much of later Christian theology and practice.
Agreed, but we are talking here about a sign of the covenant, which, along with the Sabbath, is even today a defining trait of Judaism.
Agreed, but once more, we are talking about defining traits of Judaism, not nuances in practice. For Jews, the Messiah was not and is not someone who is executed on the cross.
We remain with a personality whose singular influence, while presumably well-meaning, transformed and internationalised a Jewish reform movement, created a tension that remains to the present day, and was apparently inspired by mystical experiences that he gave priority over tradition. No wonder that the church thought they had to deify Jesus to return him to a prominent position in the church. The mythologisation of Christ served to contrast him with the Eleusinian and Dionysian Mysteries, and the former version of the Gospel of John showed him to be the ‘better’ Dionysus, with a better wine to offer.
This emphasis inevitably marginalizes the voices and experiences of the original disciples, including Mary Magdalene, who are far more prominent in the Gospels and in some apocryphal writings. The canonical tradition, shaped heavily by Paul’s influence, tends to sideline these figures and their witness in favour of the “revelation” Paul claims to have received directly from Christ.
Fortunately, the apocryphal Gospels—such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, and others—preserve alternative perspectives. These texts often highlight the authority and insight of Mary Magdalene and other disciples, sometimes even challenging the authority of Peter and Paul. They suggest a more diverse and contested early Christian landscape, where different communities remembered and interpreted Jesus in distinct ways.
In summary, Paul’s mystical vision and theology of the resurrected Christ did set a new direction for Christianity, but one that overshadowed the lived experiences and teachings of Jesus’ earliest followers. The apocryphal Gospels remind us that other voices and stories existed, offering a richer and more complex portrait of the early movement.
When one leaves “The Faith” and studies the history, one finds there are many unanswered questions at the origin point of Christianity, including important ones which are likely to remain mysteries. The astounding findings near the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi in the mid 20th century on top of several hundred years of historical/critical research radically changed the prevailing understanding of those origins in ways that thinking people are still taking on board. At this point, Jesus and Paul are at best mysterious historical persons. Even approached as mythology in a positive sense, multiple interpretations of the Christian Bible are possible. An individual’s interpretation reflects their unique point of view including their level of spiritual development. In the context of our dialogue, the way of Jesus and the way of Paul can be compared and contrasted as two distinct paths.
Still more, each of the four gospels outline different paths. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke seem to edited the Gospel of Mark where they found Mark’s path wanting. The author of the Gospel of John (probably not the disciple John) portrays of Jesus that is significantly different than the one in the synoptic gospels. All four are more or less different than Paul’s gospel in his letters. And Paul’s gospel is different from the one that he is depicted as preaching in the book of Acts.
Finally, in academic biblical studies, a distinction is often made between the seven letters widely accepted as genuinely written by Paul (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) and other letters attributed to him (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), often referred to as Deutero-Pauline or disputed epistles. While all are considered canonical by most Christians, scholars suggest potential theological differences based on the assumption that the disputed letters were written later, perhaps by students or followers of Paul who sought to apply his teachings to new situations.
While the Pauline influence is relatively pervasive throughout the New Testament owing even to the theology of those who selected books for inclusion in the canon, the Epistle attributed to James the brother of Jesus is a notable exception. The letter lacks any reference to Paul’s view of Jesus as the divine son of God nor does it mention the death on the cross or his glorified resurrection. It also says that faith without works is dead. The letter seems to reflect an early Palestinian Jewish cultural context. Even though it’s written in Greek, experts note that it reflects numerous Aramaic and Hebrew expressions. The ethical content of its teachings is directly parallel to the teachings of Jesus in the Q source. For James the focus is not on the person of Jesus but the message that Jesus proclaimed.
The problematic book of revelation also diverges markedly from Paul. While Paul heavily emphasizes salvation by grace through faith, separate from the works of the Lord revelation, presents a strong focus on obedience to God‘s commandments and the deeds of righteousness. Revelation is more firmly rooted in Torah Judaism. It emphasizes Jewish distinctions like those between clean and unclean which Paul rejects and expresses concern for those claiming to be Jewish, but deemed not to be real Jews. Revelation 2:2 which praises the Ephesians for rejecting certain individuals might be a veiled criticism of Paul and his teachings.
So even in this poor fragmentary sketch of New Testament I hope you can see a tiny reflection of the pattern reiterated like a fractal in the Big Picture. Mother Nature loves diversity. This is no less evident in religion than in any sea or jungle of the natural world as represented through the filter of the finite mind. The universal Will divides into the multiplicity of wills that strive to dominate through the illusion of separate egos. This is how the Paths proliferate like sand on the seashore or stars in the heavens all on their way back to their ultimate origin, their true identity as the One the True Self of All.
“An individual’s interpretation reflects their unique point of view including their level of spiritual development.”
Indeed. The ambiguous incomprehensibility of the writing style and language allows multiple interpretations.
A clue: notice how there aren’t two thousand different denominations of gene biology or chemistry or astrophysics? Why not. Because there is little to no ambiguity in the collection and interpretation of the subject material and data.
The first thing that should turn a wise man away from the bible is the fact THAT there are so many disagreements between those who swear by it.
That is a trick argument. Philosophy is just a kind of language activity. It doesn’t tell us anything about the world. If it did, it would be a natural science, and there would be no disagreement about its facts. So, regarding philosophy, it is not a mark against it that it’s so ambiguous. Religion, on the other hand, makes scientific claims all the time and so can’t be taken as lightly as philosophy. It claims and demands laws and is therefore restrictive and tyrannical, it makes misleading cosmological and human origin claims, it causes racial conflict, etc. Religion isn’t just a harmless language game. It can be downright dangerous and deceptive. Note the two thousand year war between the arabs and the jews going on across the ocean from you. That’s because those guys didn’t take my advice and remain skeptical of self-proclaimed prophets and sonsagods.
Those guys ain’t scientists or philosophers. They are not just doing language activity. These guys are mental cases.