The Christian faith

Both John the Baptist and Jesus preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh and emphasized that it would be heralded by a specific anointed figure referred to as the “Son of Man." At a certain point, it appears that Jesus began to identify himself with this prophetic role. In anticipation of this, he underwent a symbolic anointing, involving the use of what seemed to be a rather costly ointment.

​

This act, blending elements of self-aggrandizement and extravagance, appeared to disillude at least one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. Judas, perhaps disturbed by this display, apparently shared information about Jesus's anointing with someone associated with the Jewish aristocracy. This disclosure provided the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, with the necessary grounds to address the disruptive figure from Galilee who had recently disturbed the Temple proceedings while spreading an anti-Roman, apocalyptic message.

​

In the eyes of the authorities, Jesus's act of self-anointing signified a claim to messiahship, effectively positioning himself as the "King of the Jews" and, as a result, placing him in direct opposition to Roman governance. This pivotal turn of events led to Jesus's arrest, a trial on charges of sedition, and ultimately, his execution.

​

1. Response to Jesus's execution

There seem to have been at least three responses to Jesus's execution:

1. Some followers seem to have abandoned the cause: while Christian traditions hold that the eleven disciples continued to further the ministry of Jesus, very few are explicitly mentioned in the gospel of Luke and the subsequent text of the Acts of the Apostles.

2. Some followers continued to teach Jesus's message, and this seems to have included Jesus's brother James. For hundreds of years, one such group, the Ebionites, continued to believe that Jesus was adopted the “Son of Yahweh” at his baptism, and was a prophet whose message was an end to the sacrifices in Jerusalem; however, if this was part of Jesus's original message, it does not appear in any of the Christian literature.

3. For other followers, the eschatological understanding for many Jews (at least, those who believed in the resurrection of the dead) was that the Kingdom of Yahweh would come and that those righteous who were dead would be resurrected: the soul and the body were inextricably linked, so the soul could not exist without a body, and as Yahweh breathed life into Adam, he too would breath life back into the bodies of the deceased. It seems that Mary Magdalene and perhaps Peter either had a vision or claimed they had a vision that Jesus had been resurrected: his resurrection would be the first of many, and soon Jesus would return ushering in that Kingdom. Indeed, Matthew 27:52-53 describes the resurrection of others at this time: “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” The author of Matthew still believed that the coming of the Kingdom of Yahweh had started, and that Jesus would return soon ushering in that Kingdom.

​

2. First adopted, then born, and then a divine being

Over time, this third attitude seems to have dominated: it was certainly included in the message of Paul. Over time, the understanding of who Jesus was also changed:

1. “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” appears in at least some ancient copies of Luke, indicating that Jesus was adopted the Son of God at his baptism.

2. The authors of Matthew and Luke author their birth narratives as if Jesus came into existence at his conception; there is no discussion of Jesus pre-existing his birth. Additionally, the author of Luke has an interesting understanding of what happens after the resurrection:  

3. The author of John and Paul thought Jesus was an angel or other divine being. In John, we have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” Here, the “Word of God” parallels the “Angel of God", the “Wisdom of God", the "Spirit of God" and the "Son of God" (a title given to the kings of Judah). In Paul, the poem in Philippians 2 clearly describes an angel: a being that is in the form of God (like Adam and other angels) but not God, and this angel is exalted after his resurrection. If Jesus was already God, this passage makes no sense: “Jesus who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,  assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Therefore God exalted him even more highly and gave him the name that is above every other name, so that at the name given to Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
   However, the author of John and Paul have very different ideas of what the resurrected body is: in John, Jesus still has the holes in his hands and the gash caused by Roman soldier's spear. Paul, on the other hand says in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 “So it is with the resurrection of the dead...what is raised is imperishable...it is raised in glory...it is raised in power...it is raised a spiritual body...there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ...the last Adam became a life-giving spirit...But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual...the second man is from heaven...and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. ...we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.”
   The author of John also has a bizarre understanding of who Jesus is, for he does not describe a god, but rather one who is local and temporal: “But now I am going to him who sent me, ... Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you...because I am going to the Father, and you will see me no longer.”

It is important to note that the “Word of God” was an idea described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who saw the “Word of God” as an intermediary between Yahweh and the created world; this was not an ideal novel to the author of John. That Jesus needed to be born to a virgin is the result of a mistranslation of ancient Hebrew in the Pentateuch, where the Hebrew word for a “young woman” was translated to the Greek word for “virgin”, even though there is already a separate word for “virgin” in ancient Hebrew. That Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem, caused to gospel authors to narrate completely antithetical birth narratives:

1. In Luke, the first two chapters embody Gemütlichkeit. Mary and Joseph begin their lives in Nazareth, and travel to Bethlehem for a census under Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in 6 CE, as the Romans had deposed Herod Archelaus; (although no record of such a census has ever been found). In Bethlehem, Jesus is born and shepherds come to visit him. After a week, Jesus is circumcised and a month later, the family travels to Jerusalem for the ritual of purification for Mary, after which they return to their home in Nazareth.

2. In Matthew, the first two chapters embody fear and loathing. Mary and Joseph begin in Bethlehem, and during the life of King Herod, Jesus is born, and they are visited by Magi from the East. After this, they flee to Egypt to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and King Herod kills hundreds of infants under the age of two in Bethlehem (although no contemporary records of this atrocity six miles from Jerusalem have ever been found). After King Herod dies in 4 BCE (a decade before Jesus was born in Luke), they return to Judah, but fear the newly installed ethnarch Herod Archelaus, so instead of going home to Bethlehem, they go north to Galilee. There, Joseph “made his home in a town called Nazareth.” 

Slowly, Jesus is being transformed from a human to some sort of divine being. Being born the son of a deity is a common trope in Greek mythology, so why can't Jesus be the son of Yahweh? Polytheism is integral to Greek mythology, so why not make Jesus a god? Christianity is nothing more than Greek appropriation of Jewish beliefs.

​

3. Approaches to Salvation

We must now look at how the execution of Jesus is interpreted by his followers. There are two distinct themes: salvation comes through

1. repentance and turning to God, or

2. Jesus's sacrificial blood that cleanse the sins of the one who believes and has faith in this.

​

3.1 Salvation through repentance and turning to God

Recall that John the Baptist proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The author of Luke and Acts continues this interpretation, whereby he says:

1. “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:32)

2. “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7)

3. “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:26-27)

4. “No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish as they did.” (Luke 13:3)

All of these passages that emphasize repentance appear only in the gospel of Luke: they are not part of the common passages shared with Mark or Matthew. The author of Luke continues this interpretation in the book of the Acts of the Apostles:

1. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

2. “Repent, therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out.” (Acts 3:19)

3. “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)

4. “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

Nowhere does the author of Luke and Acts every associate the blood of Jesus as having any part in salvation: as with John the Baptist's message, salvation comes from repentance and turning to God. This is paralleled in the letter of James, the brother of Jesus, who seems to have continued the message of his brother Jesus after the latter's execution. Statements in this letter that parallel Jesus's message include:

1. James 1:27 “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”​

2. James 2:13 “For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

James, the brother of Jesus, appears to have stayed in Jerusalem to continue spreading the apocalyptic message of John the Baptist and his brother Jesus. James also emphasizes the same message as John the Baptist and the author of Luke and Acts; that is, to repent and turn to God:​ James 4:7-10 says:

• Submit yourselves therefore to God.

• Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

• Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

• Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

• Lament and mourn and weep.

• Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection.

• Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

​

3.2 Salvation through faith and sacrificial blood

The message of John the Baptist, the author of Luke and Acts, and James, the brother of Jesus, differs markedly from the opinions of the author of John and Paul. The author of John explicitly refers to Jesus as the "Word of God," but also refers to Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Jesus's execution is now being understood as a sacrifice, and the author of John explicitly moves the execution of Jesus from the morning after the Passover meal (remembering that the day starts at sunset), to the day of the preparation of the Passover meal, so Jesus's execution is now on the same day as the sacrifice of the Passover lambs: in the book of John, there is no Passover meal, even though this is explicitly mentioned in all three synoptic gospels. 

​

3.3 Vicarious redemption

​

​

4. The resurrection and the Kingdom of Heaven

​

4.1 The Kingdom is coming soon

Recall that both Jesus and Paul insisted that the Kingdom of God would come in their lives:

1. Jesus said in Mark 9:1 “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

2. Paul emphasizes that the Kingdom of God has not yet come, but that it is coming for in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, it says “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever.”

3. Paul later emphasizes this in a letter to the church in Rome. In Romans 13:11-12, he says “Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is already the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone; the day is near. Let us then throw off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light...”

Among Paul's worst advice, it however does make sense sense if he believed that the Kingdom of God was coming soon: In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 he says “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” He continues later in that narrative to say “Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is good for you to remain as you are.” 

​

4.2 The Kingdom will come, but it must get worse first

As the decades passed, and the Kingdom did not come, subsequent authors changed the message. The forger who wrote 2 Thessalonians wrote in 2:1-10 the following:

• As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.

• Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

• Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?

• And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.​

This introduces the idea that the Kingdom of God will not come until the situation becomes much worse, a darkening that will be heralded by a "lawless one." Notice how the forger attempts to convince the reader that this was always known? The forger attempts to dissuade the reader of the idea that the Kingdom of God is coming soon, for he denies the existence of the authentic letter of Paul to the Thessalonians where above we see that Paul includes himself with those "who are left." Specifically, the second letter says "we beg you...not to be quickly shaken...by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here."​ The letter likely refers to what is now known as 1 Thessalonians. The author then tells his audience “Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?” However, none of the authentic letters of Paul refer to such a “Lawless One.”

​

In the forged letters of John, the author introduces the idea of an “Antichrist”, in 1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.”

Finally, in the Revelation of John of Patmos, the author engages in a hurricane of revenge porn, an orgy of destruction and death. This author now introduces yet another character, the “Beast.”

​

All three predictions of a coming evil have been the fuel of preachers for the past two thousand years, and the current time is always indicative of the end times, when the “Lawless One,” the “Antichrists” and the “Beast” are already among us. 

It is interesting to note that the author of Luke emphasizes that it is not the death of Jesus that brings salvation, for in the gospel of Luke, the curtain is torn while Jesus is still alive: in Luke 23:44-46, it says

It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed, and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

Similarly, James, the brother of Jesus, seems to counter Paul's claim that faith is all that is necessary for salvation. In James 2:14-17 it says

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

​

​

Paul and the author of the gospel of John understood Jesus's execution to be a sacrifice, and his sacrifice was the final one. From that point on, there was no longer a need to sacrifice animals in Jerusalem, there was no longer a need to feed the coffers of the Jewish ruling classes in Jerusalem. Indeed, the author of John even moved Jesus's execution from the day after the Passover meal to the pervious day, the day of the sacrifices of the animals for the Passover meals. Describe Paul's belief of salvation... However, not all authors understood Jesus's death to be sacrificial: for the author of Luke and Acts, it was not the blood of Jesus that made you pure, but your repentance and faith in Jesus (expand on this).

​

The introduction of Heaven and Hell

While many apocalyptic preachers continued to teach that the Kingdom of God was coming, and coming soon, including the disciples of John the Baptist and the followers of Jesus, as well as many others, the belief that Jesus was somehow tied to this coming kingdom and that Jesus was the herald who would usher in this kingdom remained sidelined by the majority of Jews: Jesus had been executed on a cross and was thus cursed according to Deuteronomy 21:23, which says “... for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” Additionally, his life did not exemplify that of one who was anointed, or a messiah. As described before, Jews saw the body and the soul as being inextricably linked: you could not have one without the other. The very concept of a resurrection is only introduced in the book of Daniel, a book written around 200 BCE at a time when Greeks controlled Jerusalem and Judea and those who followed the Law were punished while those who became Hellenized were rewarded. To deal with this cognitive dissonance, the author of Daniel and others suggested that there would come a time in the future when the bodies of all would be raised and the righteous would be rewarded while all others would be punished. In Daniel 12, 1-3 it says

“At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise.

There shall be a time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.

But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,

      some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”

Even at the time of Jesus, the Sadducees did not accept the concept of the resurrection of the dead, for after all, they benefitted from the cultic rituals at Jerusalem, and it was by offering sacrifices there that Jews would gain favor from Yahweh in the here-and-now, but many others believed in this, and the apocalypticists such as John the Baptist believed this would be soon, but Jesus would not be the herald of that coming kingdom.

​

By the time of Jesus, there were more Jews living throughout the Roman Empire outside of Canaan than there were living in the ancient homelands of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. These million Jews living throughout the empire, and their religion attracted many gentiles to their faith. The transition, however, was difficult, for conversion meant that one would have to adhere to the laws in the Torah, and this included all of the dietary restrictions as well as, for men, circumcision. Thus, converts fell into two categories: those who converted fully, or proselytes, and those god-fearers who were at the gate. Both of these groups provided both financial and political support for the Jewish diaspora.

​

Paul, however, introduced the idea that one could be a complete follower of Jesus without having to adhere to all the dietary requirements, and more importantly, men did not need to be circumcised. Thus, very soon, many of the earlier followers of Jesus were not Jews, but rather they were Greeks. This, of course, put the nascent community of Jews following Jesus at odds with the Jewish diaspora: if these people at the gate could now be fully welcomed into this messianic community, that would also be where their financial and political support would go, as well. While the apocalyptic message of John the Baptist, Peter, Mary Magdalene and James, the brother of Jesus, remained a Jewish faith, the message of Paul soon became dominant outside of Judea. 

​

However, as more and more Greeks became followers of Jesus, they began to introduce their concepts of the soul and Hades: a place where the souls of the dead immediately entered and existed not having to wait for subsequent resurrection. Plato had long ago described the soul as being immortal soul, one that would become separated from the body at death. There was a belief that the soul would cross the River Styx, the boundary between the land of the living and the land of the dead, to enter Hades. In some understandings of Hades, it is divided into different realms; for example, some divided that realm into three: Elysium for the righteous, Tartarus for the evil, and the Asphodel Fields for everyone else. It is not any significant stretch of the imagination that followers of Jesus transformed these into the Heaven and Hell of Christianity today. Paul, at least initially, did not understand the afterlife in this sense, for in his oldest extant letter to the Thessalonians 6:13-16, 

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, ... God will bring with him those who have died. ...we who are alive...will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself...will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 

Thus, Paul's earliest message seems to parallel Jewish eschatological beliefs: he does not suggest that those who have died are experiencing some sort of divine paradise. The word Paul uses for death is sleep, and this does not suggest going to Heaven, waiting to be returned to the body at the time of the resurrection. All of 1 Corinthians 15, discusses and emphasizes the resurrection of the dead, and this appears to be written in contrast to alternate beliefs circulated at the time, almost certainly the introduction of some form of Heaven or Hell to which the soul goes after death. To extract a few statements:

• Now I want you to understand...the good news...through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you.

• Then [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

This statement, however, describes death by saying that they were “asleep;” that is, not a conscious awake soul in Heaven.

• Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
          how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

• If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised.

• If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation...and your faith is in vain.

After some further discussion, Paul reiterates:

• For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.

• If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins.

• Then those also who have died in Christ have perished.

• If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

He makes a rather entertaining statement that emphasizes that if there is no resurrection, there is nothing to look forward to, so no afterlife:

• If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul then contrasts the human body and the resurrected body:

• What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

• It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.

• It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.

• It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body.

He then concludes that

• If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Paul then contrasts the physical body and the spiritual one by contrasting Adam and Jesus:

• The first man, Adam, became a living being;
  the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

• But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual.

• The first man was from the earth, made of dust;
  he second man is from heaven.

• As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and
  as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.

• Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust,
  we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

He then discusses the coming Kingdom of God:

• Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

• Nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

• We will not all die, but we will all be changed.

• The dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

• For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and
  this mortal body must put on immortality.

• When this perishable body puts on imperishability and
  this mortal body puts on immortality

Again, Paul believes exactly what at least some Jews believed: Yahweh created a paradise for humans to live in, and human sin corrupted that paradise creating this world, so when the Kingdom of God comes, this Earth will be transformed back into that paradise, and the bodies and souls of the dead will be raised with spiritual, imperishable bodies. He is arguing against the ideas of Greek converts in Corinth, a city less than 60 miles from Athens, and far from Judea. These converts would have had beliefs of Hades and a spiritual afterlife, and Paul was arguing against this; reinforcing the Jewish belief of the resurrection of the dead with the coming of the Kingdom of God.

​

In time, however, Paul seems to have adopted the Greek interpretation of the afterlife. In one of his later letters, he says in Philippians 1:23-24 “I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better, but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.” CONTINUE!!! 2 Corinthians

​

Thus, Christianity, having evolved from the teachings of Paul more so than the teachings of Jesus, combined with the Greek concepts of a soul and an immediate afterlife, and having to reconcile the fact that the Kingdom of God has not yet come and so predicting a future time of world-wide evil ruled by characters controlled by Satan, results in a religion that is bizarre at best. However, at this time, Jesus is not yet even understood as being God: he was a righteous man or he may have been a divine being, but not god. This, however, was another influence of the Greek and other pagan converts and followers: for these people, the idea of there being multiple gods was obvious, so Jesus, too, could have been God. This, however, is antithetical to the entire corpus of Judean beliefs associated with God: it is a monotheistic religion: there is only one god. If there is only one god, how can Jesus also be god? With the introduction of polytheism into the worship in Christianity, this would provide centuries of arguing how there can be both only one god, but first two and then three gods. CONTINUE 

​

Later, after all the gospels were written down, do we have the first hints that Jesus was being equated with God. In a letter to the Ephesians by Ignatius of Antioch, we have the following, where “our Physician” is Jesus:

But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” Being incorporeal, He was in the body, being impassible, He was in a passible body, being immortal, He was in a mortal body, being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

It is possible that one of the earlier references to God existing in three beings is by Valentinus, a second-century gnostic Christian about whom we only know what proto-orthodox Christians wrote about him in their attacks against his heresies:

1. The Father who was God and beyond comprehension.

2. The Word, which was an embodiment of the creative, revealing and masculine aspects of God.

3. The Wisdom, which was an embodiment of the divine wisdom and feminine aspects of God.

It was only at the turn of the second to the third centuries that another proto-orthodox Christian writer Tertullian finally introduced the idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being one god.

These two ideas introduced long after Jesus's execution: that Jesus's execution was a sacrifice, and that to be saved one must simply believe that Jesus was indeed a sacrifice; and the immediate sending of the soul either to Heaven or Hell introduces horrible precedents:

​

First, for any harm you cause, you are not responsible to those who are harmed, but rather, you are answerable to Yahweh and Jesus. You are not obligated to make amends to those you harmed, and you are absolved of any responsibility of that harm. Indeed, the worst person in the world is welcome in Heaven so long as he confesses that person's own belief that Jesus forgives sins. There is no responsibility imposed on the believer: Jesus forgave you, and while it may be suggested you ask forgiveness of those you harmed or the make reparations, you are not obligated to do so.

​

Second, we have the ultimate carrot and stick: believe and you go to Heaven (you don't even have to be good to get there), otherwise, the punishment for non-belief is eternal punishment in Hell. What actually happens in Heaven is not really described, other than some sort of paradise, but there are explicit descriptions of the torments of Hell: it is clear that the earliest Church elders who devised these beliefs focused more on the stick than on the carrot, and humans, when given a choice, generally seek to avoid pain. This is encapsulated in Pascal's wager. 

​

Thus, the Christian moral system is even worse than the message of Jesus, and still worse than the moral system of Rabinnic Judaism: Heaven is a reward that can be gained through simple belief and not one righteous action, and Hell is the place for those who reject such an evil framework. For your sins, you are not answerable to those whom you harmed, but you are only answerable to Jesus. Indeed, it is much more risky to give a loan to one who promises to repay with references to Jesus and God, for such a person may default, but may feel no obligation to in any way compensate you: their Jesus has forgiven them, and that is sufficient.

​

Good or love?

I will share my perspective on two approaches that Christians often assert can be employed in dealing with moral situations: first, the doctrine of double effect, and second, the claim of the supremacy of love.

​

The doctrine of double effect posits that an action with potentially harmful consequences is permissible if:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

This doctrine's earliest formulation is attributed to Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. However, a notable concern arises from the ambiguity of the term "morally good," as its interpretation hinges on the perspective of the agent, often a Christian. The agent's beliefs about salvation, divine punishment, and collective retribution can significantly influence what is deemed "morally good." For example, actions resulting in perceived salvation or the prevention of divine intervention might be considered morally good by the agent, leading to potentially harmful consequences for others.

​

Determining whether the bad effect is willed by the agent poses another challenge. While resources might exist to achieve the good effect without the bad, questions arise about the acceptable cost of pursuing the alternative. The agent can also assert morally good reasons for their actions without necessarily revealing their true intentions.

​

In Thomas Aquinas's original formulation, the agent is tasked with determining if the good effect can be achieved without the bad, and if not, permitting the bad effect to occur. However, this raises questions about the agent's true intentions and the subjective nature of evaluating conflicting consequences.

​

I have encountered another perspective that advocates for embracing the principle of "love one another" as a universal solution to all problems. This concept of love, emphasized by both Jesus and Paul, permeates the teachings found in the Bible. In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus articulates:

“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” 

Similarly, in Romans 13:8-10, Paul underscores the paramount importance of love:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

In 1 Corinthians 13:4-13, Paul endeavors to delineate the nature of love:

Love

1. is patient;

2. is kind;

3. rejoices in the truth;

4. bears, believes, hopes and endures all things; and

5. never ends.

Love is not

1. envious,

2. boastful,

3. arrogant,

4. rude, or

5. irritable.

Love does not​

1. insist on its own way,

2. keep record of wrongs, or

3. rejoice in wrongdoing.

Paul concludes by asserting the transitory nature of knowledge:

Knowledge will come to an end. For we know only in part but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.

Reflecting on personal growth, he illustrates:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

He then draws a juxtaposition between the ephemeral and the everlasting:

And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love.

​

Love, as an emotion, is inherently constrained by the limits of space and time. Its expression is intimate, reserved for those within one's personal sphere—family and friends—and doesn't effortlessly extend to individuals beyond the local community. The pain or distress of a beloved child evokes deep grief, enduring for days, weeks, or even years. However, we cannot mourn the passing of every child or every child affected by blindness due to malnutrition. The term "love" encompasses a spectrum of emotions, all unified by their ability to ignite powerful motivations.

​

Interpersonal love, distinguished from affection for more abstract entities, shares the label "love" due to its commonality in evoking potent positive emotions. However, a stark contrast emerges between these two facets of love:

1. Love for another person (family members, friends, or romantic partners) involves, among other factors:

   • Emotions triggered by the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and dopamine, associated with bonding, pleasure, and reward.

   • Activation of brain regions like the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the caudate nucleus, integral to the experience of romantic love.

   • Psychological processes encompassing feelings of intimacy, passion, and commitment, as articulated in psychologist Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love.

2. On the other hand, love associated with one's community, region, country, the world, social justice, environmentalism, humanitarian efforts, or other causes entails:

   • A complex interplay of emotions, embracing pride, loyalty, a sense of identity, empathy, compassion, and a broad feeling of connectedness.

   • Engagement of brain regions possibly linked to self-identity, group affiliation, perspective-taking, prosocial behavior, moral reasoning, and anticipation of positive outcomes.
   • Psychological processes entailing loyalty, pride, shared identity, concern for others' well-being, a desire for global harmony, commitment to addressing challenges, deep dedication, a sense of moral duty, and motivation for positive change.

Crucially, the second form of love is not a mere extension of the first; they represent distinct human responses, each with its own unique characteristics and impact. While these delineations are not rigid, they acknowledge that individual experiences may vary. Indeed, one may personify a country (consider Britannia, the national personification of the United Kingdom), a cause, or a belief (Jesus, Isis, Allah) to the extent that the reactions experienced toward the second mirror those felt toward the first.

​

On a personal scale, the first form of love, as an emotion, yields numerous benefits:

1. Love functions as the cornerstone for building both personal and community relationships, fostering trust, empathy, and understanding.

2. It serves as a catalyst for kindness, charity, and volunteerism, propelling individuals and communities to extend help to those in need.

3. Love becomes an invaluable tool in conflict resolution, facilitating communication, compromise, and reconciliation.

4. It cultivates a sense of unity and solidarity, both among acquaintances and within the broader community.

5. Recognizing its necessity for mental health and well-being, love provides crucial support, enabling individuals to navigate stress and adversity.

Conversely, the second form of love extends motivation beyond the boundaries of one's community:

1. It fuels an interest in education, inspiring individuals to acquire skills and knowledge aimed at societal improvement.

2. Love becomes a driving force behind activism, advocacy, and leadership, propelling engagement in causes such as environmental conservation or social justice.

However, it's vital to note that these impacts remain confined to individual actions. This doesn't negate the substantial benefits of love, especially when untainted by negative emotions like jealousy. Yet, it's crucial to recognize the limitations of extrapolating such emotions to significantly larger populations of humans or, possibly, other living organisms. This, I believe, is the false extrapolation that many Christians make when asserting that "love" can be a universal solution. Interestingly, a pastor I once knew, who built his own church on this principle, was eventually ousted by the parishioners he had initially attracted to his "non-denominational" congregation.

​

Personal emotions, such as love, can translate into actions and reactions that benefit one's immediate community. However, extending these benefits beyond the local context becomes markedly challenging. Take, for instance, wealth distribution: while it's easy to identify a community near one's home that is more impoverished, addressing global issues requires acknowledging that problems on a worldwide scale stem from insufficient and unequal resource distribution. When dealing with problems beyond local communities where interpersonal relationships are unfeasible, an impersonal approach is essential. Representatives from various communities are designated to advocate on behalf of their respective constituencies, and love ceases to be the primary mediating force in such interactions.

​

There are additional issues associated with relying solely on love:

1. Love tends to focus on short-term interests, motivating individuals to address immediate needs. However, long-term solutions to global challenges often demand delayed gratification, sacrifice, and patience, motivations not exclusively driven by love.

2. Love alone cannot rectify deeply entrenched systems of injustice, inequality, and discrimination. Legal, economic, and social changes are necessary to address these issues effectively.

3. Emotions, including love, are inherently inconsistent and subject to change. They cannot be relied upon to provide the stability and consistency needed to address persistent global problems.

​

Again, to be fair, love of the second kind can have benefits beyond the immediate community:

1. Within a community, love can cultivate a profound sense of belonging and shared responsibility. Individuals, driven by love for their neighbors and community, may actively participate in initiatives aimed at enhancing local living conditions, supporting local businesses, and contributing to overall community well-being.

2. Expressions of love for one's region or country can serve as powerful catalysts for civic engagement, activism, and advocacy, propelling individuals to work toward positive societal changes. Unfortunately, it is crucial to acknowledge that such love can also be susceptible to manipulation by governments.

3. A broader love for humanity can compel individuals and organizations to address global challenges. Matters such as poverty, climate change, and human rights can evoke a profound sense of responsibility and a commitment to effecting positive change on a global scale.

4. In the realm of international cooperation, love for global peace and understanding can foster diplomacy. Individuals, organizations, and nations, driven by a shared love for humanity, may collaborate to confront transnational challenges, including pandemics, environmental issues, and conflicts.

5. Love for those in need can be a potent force behind philanthropy and humanitarian efforts. Compassion-driven individuals and organizations may contribute resources, time, and expertise to alleviate suffering, provide aid during emergencies, and support sustainable development.

6. A passion for knowledge and a commitment to the well-being of future generations can propel educational initiatives. Investing in education, whether on a local or global scale, empowers individuals to make positive contributions to society, nurturing a more informed and compassionate world.

7. An appreciation for diverse cultures and a desire for mutual understanding can fuel cultural exchange initiatives. By embracing diversity and fostering intercultural dialogue, individuals can play a crucial role in reducing prejudices and promoting harmony on a broader scale.

8. Love for the planet and concern for future generations can inspire environmental stewardship. Individuals and organizations motivated by a deep love for nature may actively work toward sustainable practices, conservation efforts, and the resolution of environmental challenges.

​

Nevertheless, neither a desire for good nor love alone can unravel ethical conundrums. Our reality is shaped by the constraints of a planet with limited resources and marked by unequal and unjust distributions of both resources and wealth. The pursuit of "good" can become problematic when goodness is entwined with righteousness and subjective interpretations of the will of a deity. While potent emotions can drive individual actions and motivate others in the immediate sphere, they fall short as a foundational principle for mediating between communities.

​

A shift in the Jewish conception of Yahweh involves the loss of his personal name: instead, as Jesus is the specific name attributed to the "Son of God," Yahweh seems to be designated as the "Father," though this connection is implied rather than explicitly stated. This implication raises concerns of anti-Semitism. While Judaism emphasizes Yahweh's mercy, compassion, and care for his creations, it refrains from using the term "love," opting for descriptions such as kindness, grace, and forgiveness. The love of Yahweh is evident in his relationship with his chosen people, as reiterated in familiar passages like John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."

​

It's only in later letters, such as 1 John 4:8 and 16, that God becomes explicitly equated with love: "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love," and "So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them."

​

Thus, the Father is equated with love, portraying an idealized form that implies God loves everyone akin to a father's love for his children. However, this concept appears somewhat awkward. In typical father-child dynamics, the father may scold, guide, and forgive, emphasizing a balanced approach. In contrast, this Fatherlike God demands love and, if unreciprocated, subjects individuals to eternal punishment—evoking a more sadistic and self-centered ruler than a loving deity.

​

The Fatherlike God contradicts the characteristics of love outlined by Paul:

1. If God were patient, why would he have sent a plague as described in Numbers 11 where the Israelites in the wilderness express discontent with the manna provided by God, desiring meat. Moses, overwhelmed by the people's complaints, questions God about the burden placed on him. In response, God provides quail to satisfy the people's demand, but their ingratitude leads to divine anger, resulting in a severe plague that strikes the Israelites.

2. If God were kind, he would not have flooded the entire world, killing all but one family, including innocent infants and children.

3. If love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, why does the Lord take delight in bringing you to ruin and destruction if you do not diligently observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, as is recorded in Deuteronomy 28?

4. If God rejoices in the truth, why did he, when needed a way to have Ahab, King of Israel, go and die in battle, did he accept the offer of a spirit who said he would “go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets,” to which God responds “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.” Indeed, why did he tell Adam “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die,” and yet, Adam lived for hundreds and hundreds of years thereafter. Indeed, if he rejoiced in truth, why is so much of Genesis pure myth?

5. Indeed, if love rejoices in the truth, why are mental afflictions attributed demon possession, and why are serious mental afflictions attributed to being possessed by many, and sometimes, thousands of demons?

6. If love bears all things, why is it that God "could no longer bear the sight of your evil doings, the abominations that you committed; therefore your land became a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is to this day." (Jeremiah 44:22)

7. If love keeps no record of wrongs, why does God visit the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation (Numbers 14:18)? In fact, why does God send anyone to Hell at all?

8. If God is not arrogant, why does he demand that “you shall have no other gods before me”?

9. If God does not envy, why does he become angered when his children worship a golden calf?

10. If love is not irritable, why does he say “You have rejected me, you are going backward, so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you—I am weary of relenting.” And if love bears all things, why does God become weary of relenting?

11. It love bears all things, why does God strike down Uzzah because he had reached out to take hold of the ark of God when the oxen pulling it stumbled?

The Christian "Father" God demanding love and reacting aggressively to non-reciprocity reflects manipulative and controlling behavior, indicative of possessiveness and emotional or psychological abuse. Such conduct is considered emotionally or psychologically abusive and necessitates support and intervention to ensure well-being. This type of behavior exhibits not love but rather a manipulative or controlling disposition, suggesting possessiveness, a lack of respect for boundaries, or an unhealthy approach to relationships. In the extreme, it could be considered emotionally or psychologically abusive. Terms like "manipulative," "controlling," or "emotionally abusive" may be used to describe such behavior, depending on the severity and nature of the actions. If God were such another person, it would be essential to recognize such patterns and seek support or assistance if you find yourself in a situation where your well-being is at risk. In this case, as the Father insists on being loved and reacts aggressively when that affection is not returned, and tortures the person who does not reciprocate their love exhibits extremely harmful and abusive behavior. This behavior reflects a severe form of emotional and physical abuse. Words such as "abusive," "violent," "sadistic," and "dangerous" might be used to describe someone engaging in such actions. It is crucial for anyone facing such abuse to seek help and support, as this type of behavior is not acceptable, and the victim's safety should be a top priority. If this was not a god, professional intervention, such as contacting law enforcement or seeking assistance from domestic violence organizations, would be necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the victim.

​

In essence, the declaration "God is love" seems to be a deepity, diminishing the significance of all other human endeavors by categorizing them as futile. This statement elevates one emotion—pertinent to well-being and health—at the cost of disregarding the multifaceted nature of human emotions, extensive research, and diverse human actions. Regrettably, the depiction of the Christian love-god diverges significantly from Paul's nuanced and comprehensive description of love.

​

Recent changes

Certain Christians have recently modified the traditional concept of reward and punishment, particularly concerning Hell. Some propose Hell as a place separate from Yahweh, which seems awkward given Yahweh's alleged omnipresence, and not the realm of torment described in various scriptures. Alternatively, some posit that Hell is nonexistent, suggesting that the souls of non-believers simply cease to exist. It's important to note that this cessation applies not to evildoers' souls but specifically to those who did not acknowledge Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice.

​

Furthermore, another notion introduced is the idea of "once saved, always saved." According to this perspective, it isn't imperative to believe at the moment of death; rather, one simply needs to have believed, even if only for a fleeting moment, that Jesus was the final sacrifice. Some Christians, unable to reconcile the idea of individuals like Albert Einstein suffering in Hell, introduce additional exceptions that may grant access to Heaven without explicit belief and faith in Jesus. It's crucial to emphasize that none of these variations finds support in any scripture. The Christian scriptures assert unequivocally that Yahweh cannot tolerate even the slightest sin, and the sole path to absolution is through the belief that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, with his blood washing away sin.

​

Summary

While the teachings of Jesus may offer some benefits for interpersonal relationships, the inherent limitations stemming from the focus on the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God seriously constrain the ethical foundation upon which a society can be constructed. The alterations introduced by subsequent followers, which gave rise to Christianity, fail to enhance this formula. With the promise of Heaven as a reward and the threat of Hell as a punishment, coupled with the belief that this life is merely the prelude to an eternal existence, the resulting moral teachings are incongruent with supporting long-term solutions for civilization.

​

The Christian narrative envisions the return of Jesus to bring about the annihilation of the existing world, including its governments and societies, inherently viewing all institutions as transient. The concept of 'good' becomes entangled with notions of righteousness and the execution of the 'will of God,' where adherence to certain commandments and guidelines coexists with the disregard for others. However, a notable absence of clear guidance persists regarding which commandments should be followed and which should be ignored. In comparison to Jesus's original teachings, the subsequent doctrines of Christianity appear even less desirable. While individual Christians may indeed embody commendable qualities, this is likely attributed to their personal commitment to embrace the beneficial teachings of Jesus, selectively ignoring many of the subsequent doctrines that evolved into Christianity.

​