Coming eventually… xAI Grok’s take on my points. And the applicability of the unconditional ideal to ethics, criminal justice, and at societal scale as in the Nelson Mandela approach. It is not an affirmation of pacifism in the face of personal assault, violence at any scale, and national level attacks, etc.
Disclaimer/qualifier: Wendell Krossa
Is there really any point to make this qualifier, again- i.e. that I this site does not intend to offend religious people, members of the major world religions, when confronting the bad ideas in their traditions?
My view on what I am doing here and why? I am just joining my voice to what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy said in their exposure of the true nature of what Christianity has told us to believe as ultimate truth. They were admittedly somewhat crude in defining Paul’s gospel of the Christ as “dung, muck, slime and garbage”. They were framing the contrast of Paul’s Christ with the “diamonds/pearls” of Jesus, also included in the New Testament. The two messages were not the same. They were entirely opposites.
Psychologist Harold Ellens, in his own update to Jefferson and Tolstoy, said that the Christian view of the crucifixion of Jesus was to take barbaric child sacrifice and present that as “an act of grace”, or as Paul said, as a display of “God’s love”.
There were no terms two millennia ago to describe ultimate or epitome “oxymoronic” for what Paul did in merging the anti-sacrifice Historical Jesus with Paul’s supreme sacrifice in his “Jesus Christ” myth.
So also Charles Templeton (“Farewell To God”) exposed the true nature of what we were told to worship as divine, as good, as righteous reality and ultimate truth. He pointed out that the God of the bible that many worshipped was actually a dictatorial monstrosity. Templeton stated correctly that someone who demands to be the center of attention and demands constant praise of his greatness, on pain of death for not doing so, is an Idi Amin monster. Historical Jesus had also countered that perversion of deity in stating that true greatness was in serving, not in dominating others. Yet we are taught by our religious traditions to worship such threatening domination as something true, good, and right.
Alex Garcia (“Alpha God”) added to the exposure of the actual nature of religious practices like worship by stating that people bowing in churches was evidence of our animal past where lesser tribe members cowed before the alpha predators. Is that too blunt to even consider? That bowing of heads and averting of eyes, he claims, may be no different from the lesser animals in a group cowing before the alpha predator of the group. I find the shock value in such exposures is necessary to snap us awake from what we are actually doing. It is more correctly understood as a pathology, not healthy human development.
Harold Ellens warned of the deformity of human personality in that monster God ideas generate ‘dynamis’ and energy of the worst kind, exciting the same pathology in us- those evil triad features that we inherited from our animal past that keep us from becoming fully human.
The intention here is not to upset or incite outrage, to get clicks or attention. But what is the truth of what we are told to believe as ultimate truth and good? What is the true nature of the ideas, beliefs, ideals that shape our narratives? We have inherited far too many themes that have long been presented to us as “divine, sacred, holy, good”.
And then we wonder why we behave so badly toward one another at times. Well, look at what we believe and hold as ultimate truths and ideals to guide our behavior and lives. Ideals that affirm tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction. All functioning to inspire and validate similar behavior in us.
So, I take no pleasure in offending family and friends and others who believe such things.
And I see the motivation of true believers in some religion to want to seek good in their system but then do not confront the pathologies in their belief systems that distort the good making it something other, something lesser, than actual good.
Harold Ellens illustrated what religious people do with the more barbaric features and themes in their belief systems. He said, referring to the “monster” theology in Christianity, “that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’.”
The same denial of the true nature of what we believe, of wanting to frame it as something else, something good, was also exposed by Richard Landes in his research on early Marxists trying to present their system as modernism, as scientific history, etc. Landes poked his needle into that balloon of delusion in stating that the original Bolsheviks were “superstitious members of a salvationist apocalyptic millennial cult”.
Today we don’t face threats of burning at the stake for blasphemy and heresy so we can confront the psychopathologies in our belief systems. And modern Enlightenment sensibilities have attuned our consciousness to right and wrong in ways that were buried in the past, as religious truths dominated public narratives and consciousness and the cost of questioning, dissent, and speaking out were life and tortuous death.
Add here Thomas Sowell’s wake up on how to evaluate any system by looking bluntly at the outcomes- i.e. “The test of facts”. Face the brutal outcomes of what your system produces in people and societies.
We are all responsible for the outcomes of the ideas that we hold and promote.
Note:
I just listened to Joe Rogan ask his guest, David Smith, how do the varied wars stop after so many have been killed, often majorities that are innocents. And why the tribal hatreds driving all these wars?
That conversation, among many other motivating factors, pushes me to continue the project of this site. Confronting the very ideas in human narratives that incite and validate the worst impulses in us to tribal hatreds (the fear of others, the suspicions of threat), the impulse to domination, and to destroy the differing, threatening other and thereby come out the winner, dominating the losers that have been defeated.
What are the ideals we hold that validate all this conflict and consequent misery that never seems to end?
The “Mother of all problems” in human life and society– Bad ideas that “generate ‘dynamis’ and mobilize energy”, Wendell Krossa
Intro point: The “behavior validated by similar belief” relationship looms large on this site. Hence, the project here to go after the real monster/enemy of humanity, too long protectively ensconced in religious traditions as “sacred, divine.” Protected from challenge, questioning, and thorough reform by elite threats of being smeared with “blasphemy, unbelief, heresy, religiophobia/Islamophobia/etc.”
This is for members of the great world religious traditions. Its also for adherents to modern era ideologies like Socialism/Marxism, now cloaked with “Far-left Woke Progressivism” and its DEI racism, and its for moderns who embrace the climate alarmism crusade- a “profoundly religious crusade”. These are all varieties of the same basic complex of mythical themes- i.e. the complex of bad religious ideas that includes primitive myths of “lost paradise, humanity as evil destroyer, life declining toward apocalypse, demand for sacrifice/punishment, demand to purge evil enemies, and promise of utopian communalism as salvation.”
“Beliefs… exert much more influence over our lives than simple ideas… in the psychological sphere, (beliefs) generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence, or… (they) may also produce anxiety and inhibitions that hinder the full manifestation of the capacities of a person…”, psychologist/theologian Harold Ellens (quoted in psychotherapist Zenon Lotufo’s “Cruel God, Kind God”).
And that points to the root problem, and how to solve it. The Mother of all problems in human life and society. The primitive beliefs constructed by our ancestors were eventually embedded in the human subconscious as archetypes and from there those “bad religious ideas” have continued to influence people to embrace the same old bad ideas repeatedly across history, whether in major world religions, or in “secular/ideological” systems of belief in the modern era.
Many simply respond to the deeply embedded archetypes subconsciously, feeling the impulses that emanate from them and then continuing to affirm new versions of the same ideas associated with them, as ever before. How else do we understand the wide embrace of apocalyptic climate crisis and its destructive salvation scheme of decarbonization?
The complex of “bad religious ideas”…
Once again, the fundamental ideas (archetypes), and associated affirming “feelings”, include these primitive themes:
(1) The past was better. (2) We destructive humans (inherent sinfulness) ruined that original paradise. (3) The gods/spirits are now angry with us and punishing us for our sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, predatory cruelty. (4) The gods also threaten a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of apocalypse. A return to the original destructive chaos. (5) The upset gods (as restorers of violated justice) then demand some sacrifice/payment, that we should suffer for our sins as payback punishment. (6) Further, they demand that we heroically join some true religion or ideological tribe/movement to fight against evil enemies that disagree (cosmic dualism). Our enemies are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal damnation in hellfire. (7) Then, having fought and won our righteous wars, we will be granted salvation in a communal paradise/utopia.
We “feel” these ideas/themes as deeply true “beliefs”. And consequently, we unquestioningly acknowledge and admit human badness for ruining paradise, we unquestioningly accept that we deserve punishment for our badness, and we feel deeply that we subsequently need salvation (i.e. across the board many get downright mushy, even weepy, on hearing “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me…”).
Further, we intuitively recognize the demand to engage tribal battles against differing others as basic to human existence (i.e. the rationalization of righteous and just wars against irredeemably evil enemies), and we embrace the impulse to salvation into some communalism utopia.
And we intuitively feel that these features of our narratives are true, hence we then continue to construct new narratives shaped by such themes, even “secular/ideological” ones.
These are ideas and associated impulses that deeply resonate as true, good, right, and just. They just naturally feel that way, despite no rational evidence. Therefore, we all have experience of embracing these themes in diverse versions, whether in religious or secular/ideological versions, despite rational evidence to the contrary.
That is what Kristian Niemietz referred to in stating that- “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.” (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”)
Niemietz was explaining, for example, why so many people continue to embrace socialism despite its history of repeated failures and destructive outcomes (the definition of insanity). His “emotional satisfaction” also explains why so many good people embraced Nazism, and why so many now embrace environmental alarmism, climate apocalypse, despite the widespread damage from the decarbonization salvation scheme to “save the world”.
They are all versions of the primitive complex of beliefs listed above.
The embrace of such themes renders many today, despite their identifying as “secular modern materialist, science, even atheist”, as very much “superstitious members of a salvationist apocalyptic millennial cult”. Just as historian Richard Landes described the true nature of the Bolsheviks who were trying to claim status for their revolution as “modernism, scientific history, etc.”
Sorry to be such a ‘Debbie Downer’ to your narratives. But if you hold such themes… well, you are embracing primitivism of the worst kind no matter your sophisticated efforts to cloak it as something else.
This weaves to my concern and points below on how the continued embrace of bad ideas continues to deform the human dependence on beliefs to inspire, guide, and validate behavior. Our age-old resort to “behavior based on or validated by similar beliefs.”
The beliefs that we choose to embrace in our narratives then embody our ideals, and if the beliefs we choose are less than fully human, even inhumane, then we have embraced dangerously dehumanizing ideals and the consequences will be suffered by ourselves and others.
Example: If your “deity” (i.e. whatever you appeal to as ultimate ideal/authority) is violent then so you may feel validated to act violently against your “enemies”. Our beliefs “generate ‘dynamis’ and mobilize energy”. For good and for bad, depending on the nature of the beliefs.
The story we choose to live by matters, a lot.
The basic problem or pathology that I am fingering here is that our beliefs do “generate dynamis and mobilize energy”. They shape our thinking, our emotions/feelings, our motivations, and then our responses/actions. Bad ideas incite and energize our worst impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction, the “evil triad” impulses that are incited and validated by evil triad ideas.
And when the evil triad features are projected onto deity, then those features in deity- humanity’s highest ideal and authority- well, the influence of bad ideas is then intensified to its worst possible potency.
This is expressed in the statement that “Men never do greater evil than when they do it in the name of their God” and the related point that “We become just like the God that we believe in.” This applies equally to those claiming identity as “secular, modern, materialist, atheist, etc.” We all construct speculations on Ultimate Reality, ultimate ideals and authorities, whether religious or other. Because we all share the same impulse for meaning that comes as essential to human consciousness. And what we project onto our ultimate ideals and authorities will then, in circular feedback fashion, impact how we live.
Hence, my argument that bad ideas are at the root of our problems. They are critical contributing factors.
The narratives and narrative themes that we create, and most critically the “Cohering Center” of our narratives, i.e. our beliefs in Ultimate Reality/authority, or for religious folks- God. These potently influence our lives. And this is why I go after humanity’s greatest monster/enemy- the pathological gods that we construct to be the epitome embodiments of our ideals and beliefs. I get how potent the influence of theological beliefs are on human minds and life. For good and bad.
And to counter the instinctual denial of those claiming status as “non-religious” and arguing that they are not influenced by bad religious ideas, well, how many of you embrace mythological themes as in the climate apocalypse crusade? A “profoundly religious movement.” So also, how many “non-religious” folk embrace the similarly “apocalyptic millennial” ideology of socialism/Marxism?
Nuf said, eh. The historians, repeatedly quoted on this site, have done the detailed research on how Christian apocalyptic millennial themes shaped the crusades of Marxism, Nazism, and are now influencing the environmental alarmism crusade of past decades. Just another apocalyptic “madness of crowds” eruption that is destroying societies to “save the world”.
Weaving along…
My related point is that the actual monster and enemy that all of us must face in life is inside each of us. Solzhenitsyn referred to this real battle of right versus evil that takes place inside each human heart.
It’s our battle against the monstrous complex of our inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination of others (denying them freedom), and punitive destruction of differing others. What worsens the presence of these prominent impulses in us is the embrace of beliefs/ideas that incite and validate such impulses. And most dangerous is the embrace of deities that embody the same features. That takes the validating influence of beliefs to their highest reach. And that is the monster that this site repeatedly tackles and seeks to bring down.
I view this as one of the most fundamental issues in human development and maturing.
The complex of bad religious ideas listed above was long ago projected onto deity/God to construct the ultimate monster, the monster of “threat theology” that is the cohering center of entire systems of bad ideas. Our ancestors constructed the earliest versions of deity as tribal, dominating, and punitively destructive, claiming that such speculated reality affirmed their view of justice, righteousness, and ultimate good as something tribal and retaliatory thereby validating their engagement in endless cycles of “eye for eye” violence and destruction against “enemies”.
And we have struggled ever since to liberate ourselves from that pathology passed down to us. It still dominates our main religious traditions and major ideologies like Socialism/Marxism and environmental alarmism. I have repeatedly listed here the research on this- i.e. Arthur Herman, Richard Landes, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, etc.
And no one has been more complicit and influential in maintaining the complex of primitive themes, and its cohering deity, than Paul and his Christ myth. Paul’s Christ epitomizes the complex of bad ideas and the monstrous deity that centers that complex. This will be hard for true believers to acknowledge. Psychologists/theologians like Harold Ellens help throw light on what has happened by bluntly but clearly exposing the true nature of the core beliefs in a religion like Christianity and how Paul set the pattern for cloaking evil as something good in Western narratives and consciousness.
Ellens states (quoted by Zenon Lotufo), “There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.”
Note particularly this statement of Ellens above: “a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’.” That nails the problem. Disguising the worst of brutality and inhumanity as a “remarkable act of grace”. And that appeal to child sacrifice is the core of Paul’s “Christ-ianity.” Add that framing Jesus crucifixion as a divine sacrifice, is a stunning rejection of the message and life of Historical Jesus. A stunning distortion of the central anti-sacrifice protest of the man, a protest that got him killed. Paul, with his Christ myth, turned Jesus into the very opposite of what he had taught and lived (See below the links to Bob Brinsmead’s essays on the anti-sacrifice protest of Historical Jesus).
Christianity has more than any other system of ideas/beliefs, succeeded at disguising primitive barbarity (child sacrifice) as an act of love/grace. And thereby buried the actual message of the man, Historical Jesus, who protested that barbarity and was then transformed into the epitome of that barbarity in the Christ myth. This is stunning stuff to recognize.
Once again…
A critical component of our problems (personal and societal) is that beliefs “generate dynamis and mobilize energy”, where too often bad ideas incite people to bad behavior. I frame this problem in terms of the “behavior based on similar belief” relationship that has been used by all people across history. That human impulse to validate “behavior with similar beliefs” is how beliefs exert their powerful influence on human life, shaping our thinking, feeling, motivations, and responses/behaviors.
Our primal impulse to meaning drives us to find beliefs that serve as guiding ideals and validate how we act and live. We then base our behavior and our lives on our chosen beliefs, the narratives or stories that we construct for ourselves to live by. We get into trouble when we naively accept certain beliefs because they have long been framed as “divine, sacred, etc.” And we intensify trouble if we then ignore our basic responsibility to discern between bad and good in all arenas of life, applying the discernment between good and bad even to theology- i.e. how we imagine God.
Once again to emphasize this root contributing factor: “Beliefs… exert much more influence over our lives than simple ideas… in the psychological sphere, (beliefs) generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence, or… (they) may also produce anxiety and inhibitions that hinder the full manifestation of the capacities of a person…”
And no belief “generates ‘dynamis’ and mobilizes energy” more than the “Mother of all beliefs”- i.e. the God that people construct as the cohering center of their belief systems, whether it be a religious or secular version of deity. The ideas/features that people project onto their gods become the most potent of beliefs to incite, guide, and validate their lives. And that is why I go after Paul’s Christ myth, despite the risks of offending true believers in the Christ.
My point again…
Paul’s Christ myth was created by Paul to embody the pathologies of all past mythical/religious traditions- i.e. the threat theology that has been used by domination-obsessed elites from the beginning, used by early humans driven by their impulse to meaning. They consequently constructed mythologies, then eventually great religious traditions, to dominate and control populations. Notable here has been Zoroaster whose main themes of tribal dualism (i.e. cosmic dualism) and apocalypse then shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Christianity, growing to become the most influential belief system for Western civilization, then shaped Western narratives and consciousness, eventually shaping meta-narratives both religious and secular, using the same basic themes of primitive threat theology/apocalyptic to terrorize populations. The basic themes of apocalyptic millennial Christianity have been traced as significant drivers behind movements like climate alarmism, Marxism, etc. And as always, we get the same old outcomes, the same old consequences- i.e. the ongoing eruptions of violence and mass-destruction that the historians have repeatedly warned us about.
Paul took the worst of primitive features long used to define deities and elevated those features to universal and cosmic status with his Christ as the ultimate Savior, Lord, God, for all humanity and for all time/eternity. Hence, James Tabor, along with others, has rightly stated that the Christ of Paul has been the most influential myth in all history and continues that influence today.
Note: My approach to sorting out the contradiction between historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ is informed by the general “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar” materials, “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel research (i.e. James Robinson, John Kloppenborg, Stephen Patterson, etc.), and notably by Bob Brinsmead’s research…
Bob’s two latest essays:
“The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars are Saying”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
“The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
The “Great contradiction in Christianity”… (revised, updated), Wendell Krossa
What is at stake in tackling the great contradiction between Historical Jesus and Paul’s entirely contrary Christ myth that distorted and buried the message of Jesus? What is at state is the long history of bad religious ideas inciting and validating bad human behavior. Think here of Marxism and its consequent 100 million deaths, a revolutionary movement inspired and validated by core religious themes- i.e. the “apocalyptic millennial” complex.
Think also of Nazism and the 50 million needlessly slaughtered in consequence of that madness crusade. Again, also inspired, guided, and validated by apocalyptic millennial ideas/beliefs/themes.
And now we continue to suffer the mass-harm of climate apocalypse and its salvation scheme of decarbonization. Add also the rebirth of apocalyptic millennialism in far-left Woke Progressivism (yes, this front in the revolution also embraces climate apocalypse). Its always the same old bad ideas we have inherited from the primitive mythology of our ancestors, bad ideas later used to frame the great world religions, and now still embraced in those religious traditions as well as in the “secular/ideological” belief systems of the modern era.
And its always the same old destructive outcomes of power-mongering elites using bad ideas to frame public narratives and thereby dominate and control commoners and re-establish the “elite/commoner” divide in societies. We see this today in Woke Progressives trying to lord over and subjugate populist commoners seeking a restoration of Classic Liberalism.
Such behavior has always been central to the elite project- i.e. “Fear=control”. The use of “threat theology” to frighten, subjugate, and control/coerce others to engage your salvation schemes.
H. L. Mencken nailed this in stating, “’The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary’, In Defense of Women.”
Hence, the project of this site to expose how the Jesus/Paul contradiction illustrates how bad ideas create so much misery in life (inciting, guiding, validating bad behavior), and how people protect those bad ideas under the sacred (i.e. cloaking them in religious belief systems as divinely inspired, from God), making it hard to effect any real change of our guiding ideals.
This site exists to reveal how bad ideas incite the worst impulses in people- validating harm to others. This site argues that we have better alternatives but the alternatives are distorted, even buried by the continued embrace of bad ideas in our narratives. This site shows how elites protect the ideas that validate their power and control with threatening smears of “heresy, blasphemy, misinformation/disinformation, speech as criminal violence (Islamophobia, etc.)”, and more, all to maintain narrative themes that validate elite powerholding and control of others.
Moving into the oxymoronic “Jesus Christ” of Paul’s gospel….
“History’s/humanity’s most profoundly humane insight/discovery was buried by Paul’s Christ myth…” Wendell Krossa
Intro comments:
Paul’s Christ myth has been the single most influential myth in history. It is primarily responsible for perpetuating the primitive and destructive fallacy of apocalyptic in Western narratives and consciousness. And yes, there is an “anti-Christ” in Christianity but its not who you think it is. Its someone familiarly iconic and honored.
What’s at stake in challenging the Christ myth? The recovery of history’s single most profound insight- i.e. that God is a stunning “no conditions” reality, an insight that presents opportunity for a profound transformation and liberation of human narratives, minds, emotions, spirit, and life.
The central Jesus insight/discovery presented the opportunity for the most profound liberation ever offered to humanity- liberation from the threat theology that has dominated human narratives and religions from the beginning. Liberation from the “bad religious ideas” problem that has darkened and enslaved human consciousness from the beginning. Psychologist/theologian Harold Ellens rightly summarized the problem as “Sick Gods make people sick”.
The recovery of the Jesus insight/discovery is the restoration continuation of that greatest ever liberation movement that Jesus tried to spark. That was central to his healing as the most fundamental form of mental/emotional healing.
That insight on unconditional deity has been buried for two millennia under Paul’s highly conditional Christ myth. Paul’s Christ re-affirmed the same old primitive threat theology of previous millennia- i.e. angry gods threatening to punish and destroy people and demanding submission to damaging salvation schemes. All part of the totalitarian’s formula of “Fear=control”.
Paul intentionally rejected the stunning new breakthrough of Historical Jesus and retreated to re-affirm the worst of primitive theology that Jesus had overturned.
James Tabor in “Paul and Jesus” offers some preface to the material below:
“There was a version of ‘Christianity before Paul’, affirmed by both Jesus and his original followers, with tenets and affirmations quite opposite to these of Paul… the message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, and the message of historical Jesus and his earliest followers, were not the same. In fact, they were sharply opposed to one another with little in common beyond the name Jesus itself” (p.xv1).
“Paul is the most influential person in human history and realize it or not, he has shaped practically all we think about everything… the West in particular… the foundations of Western civilization- from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics- rest in a singular way upon the heavenly visions and apparitions of the apostle Paul. We are all cultural heirs of Paul, with the well-established doctrines and traditions of mainstream Christianity deeply entrenched in our culture. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure… has been largely lost to our culture” (p. xv11).
“Paul operated with a strongly apocalyptic perspective that influenced all he said or did” (p.15).
“The entire New Testament canon is largely a post-Paul and pro-Paul production…” (p.19).
“The ‘Jesus’ who most influenced history was the ‘Jesus-Christ’ of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus… Paul transformed Jesus himself (and) his message of a… kingdom of justice and peace on earth, to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, (21).
“The form of Christianity… (that thrived in the late Roman Empire) … was heavily based upon the ecstatic and visionary experiences of Paul. Christianity as we came to know it, is Paul and Paul is Christianity. The bulk of the New Testament is dominated by his theological vision”, p.24).
“Paul’s view of Christ as the divine pre-existent Son of God who took on human form, died on the cross for the sins of the world, and was resurrected to heavenly glory at God’s right hand becomes the Christian message”, (39).
“The Q source is the earliest collection of the teachings and sayings of Jesus… the most striking characteristic of the Q source in terms of reconstructing Christian origins is that it has nothing of Paul’s theology, particularly his Christology or view of Christ”, (41).
Jesus and the Christ myth- Separating diamonds from dung (revised) Wendell Krossa
The fundamental problem with Paul’s Christ myth was outlined by Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy. They stated that the Christ of Paul “buried the diamonds/pearls” of Historical Jesus (“Historical Jesus” is the title used to distinguish the actual historical person from the Christian version- known as the merged oxymoronic “Jesus Christ”).
The message of Jesus emphasized the themes of unlimited forgiveness and universal inclusion of everyone, equally (i.e. “sun and rain freely given to both good and bad people”). Additionally, his personal practise of inviting social outcasts to public meals affirmed his stance against exclusionary tribalism. The cohering center of his life and teaching was unconditional love (no payment or sacrifice demanded before forgiving- e.g. illustrated in the story of the Prodigal Father).
Jesus presented a stunning new take on justice as non-retaliatory, non-punitive (no “eye for eye” retaliation, no punitive destruction of differing others, of “enemies”). Add also his rejection of domination in human relating. He stated that true greatness did not lord over others but instead served others. Slave-like.
Paul’s Christ buried these diamond features of unconditional love in the “dung” (Jefferson’s term) of highly conditional salvation mythology. The prominent features of Paul’s conditional salvation include (1) the appeasement of angry deity with the required payment of a blood sacrifice (Romans, Hebrews); (2) the tribal exclusion of unbelievers (in Romans and elsewhere Paul emphasizes the condition of faith in his Christ myth as necessary for inclusion in salvation); and (3) ultimate retaliation/punishment through apocalypse or hell (see his Thessalonian letters and the Revelation of John).
The highly conditional religion of Paul buried the unconditional message of Jesus. Again, Paul validated the primitive practise of elites lording over commoners with his “Lord Jesus”, a profound contradiction of the service-oriented Historical Jesus.
(See the list of the main contradictions between the messages/themes of Jesus and Paul, at the bottom of this material.)
Weaving along a bit more….
Another preface to “The Christian Contradiction” (Jesus versus Christ) Wendell Krossa
Across history people have appealed to deity as humanity’s highest ideal and authority to validate their behavior and their treatment of others, notably, to validate justice as the punishment of others for wrongs done. This is the “behavior based on similar belief” relationship. Most notable, people have long appealed to the features of retaliation and punishment in God as the ultimate validation for their exercise of punitive, payback justice toward offending others. Punitive theology has long undergirded the human practise of punitive justice.
Historical Jesus reframed entirely the behavior based on belief model when he rejected retaliation as a divinely validated ethic. He stated that, contrary to Old Testament teaching (“eye for eye”), God did not retaliate. He argued that, instead, God generously forgave, included, and loved all people whether good or bad. Note the essential point of his Matthew 5 and Luke 6 statements: “There should be no more eye for eye, but instead, Love your enemies… (because God does). Be like God who generously and freely gives sun and rain to both righteous and unrighteous… Be unconditionally merciful just as your Father is unconditionally merciful”.
Conclusion? We violate the central message of Historical Jesus if we try to appeal to him or his theology to validate retaliatory, punitive justice. Paul’s Christ is another matter altogether. The mythical Christ, a reality entirely opposite to Historical Jesus, validates ultimate divine retaliation.
In the Matthew 5 and Luke 6 statements Historical Jesus overturned previous millennia of all-pervasive threat theology- i.e. myths of angry gods threatening judgment, punishment and destruction, and then demanding sacrifice/payment/conditions for salvation. Unfortunately, Historical Jesus is almost entirely buried under the Christ mythology of the New Testament books.
(End of “weaves”…)
More prepping for “The great Christian Contradiction” (Historical Jesus versus Paul’s Christ myth): Wendell Krossa
The argument here? The feature of ‘unconditional’, the highest reach of love, should center an authentically humane theology (i.e. God theory or Ultimate Reality theory).
In this essay, I appeal to elements of the Jesus tradition to establish this point. But my argument is not dependent on first establishing the actual message of the original Jesus (i.e. as in “Q Wisdom Sayings” research). I do not view Jesus as an ultimate authority figure and I do not need his actual words (the “original message”) to affirm my point regarding an unconditional theology. I simply refer to varied useful comments in the Jesus material (e.g. “love your enemy”) to illustrate his central theme of unconditional love.
I don’t need the imprimatur of Jesus to validate unconditional as the highest reach of love. It stands on its own as authoritative.
Unconditional love is the best of being human and it possesses authority in itself as ultimate goodness without the need for validation by some religious authority. Unconditional love is “self-validating” as ultimate goodness and truth. Unconditional love does not need validation from Jesus, but I do not mind touching base with such a widely respected icon/symbol for illustrative purposes.
Unconditional love is not a religious insight or discovery. To the contrary, religious traditions across history have communicated the exact opposite in that they have all been essentially conditional traditions- promoting religious demands for ‘true’ beliefs, correct rituals, required religious lifestyles to please angry religious deities and exhibit “true believer” status, along with the necessary conditions for religious salvation (i.e. sacrifices, payments). Religion, as an essentially conditional institution, has never communicated the stunning unconditional nature of deity to humanity. By its very nature as a conditional reality, religion cannot represent/communicate unconditional reality.
I would establish the authority of unconditional love as supreme goodness by appealing to its discovery and practice by ordinary people all throughout our societies- i.e. parents, spouses, friends. It is the best of behavior that we can engage and hence it should be the basis of any authentic theory of Ultimate Good or Ultimate Love. This is to say- we should do theology based on the best in humanity and then project the ‘best of being human’ out to define deity, not the other way around (i.e. arguing from the speculated nature of deity back to ethics) as religious traditions have long done. Religious traditions begin with some holy text as authoritative ‘revealed truth’ that defines deity and is therefore the authority for human ethics/behavior.
Better, we should first establish the best of being human, and then project that out to define deity, but recognize deity as something transcendently better than the best that we see in humanity (Ultimate Good or Love). We should try to understand deity by first understanding the best of humanity. Another way of stating this- i.e. doing theology by noting the best of humanity and projecting that onto deity- would be to quote Alexander Pope, “Cease from God to scan… The proper study of mankind is man”.
This is all to say- I am not a Biblicist (i.e. dependent on the texts of religious holy books for authoritative validation of ideas or ethics). My location of ultimate authority is in common humanity and the best of common human goodness, whether exhibited by a non-religious person, an atheist, or by a religious person. I view all such common love as the expression of the God spirit, or god-likeness (that is to say- humaneness) that is present in ordinary people. We are all experts on basic human goodness and do not need affirmation from outside authorities, certainly not from religious elites/authorities.
I am affirming that every human person is equally incarnated with the God spirit that is inseparable and indistinguishable from what we call the human spirit. There has been no “special incarnation of deity” only in religious heroes like Christian Jesus. To the contrary, I would affirm that there has been an incarnation of God, equally, in all people and that also offers a new metaphysical basis for human equality.
What about bad behavior? Unfortunately, we all have experience with ignoring or denying our core human spirit (the gentle persuasion of the God in us) and freely choosing to exhibit the baser features of our inherited animal brain and its base impulses that still resides in all of us. The choice to engage bad behavior is the risk that comes with authentic freedom.
Concluding the above point… I do not base my understanding of ultimate reality on traditional religious sources- i.e. holy books- that claim to be “revealed truth” or “supreme authorities for thought and practice”. Those traditional sources of validation should be subject to the same evaluating criteria as all other areas of life- i.e. is the content good or bad, humane or inhumane? Modern sensibilities demand a radical overhaul and updating of such traditional sources of authority.
And yes, I get it that an unconditional theology will spell the end of all religion. If God is freely accessible to all alike- i.e. not a dominating authority, not demanding salvation conditions (sacrifice/payment), not requiring a religious lifestyle or ritual, not making tribal distinctions between believer/unbeliever, not threatening future judgment/punishment/destruction… well then, who needs religion with its endless myth-based conditions?
An unconditional God means that we are all free to create our own unique life stories. And your story is a valuable or good as anyone else’s. Religious or not. You possess in your human spirit the same ability to know and define God as much as anyone else does.
The Great Christian Contradiction: A “stunning new theology” buried by Christianity, Wendell Krossa
(Note: The conclusions here are based on Historical Jesus research, notably the “Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel” research of James Robinson, John Kloppenborg, among others. I accept that Q is the closest that we have gotten to the actual teaching of Jesus. The actual content of Q is much less than the material in the New Testament Gospels that is attributed to Jesus. And the single most important statement in Q is the central theme of Jesus- i.e. the ethic and validating ideal of unconditional love- that is reproduced in Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:38-48.)
Just to refresh the central statement of Jesus’ message:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
This can be summarized in this single statement: “Love your enemy because God does”.
Moving along…
First, why go after Paul’s Christ myth, the highly revered icon of a major world religion? Because, even though the Christ represents valued ideals to the Christian community- i.e. love, forgiveness, salvation, hope- it also embodies and validates some of the worst features from an ancient past- i.e. retaliatory vengeance (see Paul’s Thessalonian letters, Romans, and John’s Revelation), tribal exclusion (true believers saved, unbelievers excluded), domination/subservience relationships (Lord Christ and his mediating priesthood that dominates others- “Every knee shall bow”), and “wrathful” deity threatening to punish and destroy. John’s Revelation is an epitome statement of this divine retaliatory vengeance.
You cannot merge and mix contradicting opposites in some entity and make any sense- i.e. mixing humane ideals with primitive, subhuman ideas/practices. That promotes “cognitive dissonance” (see psychotherapist Zenon Lotufo’s “Cruel God, Kind God”). Also, the nasty elements in a merger will undermine, weaken, and distort the better features in the mix. It’s like putting new wine in old, rotten wineskins.
Further, the Christ of Paul is mainly responsible for embedding and re-enforcing the myth of apocalypse in Western consciousness and keeping that pathological myth alive now for two millennia. Apocalyptic mythology continues to wreak damage through contemporary alarmism movements like environmental alarmism. As James Tabor said, “Paul has been the most influential person in history and he has shaped practically all that we think about everything… (further) apocalyptic shaped all that Paul said and did”, (Paul and Jesus). Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth has shaped much of the content of contemporary myth-making as well as our ethics and justice systems.
The historical lines of descent/influence are as follows: Paul’s apocalyptic Christ brought apocalyptic mythology to prominence in Western consciousness and worldviews. That Christian heritage then shaped much of 19th Century Declinism (see Arthur Herman’s ‘The Idea of Decline in Western History’). Declinism, in turn, has shaped contemporary environmental apocalyptic, known as “Green” religion.
My argument is that to deal fully and properly with the destructive pathology of apocalyptic we must also deal with the core reality- i.e. the Christ myth- that validates and sustains this mythology in our narratives, consciousness, and societies. Apocalyptic has been rightly exposed as “the most violent and destructive idea in history” (Arthur Mendel in ‘Vision and Violence’). If you want to fully understand how bad ideas from a primitive past have descended down into modern human narratives and consciousness then recognize the centrality of Paul’s Christ myth in this process. (Note: The Messiah mythology at the core of “Christology” actually began earlier in the Jewish messiah tradition that was then continued in Christianity.)
More on the “Contradiction”
Over the past three centuries, the “Search For Historical Jesus” has given us the basic outline of what happened in the Christian tradition. The latest phase of this search- the “Jesus Seminar”- offers more detail on the basic issues involved, i.e. that early Christianity was a diverse movement with major differences, for example, between Jewish Christianity (Jesus acknowledged as some sort of prophet/king but not as God) and Paul’s Gentile Christian movement (Jesus as God-man, cosmic and universal Christ/Savior).
Further, there were numerous other gospels that were not accepted into the Christian cannon- e.g. the gospel of Philip, gospel of Mary, Gospel of James, gospel of Thomas, and so on. The victors of the early Christian battles, notably Paul’s version of Christianity, eventually dictated what was truth and what was heresy. Emperor Constantine also stuck his nose into the truth/heresy battles among early Christians (see, for example, ‘Constantine’s Sword’ by James Carroll).
Of the varied other gospels available when the New Testament canon was assembled, why were only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included? Historians have noted some of the simple-minded reasoning behind the centuries-long selection process for the New Testament canon, such as canon-constructor Irenaeus’ affirmation that “there are four universal winds… animals have four legs…”. Hence, the four gospels in the New Testament (NT). Such was ancient ‘theological’ reasoning. The gospels chosen for the New Testament canon had to affirm Paul’s theology and Christ myth.
The “Search For Historical Jesus” has revealed that there was a real historical person and we believe that we have got close to his original message. But his actual message is much less than what the New Testament gospels have attributed to Jesus. The NT gospel writers put numerous statements/sayings in Jesus’ mouth, claiming that he had said such things. But many of those added sayings contradict the man’s core theme/message.
Note, for instance, the statement of his central theme in Matthew 5 to “love your enemy”. That is the single most profound statement of ‘no-conditions love’. But then a few chapters later (Matthew 11) Jesus apparently pivots 180 degrees and threatens “unbelievers/enemies” with the single most intense statement of hatred ever uttered- that enemies should be cast into hell. Matthew claims that Jesus threatened the villages that refused to accept him and his miracles, stating that they would be “cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth”. These statements could not have come from the same person because they are statements of irreconcilable opposite beliefs.
The core teaching of Jesus has been summarized in the Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel, notably the first version- Q1. That teaching is basically Matthew 5-7 with some other comments and parables. Luke 6 is a similar summary but with a different setting- i.e. the lakeside versus Matthew’s mountaintop setting.
Matthew, obsessed with righteousness, tampers with the core Q Sayings Wisdom teaching in the chapter 5-7 section of his gospel. He adds his own editorial glosses, such as his condition that people’s righteousness had to exceed that of religious teachers if they wanted to get into heaven. They had to meet the impossible condition to “be perfect just as God is perfect”. That distorts entirely the main point of Jesus that it did not matter what the response of people was to love shown to them, because God generously included all, both good and bad. God was unconditional Love, and included everyone with universal, unlimited love.
Luke in his treatment of the very same message does a better job, summing Jesus’ point as “be unconditionally merciful just like your Father is unconditionally merciful” (Luke 6). That gets the spirit of the passage better than Matthew’s subsequent editorial changes to the original statements of Jesus.
The central statement or theme in the Q Wisdom Sayings gospel material is a statement of a behavior/belief relationship. It urges a specific behavior based on a similar validating belief. Note this in the Matthew 5:38-48 section, “Don’t engage the old eye for eye justice toward your enemy/offender. Instead, love your enemy because God does. How so? God does not retaliate against and punish enemies/offenders, but instead generously gives the good gifts of life- i.e. sun and rain for crops- inclusively to both good people and bad people alike”.
Jesus based a non-retaliatory behavior on a similar validating belief in a non-retaliatory God. James Robinson calls the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5 a “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God”. And that, says Robinson, was “Jesus’ greatest contribution to the history of human ideas.”
A critical takeaway here is that a non-retaliating God (no more eye for eye) is a non-apocalyptic God because apocalyptic is the supreme and final act of retaliation, and Jesus stated that God does not retaliate with “eye for eye” justice. Instead, God loves God’s enemies and so should we. “Be merciful just like your Father is merciful”.
The ultimate act of eye for eye retaliation is the great final apocalypse to destroy the world. God, said Jesus, will not engage that ultimate act of retaliation in the violent punishment and destruction of all things. Further, a God that rejects eye for eye justice would not promote the pathological belief in hell which is an expression of eternal retaliation. The non-retaliatory God of Jesus was entirely non-punitive and non-apocalyptic.
(Insert: See below qualifiers on the practical applicability of the unconditional ideal to life in an imperfect world. It is not advocacy for Gandhian pacifism. Fundamental common-sense responsibility demands the “tough love” restraint of violence, the prioritizing of the responsibility to protect all from assault. It helps to make the distinction between the nature of ultimate reality as absolutely unconditional love, that ideal in relation to human ethics, and the fundamental responsibility of criminal justice systems to protect the innocent from violent offenders- i.e. restraint, incarceration. Further, the nature of ultimate reality is not prescriptive of practical economics or how to run a business. The nature of ultimate ideals will influence but not coercively overrule individual freedom in response to offense.)
These common-sense conclusions (i.e. a non-retaliatory deity is a non-apocalyptic deity) flow from this stunning new theology, from the core Jesus message of a no-conditions God. The God of Jesus would not ultimately judge or condemn anyone and would not ultimately exclude anyone. Again, note the stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory and unconditional God in the statements- “no more eye for eye justice, but love your enemy because God does. God gives sun and rain to all, to both good and bad people”. The God of Jesus is best defined with the adjective “unconditional” that summarizes the core theme or teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5 and Luke 6.
A further conclusion from this central theme of Jesus would be to affirm the protest of Jesus against the sacrifice industry. A protest begun by the Old Testament prophets and taken up by Jesus and to its ultimate resolution in the unconditional God of Jesus.
Unconditional means that God does not demand salvation through blood sacrifice or payment for sin. The God of Jesus would not demand sacrifice or payment before forgiving, loving, and including even the worst offenders/enemies. This conclusion is presented in the accompanying statements in Luke 6 that authentic love would “give, expecting nothing in return”. In these statements on unconditional love there is no demand for debt payment, no expectation of similar response to the love that is exhibited toward someone (i.e. love in return for love shown).
And this point scandalizes the religious or moral mind that is oriented to fairness and justice as some form of “tit for tat”, as in seeking a response similar to the goodness that was shown to someone. This is the flip side to justice as retribution, payback, recompense… the expectation of some bad response to bad that was shown. Such eye for eye relating has long been viewed as true justice- i.e. the expectation of hurt for hurt, pain for pain, humiliation for humiliation, along with demanded payment/punishment for all wrong.
Jesus overturned that traditional notion of justice with his message that there should be no more “eye for eye”, meaning that God’s love is not a “tit for tat” form of love that is dependent on some similar response from others, as in payment of debt before full love can be exhibited toward people.
Most of us understand and practice the unconditional love that Jesus was advocating. We exhibit the same ‘no conditions’ forgiveness and love in our interactions with family, friends, and neighbors. We learn to overlook the many imperfections in those around us and just get on with life, and hope that others will be equally merciful with our imperfections. We do not demand payback or reparations for all the wrongs done to us by others. How much more would a deity that is ultimate Goodness offer such transcendent forgiveness and love toward imperfect others. Truly free love.
And this is how we defuse the destructive outcomes of endless cycles of eye for eye payback that have ruined relationships and societies across history.
Note also Jesus’ parables on the Vineyard workers and the Prodigal Son for illustrations of how good moral people were offended by unconditional generosity, forgiveness, and love. The Prodigal’s Father and the vineyard owner disregarded the commonly understood norms of justice, or fairness, in relation to the proper consequences for bad behavior and that generosity offended the older brother and scandalized the all-day vineyard workers.
Further, the unconditional inclusion of local “sinners” at meal tables offended righteous, moral Jews who were tribally-minded and oriented to the inclusion of similarly law-abiding people and exclusion of the unlawful, immoral people or “sinners” (those not practicing Jewish law). Jesus claimed that God does not view humanity as tribally divided (e.g. good people versus bad people) and does not treat some differently from others. All are the favorites of God, including our enemies. This is to say that God is a oneness God, and all people are to be treated as equal members of the one human family.
There is a “thematic coherence” to the message and behavior of the Historical Jesus and that message/behavior is intensely oriented to unconditional, universal love.
The rest of the New Testament, including the gospels, contradicts this core non-retaliatory, unconditional love theme entirely. A proper setting forth of the correct chronology of the New Testament highlights how Paul established the profound contradiction at the heart of Christianity.
The proper chronology of the New Testament
Jesus taught first, around 27-36 CE. I would offer that the main point/statement in his core message, the Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel, would be the behavior/belief relationship noted above: “Do not engage eye for eye retaliation, but instead love your enemies because God does. God does not engage eye for eye justice against imperfect people but loves his enemies. We should be just like God who gives the good gifts of life- sun and rain for crops- to both good and bad people”. God is a non-retaliatory reality that loves all unconditionally and universally, expecting nothing in return.
James Robinson has correctly stated that Jesus presented “the stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God”. This is the single most profound teaching/insight on the ultimate meaning of love, and the ultimate in human goodness or humaneness, in all human history.
Paul wrote the next material that is in the New Testament- i.e. his Thessalonian letters written around 50 CE (I am passing over the argument re the authenticity of the second Thessalonian letter). In his very first letters Paul straightforward rejects the non-retaliatory theology of Jesus and contrarily advocates for a retaliatory deity in his violent apocalyptic Christ- “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to punish/destroy all who do not obey my gospel”.
The core of the contradiction is between the God of Jesus and Paul’s Christ. Two entirely opposite theologies.
Paul’s other letters were also written in the 50s CE. In a strikingly blunt statement in his Romans letter, Paul intentionally contradicts Jesus. He directly confronts the core statement and theme of Jesus in Matthew 5:38-48. Paul employs the same “behavior based on similar belief” pairing that Jesus used to state his non-retaliatory theology. But Paul uses that same pairing (i.e. basing a behavior on a belief) to make the very opposite conclusion to the theology of Jesus.
In Romans 12:17-20 he urges Christians to hold their desire for vengeance in abeyance/suspension because, he states, God will satisfy it eventually with ultimate eye for eye vengeance. Contrary to Jesus’ non-retaliatory God, Paul’s re-affirms the theology of a supremely retaliatory God who violently destroys the world in apocalypse and then with ultimate “eye for eye” justice tortures unbelievers in eternal hell.
Paul affirms his view that God is a supremely retaliatory reality by quoting an Old Testament statement, “Vengeance is mine says the Lord. I will repay”. In this, Paul re-affirms eye for eye retaliatory justice and response but takes it to the highest reaches of ultimate meaning- i.e. cosmic and universal, far beyond any temporally limited religion.
There is no ultimate “love your enemy” in Paul’s God or Christ.
In the Romans material Paul is arguing with the Roman Christians- restrain your longing for temporal vengeance, not because God also restrains a lust for vengeance (rejecting eye for eye justice as Jesus did), but to the contrary, because God will unleash ultimate vengeance soon enough and satisfy your desire for eye for eye vengeance on your enemies with ultimate and eternal punishment and destruction.
I would suggest that Paul used this behavior/belief pairing in Romans 12 to intentionally contradict the same behavior/belief pairing that Jesus used to frame his central message/theme. The similarities are too obvious. Paul rejects the non-retaliatory God of Jesus to fully affirm a retaliatory, punitive God, a tribal God that favors his true believers and destroys the enemies of his followers.
And while Paul appears to embrace the non-retaliatory ethic of Jesus (“Do not repay anyone evil for evil… Do not take revenge”) note that his ethic is oriented to and motivated by the hope for ultimate retaliation from God and that makes even the apparently non-retaliatory ethic actually retaliatory in intent. Basically, Paul was arguing that the Roman believers should be nice to their offenders in order that God could be really nasty to them in the future. Their being nice now was intended to “Pour coals of fire on their heads” in the future, that is, to ensure their harsh judgment at the hands of a wrathful and retaliatory God. So the apparently non-retaliatory ethic of Paul was nothing like the ‘no eye for eye’ ethic of Jesus. Paul’s message is thoroughly retaliatory. Pure “eye for eye”.
Paul also, in other places (again, in contradiction to Jesus), straightforwardly embraced and preached an apocalyptic God/Christ. Once more, note his Thessalonian letters where he states, “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to punish/destroy all who do not believe my gospel”. This statement of apocalyptic vengeance is the supreme act of a retaliatory, destroying God that engages ultimate eye for eye justice.
Further, Paul trashed and rejected the wisdom tradition that Jesus belonged to. See his first Corinthian letter for his pejorative comments on the wisdom tradition. Stephen Patterson’s ‘The Lost Way’ deals with Paul’s disdain for the wisdom teaching of Jesus. That was a further effort by Paul to undermine the message of historical Jesus that contradicted his Christ myth.
The four gospels that were later included in the New Testament all affirmed Paul’s views and his retaliatory and apocalyptic Christ myth. The NT gospels added made-up biographical material and statements that they claimed were spoken by Jesus, material that directly contradicted his main theme and message. Mark wrote first around 70s CE. Then Matthew and Luke wrote around 80s CE, John later around 90-100 CE.
All four gospels affirmed Paul’s apocalyptic, destroying Christ myth and Paul’s gospel of the Christ as a great cosmic sacrifice to pay for all sin (i.e. the message of a supremely conditional love).
Paul and his apocalyptic Christ myth- the most influential person and myth in history- has since profoundly shaped Western consciousness. His Christ myth shaped Western justice as punitive and retaliatory- eye for eye justice, or punishment in return for harm caused (i.e. pain for pain, hurt for hurt). Paul’s Christ, and his God, are iconically retaliatory.
Fortunately, the inclusion of the original Jesus material in the New Testament (notably, the Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6 sections) has served as a moderating force in the Christian tradition and history, countering the harsher elements with unconditional mercy. But unfortunately, the mixing and merging of such entire opposites has resulted in the ‘cognitive dissonance’ of a “diamonds-in-dung” situation which was the conclusion of Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy. The better stuff- the core Jesus message and his stunning new unconditional theology- has been seriously deformed and weakened by the nastier features in the mix. Much like new wine put into old, rotten wine-skins.
(See Zenon Lotufo’s ‘Cruel God, Kind God’ for a psychotherapist’s view of the cognitive dissonance of mixed-God theories, and the damaging impact of including subhuman features in the theology of religious traditions.)
Contrary to the unconditional and all-inclusive love that Jesus advocated, Christian love has too often been a tribally-limited love, reserved more specially for fellow true believers in the Christ myth. Paul advocated such tribal love. Also, note his intolerant rage, in varied places, at his fellow apostles that did not submit to his Christ myth. He cursed them with eternal damnation (e.g. Galatians 1:8-9). John in the early chapters of Revelation similarly curses “lukewarm” Christians with threats of exclusion and eternal destruction. And then how about those later chapters of Revelation?
After the core “Q Wisdom Sayings” message of Historical Jesus there is nothing of the scandalous generosity of unconditional love in the rest of the New Testament.
The unconditional God of Jesus, and the supremely conditional God/Christ of Paul that dominates the New Testament (demand for cosmic sacrifice before forgiving), are two entirely opposite realities.
Ah, such contradictions at the very heart of Christianity.
Note also Harold Ellen’s point that the theme of Paul’s Christ as ultimate sacrifice, the very heart of Christianity, is framed as some form of ultimate good and love to thereby distort, reframe, and cloak the pathology of retaliation at the core of that gospel:
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…
“Hence, in our culture we have a powerful element that impels us to violence, a Cruel God Image… that also contributes to guilt, shame, and the impoverishment of personality…”.
As Harold Ellens says, “If your God uses force, then so may you, to get your way against your ‘enemies’”.
Paul, with his retaliatory Christ myth, has utterly deformed the “behavior based on similar belief relationship” and validated the worst of human impulses and behaviors.
The main contradiction summarized again: Wendell Krossa
Jesus’ ethic and the theology or belief that it is based on: “Do not engage eye for eye retaliation but instead love your enemy because God does, giving the beneficial gifts of life, sun and rain for crops, to all alike, to both good and bad people”. Behave like that because God is like that. Non-retaliatory, universally inclusive, unconditionally generous and loving.
Then Paul’s ethic and the theology or belief that it is based upon: Paul copies the pattern that Jesus used of an ethic/behavior that is based upon a similar theology/belief. Again, I believe that Paul set this pattern up deliberately to directly contradict the central theme of Jesus and his stunning new theology. Paul’s argument and reasoning in Romans 12:17-20, “Be nice now to your offenders. Hold your vengeance lust at bay because my God states (he quotes an Old Testament statement to affirm his theology of a retaliatory God)- ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’”. Which is to say- God shall satisfy your longing for vengeance soon enough.
That is the profound contradiction in the New Testament between Jesus and Paul, between the non-retaliatory theology of Jesus and the entirely opposite retaliatory theology of Paul. Theology, or God theory, is the highest embodiment of human ideals and authorities, the cohering center of human narratives. The reality that is God influences and shapes all else in religious belief systems.
Takeaway? Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy were right that the central theme/message of Historical Jesus is buried by Paul’s Christ myth. Again, the central teaching of Jesus: “You must not engage ‘eye for eye’ retaliatory justice. Instead, love your enemies/offenders because God does. How so? God does not retaliate and punish God’s enemies. Instead, God gives the good gifts of life- sun and rain for crops- universally and inclusively to both good and bad people”.
Christianity has never taken this stunning new theology of Jesus seriously. It opted instead for the retaliatory, tribal, and excluding God of Paul. Unbelievers are excluded from Paul’s salvation scheme and face the threat of ultimate retaliation through apocalypse and hell. Note Paul’s repeated use in his varied letters of the threatening term “destruction” in relation to people who refuse to believe his God or Christ.
Added notes on the great contradiction…
The offensiveness of the non-retaliatory message of Jesus- He outraged good moral people who held views of justice as fairness in terms of good rewarded and bad punished. Justice had meant that from the beginning.
Here are quotes from another essay of mine on the basic “bad ideas” of religious systems:
“The “eye for eye”, or retributive version of justice, that had dominated human narratives and thinking from the beginning was overturned entirely by Historical Jesus and his stunning new merciful and unconditional approach to human failure. And this stunning new non-retaliatory theology and justice as mercy, angered people to the extent that they wanted to kill him.
“Jesus sparked their anger by reading a passage from Isaiah 61 that ends with the statement “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God”. But he left off the last part- i.e. “the day of vengeance of our God”. His audience knew what he was up to, bluntly denying the traditional theology of retaliatory, punishing deity. Ending his reading on the note of “the Lord’s favor”. Jesus then made things a magnitude of order worse by citing Old Testament examples of God sending prophets to help outsiders to the Hebrew nation. He denied the Jewish sense of tribalism and of being the favored and chosen people of God. Jesus was advocating universal favor and inclusion. Unconditional mercy and love.
“Well, to people long indoctrinated in justice as retribution, such mercy grated and outraged them, “All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this”. They wanted an affirmation of divine vengeance and justice as punishment and destruction of their enemies, not mercifully favoring them.
“So also, Jonah had sulked in a pissed off hissy fit of depression when God did not destroy Ninevah, taking mercy even on cattle. He says in Jonah chapter 4, “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity… Now, LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live”. Because God had mercy even on “many animals.”
“People angry at love and mercy? What a pathetically miserable and callous state of mind and spirit for us to descend into, eh.
“Jesus’ protest against the sacrifice industry was part of his protest against the general and deeply embedded human felt obligation to appease angry gods, based on the central fallacy of retaliatory, punitive deity (i.e. “monster God” theology). He was protesting the very theology at the heart of human belief systems, and the consequent systems of retaliatory, punitive justice that were based on that theology. It was all part of the same overall protest.
“In the story of the synagogue reading, Jesus audience knew that he was protesting the very deity that they worshipped- i.e. the wrathful punitive destroyer, the severe Judge of all humanity. Jesus was proposing the very opposite- i.e. a stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditional God who promoted a stunning new form of justice as restorative- i.e. “love your enemy”.
“Jesus challenged an entire worldview built around the most basic beliefs in cosmic dualism of good versus evil, the obligation to heroically join the good side and fight the bad people on the other side (fundamental tribalism), to purge life of the bad people, to make sacrifices to appease the great and obviously angry forces/spirits behind the nasty elements of the natural world, to make amends for ruining an original paradise, to atone for deeply felt human sinfulness, to avoid the threat of apocalyptic punishment and destruction (the survival impulse), to attain to some form of salvation/utopia.
“The view of an angry, punitive deity was the cohering center of such belief systems. Jesus went directly after that monster deity. That deity had from the beginning affirmed justice as some form of retribution, punishment, destruction.
“His message overturned and rendered meaningless all that his audience believed in. His teaching was too radical to even comprehend and countenance as it meant a disintegration of their old worldview and identity, and reintegration around something entirely new and opposite to all that they had lived by.
“Hence, they were offended, outraged. His message incited in them a survival desperation. Their entire system of meaning was being put under threat from a divine generosity so contrary to all that they believed. Jesus’ message was experienced as an existential threat to their very core identity.
“Jesus, standing in front of them, violated the most basic human understanding of “justice” that had prevailed for millennia, what had always affirmed the inherited impulse to punitive destruction as true justice. Jesus’ no conditions love overturned all that.
“The entire religion of his fellow Jews was based on that view of God (ultimate reality) as truth, righteousness, and goodness. That view of God and justice had long undergirded their very identity, and their livelihood/income (i.e. the priests involved in the sacrifice industry). It validated the religion that granted them power over others, over everything.
“Jesus further illustrated the common anger toward his new unconditional message in the parables of the anger of the older brother toward the generously forgiving and merciful father (Luke 15), and the anger of the all-day vineyard workers to the generosity of the vineyard owner (Matthew 20).
“Point? Jesus in protesting the sacrifice industry was also protesting the primitive view of justice that sacrifice was based on, and protesting the primitive mythology of a God that demanded payment of all debts, punishment in all wrongs. There was no free or unconditional love in that primitive view of justice.
“That is why in Luke 6:27-36, Jesus details what his new version of love means in practise and concludes that if we do such things then we will be just like God, “Be unconditionally merciful just like your Father is unconditionally merciful.” Show this kind of behavior and you will be showing the true character of God.”
You cannot get more fundamental challenges, more basic revolution, more critically important reform than what Historical Jesus was engaged in. Death to the old and rebirth to new life hardly captures it.
(End of quotes from previous essay)
The priests running the sacrifice industry at the time of Jesus knew clearly the threat that he and his anti-sacrifice message presented to their sacrifice industry, to their power and control over Jewish society, to their very existence, and so they had the Romans kill him.
Note- Qualifiers at bottom: The core unconditional theme in Historical Jesus is not prescriptive of economic policies, or for business requirements and practise (debts in supply chains must be paid for companies to survive and provide jobs for workers). The Jesus insights is not a demanded response for all victim situations where freedom of choice in response is always primary.
Another version of the “Christian contradiction” (from a previous related post)… Wendell Krossa
History’s single greatest contradiction? My candidate: The contradiction between the central message of Historical Jesus, and the central meaning and message of Paul’s Christ myth (his Christology theory). Or, “How history’s single most profound insight was subsequently buried in a major religious tradition”.
A side consideration: Think of the liberation that could have been promoted over the last two millennia if some movement had taken Jesus seriously. It would have been liberation from the unnecessary fear, anxiety, guilt, and shame that have long been incited and promoted by the harsh and threatening God theories of religious traditions- i.e. “Cruel God theories” (Zenon Lotufo). But no one, not even Jesus’ closest companions/disciples, took his scandalous and offensive insights seriously.
The contradiction at the core of Christianity has to do with the following profound and fundamental opposite ideas/themes/beliefs- i.e. (1) non-retaliatory behavior versus retaliation, (2) the non-punitive treatment of offenders versus a punitive approach, (3) no conditions theology versus the divine demand for a supreme condition (sacrifice, Salvationism), (4) unlimited love versus limited tribal love, (5) the universal embrace of humanity versus the tribal restrictions that include only true believers and exclude unbelievers, and (6) non-apocalyptic versus total apocalyptic destruction. You can’t get more contrary or contradictory than these entirely opposite themes/realities.
Psychotherapist Zenon Lotufo (Cruel God, Kind God), and others, point to the “cognitive dissonance” that arises when you try to hold opposites in some larger merger of contrary beliefs as in Paul’s oxymoronic “Jesus Christ”.
And… “Greatest contradiction?” How so? Because of the historical and current world-wide influence of the Christian religion, and notably the influence of Paul’s Christ myth. This myth has shaped the version of Christianity that has descended down into our contemporary world (compared, for instance, to the prominent Jewish Christianity of the first century CE- i.e. Ebionism- that eventually became absorbed into Islam).
And also, “greatest” due to the very nature of the contradiction itself. It is hard to find a more stark contrast between entirely opposite realities than that between the main message of Jesus and the contrary Christ message of Paul. I use the term “the main message of Jesus” in reference to the “Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel”, specifically the Q1 version, and the most important statement in that Q gospel as found in Matthew 5:38-48, and better, in Luke’s 6:27-36 version.
Historical Jesus stated that, for him, the era of “eye for eye justice” was over. He rejected retaliatory justice and, instead, promoted the restorative justice of “love your enemies” (Matthew 5). Why? Because that was what God did. It was what God was. The God of Jesus was love of a stunning new variety never before seen in the long history of God theories. His God did not retaliate with eye for eye justice but instead loved God’s enemies. And the evidence? Jesus illustrated his point with the main beneficial features of the natural world. God gave the good gifts of life- i.e. sun and rain for crops- inclusively to everyone, to both good and bad people. There was no discrimination and no exclusion of anyone.
God’s love and generosity were inclusive, universal, and unconditional. Jesus used a behavior/belief pairing to make this point. “Do this… because God does it”. He based his behavior on a similar validating belief. Do this- treat all others with unconditional love- and you will be just like God (you will be acting like the children of God) who treats all with unconditional love.
The God of Jesus was non-retaliatory, non-vengeful, non-punitive, non-excluding, non-destroying and therefore non-apocalyptic. Non-apocalyptic? Yes. A non-retaliatory God is not an apocalyptic God. Apocalyptic is the ultimate act of eye for eye retaliation, vengeance, punishment, and total destruction.
Further, such a God would not demand payment or punishment for wrong. He would not demand a sacrifice for wrong. The God of Jesus would generously give to all, including those who do not pay back or respond in a similar manner. His God would not just love those who loved him in return (limited tribal love). His God was authentically “universal or no conditions love” toward all, without exception.
No sacrifice? Yes, this is intimated clearly in statements such as “Lend, expecting nothing in return (i.e. no payback)”. Expect no payment of debt or reparations. Just love and give anyway. Freely. Unconditionally. (Again, see qualifiers at bottom, the applicability or non-applicability to business, economics, criminal justice systems, etc.)
The summarized wisdom message of Historical Jesus again:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
This can be summarized in this single statement: “Love your enemy because God does”.
The demand for atoning sacrifice embraces the long-standing view of justice as involving paying a debt owed to someone. It includes the elements of restoring offended honor, paying dues, righting wrongs (righting cosmic imbalance of justice). Jesus countered this “debt owed” feature with the urging of no demands for payment of debt before loving the offender.
Maybe I draw too much from these statements of Jesus dismissing the payment of debt as a requirement for our loving offending others. Again, this is not advocating irresponsibility in human relationships. But I see him arguing for the best of human attitudes toward offending others, advocating for the most humane approach in life to solving cycles of eye for eye retaliation that take relationships and life into downward spirals. I also see him reasoning from the best in humanity to illustrate what God is like, only transcendently more so. Jesus was pointing to the truth that there was no divine obligation to make payment or amends first in order to earn divine love. Much like how he illustrated this same point with the “Prodigal father” who represented the entirely free love of God toward offenders. Not demanding some form of payment or atonement first as required to earn such love.
That goes to the very heart of the stunning new theology of Jesus of a God who did not demand sacrifice, payment, punishment as prerequisite for his love. It was free beyond any previous human conception of freedom.
Jesus was pushing past long-held boundaries to human love, common forms of love that he framed as “If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.”
In other words- “easy peasy stuff”. He pushed for something better, higher, the ultimate reach of love, heroic love, love that took the courageous initiative to break “eye for eye” cycles no matter the response, or lack of response, from offending others. How to be just like God, to be godlike, in response to the nastiest situations that life puts us in.
And again, I repeat that such an ethic is not prescriptive of how to run a business. Jesus was not speaking to how commerce or economics works best, but to the free personal choice of how to respond to offending or imperfect others. He was provoking thought on what forgiveness and mercy really entail and look like, the courage to heroically act in such a way, much like the vineyard owner who responded to the pissed employees who felt that he acted unfairly in being scandalously generous to the late-comers. The owner responded- “It’s my property so I will freely do as I choose with my own assets.”
We could add the factor here also that holding debt obligations in human relationships can become a form of domination over others.
Try to get the “spirit” of the central message of Jesus and the central point of the message of the man (i.e. Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36). Too many get sidetracked in what they believe are qualifying details that undermine the core ‘no conditions’ point that Jesus was making. Remember Matthew, obsessed with righteousness, and as the editor of that material in his gospel, added his own distorting qualifications such as “Be perfect as your Father is perfect”. That missed the very point Jesus made that it did not matter how imperfect you were, you were still included in the free and generous love of God.
Luke did a better job with this very same material, getting the spirit of Jesus in stating, “Be unconditionally merciful as your Father is unconditionally merciful” (my paraphrase of Luke’s point and spirit).
Note the same unconditional generosity and forgiveness in other Jesus material such as the Prodigal parable and the Vineyard workers story, and in statements on forgiving “seventy times seven” (unlimited). Also, in his inclusion of everyone at meal tables, including local “sinners” or lawbreakers.
Prominent contradictions between the messages of Jesus and Paul…
Main contradictions between Jesus and Christ (updated march 2025), Wendell Krossa
Here again are some of the main contradicting themes that highlight the oxymoronically opposite themes in the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ mythology. The point I draw from this? The themes of Paul have shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia. The Jesus themes have influenced us to a lesser extent, mainly moderating the harsher features of Paul’s message:
(1) Unconditional love (i.e. no sacrifice demanded in Jesus original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel). Versus the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul (i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ).
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus (no more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but loves and includes enemies- as in sun and rain for all alike). Versus supreme divine retaliation in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s theology of a supremely retaliatory deity- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12), and his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe Paul’s Christ myth” (Thessalonians).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye) versus punitive, destroying justice.
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (again, no retaliation against enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and hell, and the violent pacification of deity by blood sacrifice for atonement.
(5) Nontribal inclusion of all humanity (“sun and rain given freely to both bad and good people”) versus the highly tribal favoritism toward true believers and the discriminatory exclusion of unbelievers as per Paul’s Christ (Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation as the eternal division of humans- assigned either to heaven or to hell, as per the cosmic dualism of Zoroaster).
(6) Nondomination in relationships (“If you want to be great then serve others”) versus ultimate eternal domination by Lord Christ with his rod of iron totalitarianism (“every knee shall bow… He will rule them with an iron scepter”).
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love) versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”). Also, ultimate Oneness means no separation of humanity from deity, but all humanity indwelt by God as inseparable from the common human spirit. The real life of each of us, with that divine love defining our true self/person.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge such opposites in the one and same person- i.e. “Jesus Christ”- as that supremely oxymoronic combination creates such profound cognitive dissonance that you are left with a mental state akin to insanity or madness. And the egregious thing in the mix is that the good elements (i.e. the Jesus insights) are distorted and buried by the primitive and darkening elements in the Christology of Paul.
Applying Christology to Jesus (i.e. the divinizing of a common man over the first few centuries of Christianity) has effectively buried the potency of his liberating insights, notably his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, non-apocalyptic God. That truth of in his entirely new view of deity, though still present there in summaries of his statements (see Matthew 5, Luke 6), that “stunning new theology” is no longer clearly visible to most people’s minds because the larger New Testament context emphasizes Paul’s retaliatory, apocalyptic Christ. Paul intent on straightening Jesus out. His “secret wisdom of the Christ” correcting the ignorant/foolish worldly wisdom of Jesus and his followers, like Apollos.
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest terms and no one has been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are so offensive to true believer’s sensibilities. Few since have paid attention to their clarifying the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and gets nothing done, that avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology deformed Jesus and his message.
Soon coming- The applicability of an unconditional ideal to ethics, criminal justice, and at societal scale (the Nelson Mandela approach), etc.
