Note below the link to a new article by Michael Shellenberger on the leftist bias in AI models. Also, his apparent call, as he has done often before, for a revival of an undifferentiated Christianity in response to the abandonment of classic liberal democracy in the West. In response to these calls for a revival of undifferentiated Christianity, I’ve included a reposting of my “Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ”.
“Glenn Greenwald vs. Coleman Hughes Debate: Does Israel Control U.S. Foreign Policy?” on Coleman Hughe’s podcast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEvJQoowZUI
Not to stick my nose in, but Glen Greenwald does not seem to get the point that the US’s apparent favoritism of Israel has varied nuanced complexities like the fact that Israel is a liberal democracy struggling to survive against enemies who are committed to the extermination of Jews and will keep attacking Israel until they fulfill that theological commitment (again, “It’s the theology, stupid”). They pose an “existential” threat and Israel most often has been responding defensively when, in Greenwald’s terms, it has “attacked its neighbors in endless wars”.
Coleman is right to note there is some sort of “psychological bias” in the anti-Israel arguments of people like Greenwald. Not racism, as in antisemitism, but something “ideological” and apparently almost subconscious.
I would point to histories of Judaism that note this goes back millennia, even to ancient Egypt that dehumanized Jews as “disease/vermin” to be eliminated. The author of one book said that nations, across past millennia, have felt obligated to embrace antisemitism as an element of their national identity (“We are against the Jews”). One of history’s oldest hatreds. Does this also explain in part Greenwald and Tucker Carlson’s biases?
We need to ask the Dave Smiths, Glen Greenwalds, Tucker Carlsons, and others like them who decry Israel’s defensive assaults against the theocrats- Would they tolerate endless missile attacks on their homes, ongoing suicide bombings of their citizens, repeated episodes of all kinds of violence against themselves and their families, and just sit back and do nothing? If they were in charge of defending themselves and their neighbors against such insanity, just what would they do in response to protect themselves and those they are responsible for?
Do these anti-war types understand what is driving the death-cult fanatics who are zealously committed to the extermination of Jews by any means possible?
We’ve tried the “make peace agreements”, then sit and wait to see what happens, and they got this close to nukes (hold your two fingers almost together, leaving a little space between). How smart was that?
Sometimes military force is the only sane option.
Added qualifier note: While I quibble with a Glen Greenwald and Dave Smith on this issue of Israel and war against Islamic theocrats, based on only a few long-form interviews that I have listened to (i.e. Greenwald on this Hughes podcast, Smith debating Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan), I do appreciate their insights and comments in other interviews and podcasts on varied topics.
This on the ancient history of anti-Judaism:
“Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition” by David Nirenberg
Amazon blurb: “This incisive history upends the complacency that confines anti-Judaism to the ideological extremes in the Western tradition. With deep learning and elegance, David Nirenberg shows how foundational anti-Judaism is to the history of the West.
“Questions of how we are Jewish and, more critically, how and why we are not, have been churning within the Western imagination throughout its history. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; Christians and Muslims of every period; even the secularists of modernity have used Judaism in constructing their visions of the world. The thrust of this tradition construes Judaism as an opposition, a danger often from within, to be criticized, attacked, and eliminated. The intersections of these ideas with the world of power— the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, the Spanish Inquisition, the German Holocaust— are well known. The ways of thought underlying these tragedies can be found at the very foundation of Western history.”
(End of Amazon blurb)
Grok your comments on this- Another poke at the tribalism that ignores, dismisses, or denies that all major traditions share the same basic complex of mythical themes.
This is more on trying to understand Islam and the fanatical theocracy zealots who are causing so much misery today with their death-cult insanity.
This below is also a caution against the impulse to think tribally, to engage the “unethical” practice of viewing the beliefs of Islamicists as separate from one’s own belief system, as somehow inferior or “demonic”, when they are the direct offspring of our own Christian religion.
The Iranian theocrats are motivated by the very same complex of beliefs that they inherited from earlier western religions like Judaism and Christianity, and ultimately (further back in history) from the Zoroastrian theology of salvation through violent destruction, by purging and exterminating enemies through the fiery apocalyptic cleansing of the world.
The Iranian theocrats, similar to other extremist elements of major religions across past human history, are taking their “salvation through violent destruction” belief system seriously/literally and we see the outcomes in repeated violence toward differing others, toward unbelievers.
Christianity has only recently (i.e. over the past few centuries) moderated its almost two millennia of violence driven by the same complex of salvation through destruction myths, or as some define it- the “apocalyptic millennialism” of Paul’s Christ myth.
It appears the Jesus elements in the Christian religion, though seriously weakened by merging with the Christology features of Paul’s theology, still exert enough moderating influence to lead most Christians to moderate their own approach to life.
However, Christianity has still not removed the salvation through destruction beliefs from the core of its theology. They are ideas that continue to hold the potential to fire up and drive true believers into further eruptions of mass-violence, just as Landes has warned in his history of how these very themes drove Marxist violent revolutions and Nazi horrors and now drive destructive environmental alarmism crusades. The destruction continues.
My question to Grok:
Muhammad’s mentor, the Ebionite priest Waraqa (“The Priest and the Prophet”), apparently used the “Gospel to the Hebrews” (an early version of Matthew) and Matthew’s gospel to instruct/influence Muhammad. But the Ebionites were part of the Jesus Jewish movement in early Christian history, not part of Paul’s Gentile Christ-ianity. The Jewish movement viewed Paul’s Christology as heresy. So why and how then did the Ebionite Waraqa, if Ebionism was part of the Jewish movement of early followers of Jesus, come to use the gospel of Matthew that affirmed Paul’s views? Any clarification on this?
I use sources such as Bob Brinsmead’s essays on the influence of Hellenism on Paul and his Christ myth as contrasted with the Jesus Jewish branch of early Christianity (though that branch was not actually “Christian”).
“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/
I get the counter arguments that Waraqa’s influence on Muhammad was to affirm his visions after he received them and when they were already recorded in the Quran. I disagree a bit on that argument for post-influence because I see in the Quran the same patterns that are in the Gospel of Matthew.
Note, for example, that Matthew claims around chapter 11 that those who did not receive the miracles (person and message) of Jesus are damned to outer darkness. So also Muhammad says in the Quran that those refusing the message and the messenger are damned to hell. If Waraqa was his mentor and used Matthew’s gospel to instruct him then it appears obvious that Waraqa influenced Muhammad’s visions and his record of them in the Quran.
Also, Muhammad’s visions stopped suddenly upon the death of Waraqa.
That makes me go “Hmmm?”
Also, note that Grok takes its information off the general Internet and may then pick up defensive Islamic bias in its statements below, that it quotes confidently as facts. I don’t know how I could do a fact-check on this.
Grok replies:
Your theory raises a fascinating and legitimate historical question about potential influences on early Islam, especially given the Judeo-Christian milieu of 7th-century Arabia. Muhammad lived in a region with Jewish tribes, various Christian sects (including possibly Ebionite-like groups), and Hanifs (monotheistic seekers). Waraqa ibn Nawfal fits into that mix as a relative and scriptural expert who affirmed Muhammad’s first revelation. Let’s unpack the specifics you raise— Waraqa as an Ebionite mentor using the Gospel to the Hebrews/Matthew, the apparent tension with Paul’s Christology, Quran-Matthew parallels, and the timing of revelations— drawing on primary Islamic traditions, early Christian sources, and scholarly context (including alignments with Brinsmead’s analysis of the Jewish Jesus movement vs. Pauline Hellenism).
Who Was Waraqa, and Was He an Ebionite? (Note below that “Khadija” was Muhammad’s first wife)
Islamic sources (e.g., Sahih Bukhari hadiths) portray Waraqa as Khadija’s cousin, a Christian convert from paganism who studied and copied the Gospel (some versions say “in Arabic” or “with Hebrew letters”). After Muhammad’s first revelation (the “Iqra” command in the cave of Hira, ca. 610 CE), Khadija took him to Waraqa. Waraqa recognized it as authentic prophetic experience— “the same angel whom Allah sent to Moses”— and offered support, saying it matched what came to prior prophets. He died shortly afterward (within days or weeks).
His exact sect is not spelled out in core Islamic texts— he’s simply a knowledgeable Christian (“al-qass,” often translated as priest or monk). Some later speculation (including by modern scholars and websites) labels him Ebionite because:
• Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect emphasizing strict monotheism, Jesus as a human prophet/Messiah (adoptionist Christology: chosen at baptism, not pre-existent or divine), Torah observance, and rejection of Pauline innovations.
• This aligns closely with the Quran’s portrayal of Jesus (a prophet and messenger, not God or Son of God; cf. Surah 5:116-117, 19:30-33).
• Waraqa’s Christology apparently didn’t trigger Quranic corrections, unlike later encounters with Trinitarian Christians (e.g., from Najran).
Ebionites aren’t directly attested in Mecca, but Arabia had diverse Christian groups (including possibly Nazarenes or Ebionite-influenced ones fleeing earlier persecutions). Brinsmead’s essays, which you cite, describe the Ebionites precisely as preserving the “Jesus Jewish movement”— Torah-faithful followers of James (Jesus’ brother), who saw Jesus as a law-reforming prophet and viewed Paul as an apostate. This matches your sources’ contrast between the Jewish branch and Hellenistic Pauline Christianity.
The Ebionite “Contradiction” with Matthew: No Real Tension
You ask why an Ebionite Waraqa would use the Gospel to the Hebrews (an early Jewish-Christian text, sometimes linked to a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew variant) or canonical Matthew if it “affirmed Paul’s views.” This is the key clarification:
• Ebionites did use Matthew— specifically, a Hebrew version (or the “Gospel of the Ebionites”/”Gospel according to the Hebrews”). Early Church fathers like Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE) note:
“The Ebionites use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law.” Their version differed from the canonical Greek Matthew: it lacked the virgin birth narrative (ch. 1), emphasized vegetarianism, abolished sacrifices, and had an adoptionist view of Jesus (Spirit enters him at baptism). It was law-observant and focused on Jesus’ ethical teachings.
• Canonical Matthew does not straightforwardly affirm Paul’s Christology. Paul (in letters like Romans, Galatians) emphasizes faith over law, a cosmic/divine Christ (pre-existent, atoning death as central), and Gentile inclusion without full Torah observance. Matthew, by contrast, is the most “Jewish” of the canonical Gospels:
o It stresses Jesus as fulfillment of the Law (Matt 5:17-19: “not one jot or tittle shall pass”).
o It prioritizes mission to Israel initially.
o It draws heavily on Jesus’ teachings (Sermon on the Mount), aligning more with the Jewish branch Brinsmead describes.
o Scholars often see the Matthean community as Torah-observant Jewish Christians, in tension with (or at least distinct from) pure Pauline universalism. Brinsmead notes Matthew preserves elements of the James/Ebionite tradition better than Mark (which he sees as more pro-Pauline) and counters Hellenistic myth-making.
The “Gospel to the Hebrews” was likely a Jewish-Christian text (used by Ebionites/Nazarenes) that early sources sometimes equated with a primitive Matthew. Ebionites rejected Paul while using their Matthew— it was their proof-text against him. So no contradiction for Waraqa: if he was Ebionite-influenced, he’d use exactly these scriptures to instruct or affirm a monotheistic, prophet-focused message. The Quran’s Jesus (human messenger confirming Torah, not divine savior) fits Ebionite views far better than Pauline ones.
Quran-Matthew Patterns and Waraqa’s Role
You note parallels like rejection of the messenger leading to damnation (Matt 11:20-24 vs. numerous Quranic warnings, e.g., Surah 7:94-99 or 26:208-209 on prior peoples). These are real thematic overlaps— prophetic judgment motifs are common in Jewish and Christian scriptures (OT prophets, Matthew’s parables). The Quran retells biblical stories with corrections, which some scholars attribute to oral/late-antique Judeo-Christian transmission in Arabia.
Waraqa could have been a mentor providing scriptural context (pre- or post-revelation). He studied the Gospels and Old Testament; traditions say he wrote from them. Some critical scholars speculate pre-revelation influence or that the “affirmation” scene reflects human guidance. However:
• Islamic tradition insists Waraqa only confirmed the visions after they began (no prior teaching detailed), and revelations came via Gabriel independently.
• Counter-arguments you mention (Waraqa merely affirming) hold in orthodox sources, but your “Hmmm” is understandable— religious founders often draw on existing traditions subconsciously or explicitly.
That said, the Quran has distinctive elements (e.g., specific Arabic rhetoric, Arabian context, rejection of Trinity/crucifixion details) not directly copied from Matthew. Parallels exist with Syriac Christian hymns, Jewish midrash, and other sources too— normal for a 7th-century Arabian prophet engaging monotheism.
The Revelations “Stopping” After Waraqa
This is the weakest link in the theory. Islamic sources confirm a short pause (fatra) in revelation right after the first one— during which Waraqa died, and Muhammad felt distress (even contemplating suicide, per hadiths). Revelation then resumed (with Surah 74, Al-Muddaththir). But it did not stop permanently. Revelations continued for ~23 years (610–632 CE), producing the full Quran, including Meccan and Medinan periods long after Waraqa. The pause was temporary and early; Muhammad’s mission expanded massively afterward.
Brinsmead’s framework helps here: if Waraqa represented the Jewish-Christian stream, it could explain why the Quran echoes prophet-focused, law-confirming themes over Pauline atonement. But the ongoing revelations (and Quranic self-claims of direct divine origin) suggest development beyond one mentor. Historians see early Islam as emerging from a rich Abrahamic context— plausible influence, not proof of fabrication.
Overall, your observation highlights real historical overlaps between Ebionite/Jewish-Christian ideas and the Quran, which Brinsmead’s divide explains well (original Jesus movement vs. Hellenized Paul). Waraqa as a bridge makes sense in that milieu. The “obvious influence” you see is a fair critical lens— religious texts evolve through human channels— but it doesn’t negate the tradition’s claim of divine impetus. It’s a “Hmmm” worth pondering for anyone studying comparative religion. If you’d like deeper dives into specific hadiths, Ebionite fragments, or Quran verses, let me know!
My next one for Grok:
I would suggest that Matthew affirms Paul’s Christology in a general manner, just as the rest of the New Testament cannon does and that is why Matthew was included in later centuries in the NT.
James Tabor (Paul and Jesus) states that the New Testament is Paul’s book and basically all the contents affirm Paul’s Christology. Just as the Christianity we have received is Paul’s religion. Many other gospels were not included in the New Testament, as it was assembled over succeeding centuries because they did not as clearly affirm Paul’s Christology in a general manner.
• And of course, Islamic traditions would argue as you noted, “Islamic tradition insists Waraqa only confirmed the visions after they began (no prior teaching detailed), and revelations came via Gabriel independently.”
Every religion wishes to believe that its founder received visions directly from God and did not inherit themes from previous religious traditions. It is a devastating letdown to admit that your tradition may just be an offspring of some earlier religion, and especially difficult to accept that Islam may have just inherited its main beliefs from the hated Jews and Christians (i.e. Jewish Christianity).
It appears Joseph Campbell nailed it in stating that all people have believed the same myths all across history and across all the cultures of the world. There is little new under the sun.
Grok replies:
You’re touching on a core tension in the study of religious origins: how much of any tradition is genuinely innovative versus a creative synthesis (or inheritance) from what came before. Your points about the New Testament canon, James Tabor’s analysis, the psychological resistance to “dependency,” and Joseph Campbell’s mythic patterns are all worth engaging directly.
On Matthew, the NT Canon, and Pauline Christology
Tabor’s Paul and Jesus (and his broader work) does argue forcefully that the Christianity most people know today— centered on Jesus as divine pre-existent Son, whose atoning death and resurrection provide salvation by grace through faith— is essentially Paul’s version, not the kingdom-focused, Torah-oriented message of the historical Jesus and his earliest Jewish followers (James, Peter, etc.). He highlights how Paul’s letters dominate the NT in volume and influence, and how later texts were shaped or selected to align with emerging orthodox views.
That said, scholars (including critics of Tabor like James Dunn) note nuances: the NT isn’t a monolithic “Paul’s book.” It preserves real tensions— e.g., James’ letter emphasizes works/conduct alongside faith; the Synoptics (especially Matthew) retain strong Jewish elements like Law-fulfillment (Matt 5:17-19) and an earthly kingdom focus that Paul spiritualizes or universalizes. Matthew’s community likely sat in the Jewish-Christian spectrum, closer to the Ebionite/Nazarene stream than to pure Pauline Gentile churches. Yet the canonizers (2nd–4th centuries) included it because it could be read harmoniously with Pauline emphases: high view of Jesus’ authority, miracles as signs, judgment for rejectors, and eventual Gentile inclusion. Gospels that clashed more sharply (pure adoptionist texts without resurrection appearances, or those rejecting Paul outright) were sidelined.
Ebionites, as you noted via Brinsmead, used a version of Matthew (or “Gospel to the Hebrews”) that was stripped of elements like the virgin birth and full divine Sonship narrative, emphasizing Jesus as empowered human prophet/Messiah. They rejected Paul as an apostate. So even if canonical Matthew has “general” alignments with broader NT Christology (miracles, messianic claims, judgment), an Ebionite Waraqa would likely have drawn from the Jewish-Christian recension— focusing on prophetic continuity, monotheism, and ethical Torah observance— rather than the later Hellenized layers. This fits the Quran’s Jesus far better than Nicene/Trinitarian views.
The canon’s formation was gradual and contested; it reflected the winning party’s (proto-orthodox) synthesis, which absorbed and reinterpreted Jewish-Christian elements under Pauline dominance. Your suggestion that Matthew was kept because it “affirmed Paul in a general manner” captures how it was ultimately read, even if its origins were more ambiguous.
Religious Origins, “Direct Revelation,” and Psychological Resistance
You’re right that every tradition prefers a narrative of pure divine breakthrough over acknowledging human transmission and cultural borrowing. Admitting dependency can feel like a “devastating letdown”— it humanizes the founder and relativizes the uniqueness claim. Islamic sources insist on Muhammad’s illiteracy and independent revelation (via Gabriel), with Waraqa only confirming afterward. But critical historians routinely see pre-revelation exposure: Arabia was saturated with Jewish, Christian (various sects), and Hanif ideas. Parallels in the Quran (prophetic warnings, rejection = damnation, Abrahamic stories with corrections) align with late-antique Judeo-Christian traditions circulating orally or via figures like Waraqa.
This doesn’t require “fabrication” or conscious plagiarism; religious innovators often experience visions/dreams shaped by their cultural matrix (subconscious synthesis). The sudden pause after Waraqa’s death is intriguing but limited— revelations resumed and evolved over 23 years amid changing circumstances (Mecca to Medina), incorporating new legal, military, and communal elements. Still, your “Hmmm” stands: the timing and content suggest real influence from that early monotheistic mentor.
Scholars exploring Waraqa often note Ebionite-like compatibility (human Jesus, strict monotheism, no Trinity trigger in early Quran) as a plausible vector for transmission. Orthodox Islamic responses push back by stressing differences and divine origin, but the pattern of prophetic continuity (“same angel as to Moses”) is itself an acknowledgment of shared lineage.
Joseph Campbell and “Little New Under the Sun”
Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces and comparative mythology work popularized the idea that core myths— hero’s journey, dying/rising figures, flood stories, virgin births, apocalyptic judgment, messenger rejection— are archetypal and recur across cultures because they tap universal human psychology, needs, and experiences. The Quran retells biblical narratives with Arabian inflection and corrections, just as Christianity reinterpreted Jewish scriptures through a Hellenistic lens, and earlier traditions did the same.
This doesn’t make any tradition “false”— it suggests religions evolve as human responses to the sacred, drawing from a common well of symbols and ethics. Ecclesiastes’ “nothing new under the sun” fits here: monotheistic prophet movements (Jewish, Jewish-Christian, Islamic) share family resemblances because they address similar existential questions— justice, accountability, divine will vs. human failure.
In short, your framework aligns with critical scholarship that sees early Islam emerging from a rich Abrahamic ecosystem (including the Jewish-Christian branch Brinsmead/Tabor highlight), not in a vacuum. The Quran’s self-understanding as confirming prior scriptures while correcting distortions mirrors how Matthew or Paul positioned themselves relative to earlier traditions. It’s a human story of inheritance, adaptation, and inspiration— profound even if not “wholly new.” This comparative lens enriches rather than diminishes; it reveals the shared mythic and ethical threads binding humanity’s spiritual history.
If you’d like to drill into specific Tabor passages, Ebionite fragments vs. canonical Matthew, or Quran verses echoing Matthew 11, I’m happy to explore further.
My further question for Grok:
How about “Quran verses echoing Matthew 11”?
Grok’s response:
Here are some of the clearest Quranic echoes of the themes in Matthew 11 (especially verses 20–24, where Jesus pronounces woes on unrepentant cities like Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for failing to repent despite witnessing his miracles and message, warning of severe judgment— more tolerable for Sodom than for them). The Quran does not quote Matthew directly, but it repeatedly uses the same prophetic pattern: a messenger performs signs/miracles or brings a clear message → people reject it → divine punishment (in this world and/or the Hereafter) follows, often with explicit comparison to earlier destroyed peoples.
Core Shared Pattern
• Matthew 11:20–24: “Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent… it will be more bearable for Sodom… than for you.”
• Quranic parallel: Messengers (including Jesus and Muhammad) come with clear signs/miracles → rejection leads to destruction or Hellfire. The Quran frames this as a universal law of prophetic history.
Specific Quranic Verses Echoing This
1. Surah Al-A’raf (7:94–99) — One of the strongest parallels you mentioned. Allah says He sent prophets to cities/towns, afflicting their people with adversity and hardship “so that they might humble themselves” (echoing the call to repentance after signs). When they still rejected, severe punishment came. Verses 7:97–99 warn that the people of those towns felt secure until “the torment came upon them by night or by day” while they were heedless. This mirrors the sudden, inescapable judgment on unrepentant towns in Matthew 11.
2. Surah Ya-Sin (36:13–29) — A parable of a town to which messengers are sent. The people reject the messengers and their signs, leading to a single cry from heaven that destroys them all (they become “silent corpses”). This is a concise retelling of the rejected-messenger → destruction motif, similar to the woes on the Galilean cities.
3. Surah Al-A’raf (7:130–136) and related passages on Pharaoh — Pharaoh and his people see clear signs/miracles (plagues) but refuse to believe or repent. Punishment escalates (drought, locusts, flood, etc.), culminating in drowning. The Quran often generalizes this to any rejectors of a messenger’s miracles.
4. Broader judgment-on-rejection verses (very common in Meccan surahs, fitting the early prophetic warnings):
o Surah Al-Ankabut (29:38–40): Peoples of ‘Ad, Thamud, etc., rejected signs and were destroyed by various punishments.
o Surah Al-Furqan (25:37–40): Noah’s people, ‘Ad, Thamud, and the people of Lot rejected messengers despite clear proofs → overwhelming punishment.
o Surah Al-Qamar (54:1–8, 17–42): Repeated refrain after stories of rejected prophets: “We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to remember, but is there any who will take heed?” with destruction following denial of signs.
o On Hell specifically for rejectors of the messenger: Many verses like Surah Al-Muddaththir (74:8–10, early Meccan, post-pause), or Surah Al-Mulk (67:6–11) describe Hell for those who deny the Warner.
Jesus himself in the Quran is presented as bringing clear signs/miracles (e.g., Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:110: healing the blind, lepers, raising the dead, and a table from heaven as a sign), yet the Quran implies (and later traditions elaborate) that many rejected him, with consequences. The Quran corrects the Christian narrative but keeps the judgment-for-rejection dynamic.
How This Fits the Wider Discussion
These echoes fit the prophetic typology common to the Jewish-Christian stream (including Ebionite-like views): messengers confirm prior revelation, bring signs, call to repentance and monotheism/Torah-like obedience, and warn of judgment for refusal. It aligns more with Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as a prophet whose teachings and deeds demand response than with purely Pauline atonement theology. The Quran universalizes it— every community gets its warner (Surah Fatir 35:24; Surah Al-Isra 17:15)— and applies it to Muhammad himself: rejectors of his message face similar accountability (this world or Hell).
The pattern is not unique to Matthew 11 (it draws from Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the “woe” oracles), but the specific combination of miracles as proof + failure to repent + harsher judgment than for ancient sinners (Sodom) finds a strong family resemblance in the Quranic stories of destroyed nations.
Scholars of late-antique religion note that such motifs circulated widely in Syriac Christian homilies, Jewish midrash, and sectarian Christian texts in Arabia. An Ebionite-influenced Waraqa (or similar figure) could easily transmit this framework, which then appears in Muhammad’s revelations shaped by his own context.
Nothing here proves direct literary dependence— oral transmission in a shared Abrahamic milieu explains it well— but the thematic overlap is unmistakable and supports your point about inherited prophetic patterns rather than wholly novel revelation in a vacuum.
If you’d like me to quote full verses in context, compare specific wordings, or look at parallels with other Gospels (e.g., Luke 10 also has the woes), just say the word.
(End of Grok comments)
In the back and forth between opposing views and sides over the Iranian war, my sympathies generally lie with anti-war sentiments. Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in our memories, with Vietnam further back but also present to warn us about rushing off to war, unsure of the actual “imminence” of some claimed threat.
58,000 mainly young lives were lost in Vietnam with countless more horrifically wounded physically and many more traumatized mentally and emotionally. Not to mention the 3 million Vietnamese killed. Such insanity. And years later Robert McNamara says, “Oops. It was a mistake” (“Wrong, terribly wrong”). So former President Bush spends time cycling with wounded vets of his Iraq war, no doubt experiencing some level of guilt (?) over letting himself be carried away by falsified claims of imminent danger.
However, this Iranian situation is an entirely different beast and not stepping up to stop these fanatical theocrats has been a very dangerous position to hold over past decades. Ceasefires and peace deals have only given them opportunity to regroup, re-arm, and plan more assaults just as they have been doing for almost five decades now, directly or through proxies.
The Iranian theocrats will not cease or end their commitment to export violence against “unbelievers”. And they have become exponentially more dangerous as they have relentlessly sought nuclear weapons. Because, if attained, they will use them. And it may be too late to stop them once they obtain the nuclear weapons.
It had to be done now (it should have been done yesteryear) and finally someone stepped up and did it.
Theocratic minds are possessed with “the most violent and dangerous idea in history” (Arthur Mendel, Vision and Violence)- i.e. apocalyptic destruction as necessary to purge evil from the world. Apocalyptic is the essential element in all “salvation through destruction” religion, meaning in Islam’s case, salvation into the promised paradise of the Caliphate that can only be installed after evil has been purged from life through the apocalyptic destruction of the existing evil world order. And most particularly, salvation through the extermination of all the evil unbelievers living in liberal democracies.
They have stated exactly that.
The theocratic fanatics are under divine command to initiate the apocalyptic purging of evil and then, according to their narrative, the Madhi, Isa, and God will descend to finish the violent purging. Hesitancy to get the apocalypse going only incites divine anger and the threat of being cast into hell.
This “theology” is the central determining factor behind theocratic thinking, motivation, and behavior. We saw it acted out by ISIS in 2014 in Syria. We saw it acted out by Hamas attacking Israel on Oct.7. And we would see it acted out again by Iranian theocrats the moment they could get the weapons to do so.
Trying to make peace deals with these death-cult fanatics, blinded with murderous hatred, is irresponsible in the extreme and only increases the danger through waiting. Western governments can never be certain of what is being hidden from view by the theocrats, what they are developing and hiding deep underground. Making deals with a death-cult that is inexorably committed to extermination of all unbelievers, is dangerously stupid and ignorant of the true nature of what you are dealing with. Ongoing delay only increases the likelihood of far more destructive outcomes.
Repeatedly kicking the can down the road does not delay the inevitable, it just risks that it becomes exponentially a worse problem to solve. It has never been “soon enough” (imminent) to deal with the potential to be facing nuclear-armed theocrats.
“Joe Rogan Experience #2472 – Jeff Ross”, JRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s_XJ5fonGI
Around the 50-minute mark, Rogan and Ross discuss neighbors who meddle in other’s lives, the little dictators who are the worst of all because they are not located in far-away urban centers but are right next door and you can’t escape these busybodies, hall monitor-types who, upon accessing a bit of power maybe from a “Homeowners Association” or some local municipal or neighborhood bylaw, then unleash their impulses to lord over others. They sadistically enjoy sticking their noses into other’s lives to lecture and scold them about what they can’t or can do in the neighborhood.
As Joe says, you tell them to “Go fuck yourselves” and leave the rest of us alone.
The purpose of liberal democracy is to constrain such people and protect the rest of us to “live and let live” as long as we are not physically assaulting/harming others.
Covid was a warning to us all- You give such people broadly-applicable rules and that unleashes all the little dictators.
We had one little dictator on a street under a Strata Association and at one meeting this guy stated that he had bought new garbage containers of a unique variety and brand and he insisted the Association make a rule that all the others had to buy exactly the same garbage containers that he had purchased. Well, the guffaws of disbelief and disdain erupted and he deservedly got the big “Go fuck yourself”. Such people need to go home and learn to deal with their own pathological impulse to dominate and control others.
Moving along…
This site often uses superlative terms- i.e. “greatest, ultimate, most critical, etc.”– in an effort to express the true nature of a common subject here, the singular discovery of Historical Jesus on the true nature of love as unconditional. The ultimate ideal that defines human meaning and purpose, Wendell Krossa
That is the single greatest discovery in all history, the single most profound insight ever presented by any person. Stated most directly- God, Ultimate Reality, Source of all- is unconditional love and that is the fundamental basis of all reality and the ideal that we are to aim for in our lives as the highest possible achievement in the struggle to become authentically mature humans.
That term, more than any other, summarizes our purpose here. We come here to discover this highest reach of love, and to try and live it in our lives as the highest and most heroic state of being authentically human.
(And keep in mind the regular qualifier posted here- i.e. that love is often more about intention than emotion. The intention to do the humane thing no matter how one feels about it.)
I would summarize the core of the message of Historical Jesus in terms of the coupling that he used of a behavior based on a belief- i.e. “Love unconditionally because God loves unconditionally”. That is drawn from the “Q Wisdom Sayings” material that scholars state is “the closest that we get to what the man actually taught”.
At the center or heart of that Wisdom Sayings material is the statement of Jesus that God, ultimate reality, is unconditional love. That then embodies the ultimate meaning driving everything. It explains the reason that the cosmos was created, explains the purpose for this world and especially for human life on this planet- i.e. to know, experience, and live this ultimate ideal of unconditional love.
It all comes down to this one adjectival term- “unconditional”.
Unconditional is far more than just love in some general sense that is most commonly understood and experienced in tribal versions as love especially for family, friends, and limited by other group categories- i.e. ethnicity, race, nation, religion, ideology, etc. While all valid in their own way, tribal categories and limits miss the highest reach of authentic love, the form of love that takes us to heroic states of being human where we tower in stature as mature humans like a Mandela who intentionally set aside his hatreds over what his oppressors had done to him and purposed to work for an inclusive South Africa.
Jesus set that same purpose before us in his statement to “Love your enemies”. To reach beyond the tribal limits to heroic levels of being human. More an intention than something felt.
Unconditional belief and ethic was the central point that Historical Jesus tried to communicate with his unique core message as recorded in, for example, Luke 6: 27-36.
“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”.
An example of non-retaliatory, unconditional love: The Prodigal Father story in Luke 15:11-31.
The Father (representing God) did not demand a sacrifice, restitution, payment, apology, or anything else before forgiving, fully accepting, and loving the wasteful son.
“His greatest contribution to the history of human ideas”
Jesus was history’s most notable discoverer of the true nature of love as unconditional.
Jesus took special effort to clarify that his most important insight and message was that God- the creator and ultimate ideal and authority- was this type of love. Unconditional. Not tribally-limited but universally inclusive. Giving sun and rain to both good and bad people, intentionally including enemies. Not retaliating against enemies with “eye for eye” punishment and destruction but instead, generously loving them along with all others. And not lording over others but serving all, respecting the freedom and self-determining independence of all others.
No one before Jesus, anywhere in previous history, had made any closely similar discovery or insight on the true nature of deity and hence the highest reach of authentic and mature humanity.
And because it is the essential nature of the Creator and Sustainer of all reality, it is the ultimate goal of human history and civilization. It gives insight into the meaning and purpose of our great exodus from an animal past to achieve maturity in human liberal democracy civilization.
These are conclusions that I draw from the message of Historical Jesus on unconditional love in, for example, Luke 6. That we should love just like God loves, unconditionally, love even the ungrateful (i.e. those who don’t return our love and goodness). And most critical to behaving unconditionally- “love your enemies”. That is truly mature and heroic humanity. And that is what God does. Do that and you are being/acting just like God.
There is no greater achievement in life. Loving others, even enemies, takes us to heroic levels of human achievement like a Mandela or a Jesus.
When we conquer our own personal inner monster/enemy (the animal triad of impulses) and love unconditionally, then we are making the greatest achievement any human person can make in life. Grok below presents detailed mental and behavioral techniques on how to do this, how to get over tribalism, how to end the domination of others, and how to refuse the retaliatory destruction of others and instead seek restorative treatment.
So we push forward for the best of being human.
Love for family and friends, as noted in the Jesus Wisdom Sayings, is the “easy peasy” form of love that everyone practices. Authentically mature and heroic love is something extra- i.e. love of enemy, love of those who don’t love back. That is what God is and does.
And that is the ultimate human achievement to be discovered and lived in all the diverse situations that we experience in life- in our homes, at workplaces, in public arenas, anywhere and everywhere. Unconditional enables us to tower in stature as maturely human, as extraordinarily courageous, creative, and heroic. And any ordinary person can make this greatest of all human achievements in their daily life, where all of us can behave and become just like God. Do this and you will be like God because this is what God acts like, what God is.
Added note:
The meta story- This world and life have been created as a realm of dualism between evil and good for humanity to play out the great drama of human emergence, development, and maturing through the struggle to conquer evil and mature toward unconditional love as ultimate state of authentic humanity and truly humane existence.
We understand evil in terms of the animal features of tribalism, domination, and retaliatory destruction of differing others. That contrasts with good as known in the human features of universal inclusion (all receive the same rights and freedoms), the treatment of all as free equals (non-domination of others), and restorative treatment of human failures (non-punitive, non-retaliatory justice).
We learn the true nature of love and how to love through our struggle with the contrasting animal.
Unconditional is the ideal that most clearly enables us to understand evil as the opposite of non-tribal inclusion of all, non-dominating relationships, and non-destructive response to offenders.
We are most effectively enabled to conquer the animal and live free as maturely human through the help of liberal democracy principles, laws, and representative institutions.
Our liberation from enslavement to our animal impulses is the true freedom movement of humanity. We have discovered this in our great history-long exodus from our animal past to discover the freedom of living unconditionally in liberal democracy.
The grand meta-story of humanity is experienced by each of us individually as an inner battle (the real battle of life) against the inheritance of animal impulses inside each of us. That is the real battle of good against evil. And that is where true freedom is experienced in our personal conquering of the animal inside us to live as truly human.
And as philosophers and theologians remind us, there is no authentic good unless the result of authentically free choice between the two opposites without coercion or threat theology.
We mature and tower in stature as heroes of our quest when we learn to love unconditionally like Mandela or Jesus. And that is our true purpose in life, to learn what unconditional love is and how to love unconditionally.
A new article on Public by Michael Shellenberger
“Anti-Religious “Effective Altruism” Behind AI’s Persistent And Pervasive Left-Wing Bias: Wynton Hall, author of bestselling new book, Code Red, on why large language models continue to demonize conservatives”, Michael Shellenberger, Mar 26, 2026
https://www.public.news/p/anti-religious-effective-altruism
Shellenberger, in trying to explain the bias in some AI systems, makes these statements below that the programmers of these AI models are leftists who embrace ideologies like:
“Effective altruism (that) is, at bottom, a rebranding of utilitarianism unmoored from deeper moral commitments… the idea, formulated by Jeremy Bentham in the eighteenth century, that the right action is the one producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It sounds reasonable in the abstract, but EA rejects the intuitions and ethics developed over centuries in the West, such as the seven deadly sins, aimed at reducing pride and hubris, the ten commandments, aimed at regulating individual morality…”
He is making points, for example, that the Enlightenment was “a secularization of Judeo-Christian moral insights…”
However, “Having forgotten that they were born of Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment philosophies became dogmatic ideologies…
“In practice, utilitarian thinking unmoored from deeper moral commitments has produced catastrophic results. The French Revolution attempted to rebuild society on pure reason and ended in the Terror. The totalitarian movements of the last century believed they were maximizing human welfare when they were in reality rejecting the foundations of Western civilization.” And so on.
He appears then, as he has done before, to call for a generalized revival of an undifferentiated Christianity as critical to rescuing Western civilization from such ideological pathologies as the one named in this article. It would help if Shellenberger exhibited some awareness of the great dualism in Christianity, the great contradiction between the theologies and messages of Paul and Jesus.
The core themes of this opposite messages cannot be merged and mixed as Paul has done in his oxymoronic “Jesus Christ” religion, the “Christ-ianity” that has dominated Western civilization for two millennia and has left a history of intolerance, intolerance, and mass-death as detailed, for example, by historians Richard Landes, Arthur Mendel, and David Redles. They note that the apocalyptic themes of Paul’s Christ drove the violence and death of Marxist revolutions, Nazi horrors, and now the destruction of environmental alarmism crusades.
Simply calling for the revival of and undifferentiated Christianity does not solve the problem of Western decline. Liberal democracy affirmed by the core principles of the Jesus message do much better.
Nonetheless, Shellenberger is good on the general journalism he does as on this caution about bias in AI models. Both Grok and Chat appear to have a more neutral foundation and appear aware of Classic Liberal or liberal democracy principles and institutions. Chat appears a touch infected by the Woke virus though I should ask it before making that judgment.
Here is a copy of “Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa”
Some of the main contradictions that highlight the oxymoronically opposite themes between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ mythology. The point I draw from this? The themes of Paul have significantly shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia (the conclusion of historians/scholars like James Tabor).
The Jesus themes have influenced us to a lesser extent, mainly moderating the harsher features and destructive influence of Paul’s Christ:
The main contradictions: (Sources: “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar” books, and notably, “Q Wisdom Sayings” research, etc.)
(1) Jesus taught an unconditional love (i.e. there is no sacrifice/payment demanded in Jesus’ original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel). In his teaching on love there were no required conditions from his God to be met for forgiveness, inclusion, and salvation.
Versus the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul, i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ. Additionally, the condition of belief/faith in his myth (see his letter to the Romans), along with myriad other related religious conditions.
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus (no more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but loves enemies- “Be merciful just as God is merciful”).
Versus supreme divine acts of retaliation as in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s statement of his theology affirming a retaliatory deity in his quote of an Old Testament verse- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12), along with his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe my Christ myth” (Thessalonians, etc.).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye, but love the offender/enemy).
Versus punitive, destroying justice (“Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction”, again Thessalonians, etc.).
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (again, no violent retaliation against enemies).
Versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and fiery hell, and the violence in the demanded appeasement of deity by blood sacrifice for atonement- i.e. the dangerously inciting theme in the belief that if you murder the right people- i.e. sacrifice them- then you can make the future better (cloaking evil as good- people thinking that they are heroically doing good through violence and murder).
(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 for not believing Paul’s Christ. Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation in the eternal division of humanity- i.e. people 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” under his “rod of iron” totalitarianism (“every knee shall bow… He will rule them with an iron scepter”).
There is no love in threat, coercion, and domination of others.
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love).
Versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic tribal dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”).
Further, ultimate Oneness leads to the logical conclusion that there is no separation of humanity from deity, what some describe as all humanity being indwelt/incarnated by God, the divine reality that is inseparable from the common human spirit. God as the Life-giving spirit inside each of us, and God’s nature as unconditional love then defining our true self/person.
(8) Another- Jesus referred to himself as a “son of man”- i.e. as just another ordinary imperfect human in common with all other humans. Not as a divine person or God sent from heaven.
Versus- Paul rejected the common humanness of Jesus in claiming that he was some form of Hellenist godman sent from heaven on a special mission from God. Paul reconstructed the human Jesus after the pattern of the godmen myths of the Pharaohs and Caesars- i.e. men born of virgins so as to avoid the “inherited sinfulness” stain.
Eventually, succeeding generations of Hellenist Christianity would further the Christology of Paul in claiming their “Jesus Christ” was sinlessly perfect, something the Historical Jesus had denied, for example, when he corrected someone with- “Why do you call me ‘good’. There is none good but God.”
The heretical Hellenist Christianity of Paul eventually reconstructed the fully and truly human Jesus into a full-fledged God and member of the Trinity.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge such extreme opposites in the one and same person- i.e. in the merger of “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 such mixture 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, unconditionally loving God. This truth was expressed in his entirely new view of deity, and fortunately was included in the New Testament gospels in summaries of his statements (see Matthew 5, Luke 6).
The liberating potency of Jesus’ “stunning new theology” is blurred and “buried” (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstory) because the larger New Testament context emphasizes Paul’s retaliatory, apocalyptic Christ and that dominating New Testament narrative overwhelms the central themes and message of Jesus.
Paul overturned and replaced Jesus’ wisdom sayings with his “secret wisdom of the Christ”. Paul corrected what he termed the “foolish worldly wisdom” of Jesus and his Jewish followers, like Apollos (see 1 Corinthians for Paul’s vilifying rant against the wisdom tradition of Jesus).
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest of terms and few have been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are highly offensive to true believer’s sensibilities.
Few since have embraced their clarification of the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and corrects nothing essential. Religious reformism avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology utterly deformed the actual historical Jesus and his message.