Introduction & Main Thesis

 

I want to begin by saying this is not a website that is against Christianity in general. I did not want to come to the conclusions I have come to on this site. I am still somewhat interested in the Eastern Orthodox Church with its more masculine, family-oriented theology, and theosis.  

I want to first make it clear that I don't think there's just one version of Christianity, but intead I see multiple Christianities, not only in the New Testament itself but outside of the Bible. There are many ways to be a Christian. For example, John Shelby Spong considered the Gospel of John and the theology produced in the Johannine Community to be A Way Forward for 21st century Thinking-Christians. This would mean that even if one finds Paul's ideas and ideology problematic, there are still other ways to be Christian. 

The Johanine Community 

Although the Gospel of John does contain what seems to be the same concept of gene swapping, nevertheless it does seem to deemphasize or down play any degrading of the Gentiles (as we find in the Pauline corpus).  

I recommend this video Thomas vs John by M. David Litwa, wherein Litwa compares the Gospel of Thomas to the Gospel of John; and he explains that the Gospel of Thomas is basically presenting a new version of John's gospel where everyone, Gentile and Jew alike, have the same Divine Light within them; and that Jesus was a wise philosopher who taught people how to bring out their inner Divine Light which is already within them to become enlightened. So that there's no gene swapping in the Gospel of Thomas as far as I can tell.  There's no need for the Gentile to be magically transformed into an ethnic Jew through the sperm (gene) of a Semite. 

As many biblical scholars point out, the Pauline version of Christianity was not the only version of Christianity. For example, the gospel of Mark which is heavily reliant on Pauline ideas, presents Jesus as a more ethnically Jewish person, sometimes talking down to the goyim while the later more pro-Gentile author of Luke-Acts presents Gentiles in a more favorable light. 

The synoptic gospels also present Jesus as an exorcist and they contain a lot of superstitious beliefs about demons possessing people. The Gospel of John however does not have demon possessions at all. Furthermore, unlike the synoptic gospels, which emphasize an imminent second coming or apocalyptic end times, the Gospel of John is more of a mystical gospel with the Kingdom of God being more about the Here and Now (as a more "present moment" experience). 

So while I am critical of the Pauline mythos on this website, I would argue that there are other interpretations and versions of Christianity and that one can adopt a more rational and science-based type of Christianity in the modern world. For example, Jordan Peterson presents a version of Christianity that rejects all of the cultishness of Paulianity. So that Jordan Peterson defends Christianity and promotes Christianity, but he does so through a more psychological and Nietzschean interpretive lens; so that he updates Christianity for our modern world. I support these versions of Christianity. Meanwhile, the late theologian Marcus Borg does something similar. So that I could even consider myself still a Christian from this more Petersonian / Gospel of Thomas type perspective.

So I want to make it clear that this blog is not an attack on all of Christianity. For even though I have come to conclude that the historical Paul was basically a mentally ill cult leader, that doesn't mean that there was not much good in his theology and writings that are still useful today. You just have to cherry pick out the "good stuff" from the crazy-making nonsense: like his delusions about it being the end-times during his lifetime, his assertion that there are demons flying around in the air causing mental illness and a space-aline called Sin as invadeded our body based on a fable where a talking snake tricked the first humans which cursed all of humanity requiring a blood magic ritual (crucifixion) to undo that magical curse on humanity. Aside from that, yea, lots of good stuff one being loving and kind, etc. For example see Is Paul's Legacy Relevant Today? by EP Sanders on YouTube by Villanova University (Oct 21, 2009). In this talk, renowed biblical scholar, EP Sanders, basically argues that yes Paul was wrong about the imminent second coming of the Messiah and was wrong about the "divine right of kings," and many other things, yet there is some usefulness in his concept of the corporate Body of Christ as a mystical poetic unification tool. 

My Core Thesis in Bullet Points

Here is a summary of my core thesis in bullet points and then I will elaborate:

• Paul was a doomsday cult leader 

• Paul's followers he called "holy ones" (Saints or Christians) are to be ideally celibate "living sacrifices" as voluntary martyrs 

• Paul preached an ultimately emasculating message: about Gentile men (non-Jewish men) literally dying supernaturally in baptism (buried in the water basically); and then receiving a new Jewish genome that replaces their Gentile (e.g. German or Italinian) genome: wherein the seed (sperm) of the Davidic Jewish messiah implants his supernatural sperm (through the fluid pneuma) into the Gentile; which magically transforms him into basically an impregnated male (a male-bride of Christ). As the Jewish sperm begins a process of gene swapping out the Gentiles genes and replacimg it with Semite genes. In other words, the Gentile is inseminated by a Jewish Messiah as the pneuma transforms their DNA from Gentile to Jewish ethnically, through supernatural gene therapy. This emasculating supernatural idea aligns with Paul's other teachings: like don't be manly like defending yourself but die a bullied martyr instead; its better to not getting married and have a family. Instead, it is better to exude more feminine attributes (be loving, docile, peace keeping, meek/long-suffering, etc.) because you are a Bride of Christ as a male; and so the ideal is being celibate like a virginal male bride to your messiah husband. 

• Paul projected the masculine drive for territory status and power onto his Israelite God and Warrior Messiah who would come back soon by flying down from the sky and would force equality on everyone. Because his God and Messiah were masculine and would be thecones performing ultimate masculinity, Paul's followers were to perform the role of chaste virginal Brides of Christ (inseminated by his genes). So it was an interim ethic of repressing your masculine instincts as inseminated male-brides. Thus in Paul’s ideology a man should ideally be celibate, docile, obedient, like a "good girl" awaiting her fiance to marry her. This ideology was appealing to Roman slaves, women, and children who lived in the first century: because they already followed the slave virtues of docile conformity in order get along with their hyper masculine slave masters; while women were to be meek and submissive, obeying their husbands, fathers and brothers, etc. In fact, Paul's calls himself a "slave of Christ." The entire Pauline message is a reversal of values where the docile slavish virtues are deified as pious or good, and the heroic Indo-European and/or Greco-Roman values and virtues are vilified as evil. This is why Nietzsche speaks of going Beyond Good and Evil, i.e. beyond Pauline "Piety," i.e., an anti-body Purity Mentality, and "Evil" in Pauline thinking being our mammalian Instincts.

My core thesis is simple, I think Paul was ultimately a delusional (and/or mentally ill) cult leader who thought the mortal world was ending in his lifetime. He literally believed that pagans / Gentiles (anyone not Israelite) were basically impure animals and needed to be genetically transformed into pure and holy Israelites: by being supernaturally implanted (inseminated) with the sperm/seed of a deceased Jewish Messiah; in order to rescue them from the coming annihilation of all life on earth by his Israelite tribal deity. Part of this gene replacement solution was that the impure Gentile animals needed to basically play the role of a virginal celibate bride or fiance to a Jewish male Messiah: who supernaturally implanted or inseminated them with his sperm/Jewish DNA so that they are no longer impure animals and can become whitish (pure) "sheep," i.e. sheepishish holy ones, by again being literally inseminated or implanted with Jewish DNA. Thus, through the supernatural substance called pneuma it was believed by Paul that the gentile/pagan would transform overtime into a Jew genetically; and thus allow them to inherit Abraham's promises and his specific Jewish genetic lineage who were Yahweh's "chosen people."

 Even more problematic, as I see it, is that to fully benefit from this pneumatic gene therapy, one has to literally undergo a life of being ideally celibate and exercise willful suffering and persecution in imitation of the suffering martyred husband-messiah; thus seeking suffering and eventually death in order to feel closer to your messiah husband. So the goal is to ideally die as a voluntary martyr, in order to fully realize this transformation from Gentile to Jew: by eventually discarding one's impure gentle "animal flesh" and fully metamorphosizing into an Israelite at death and the final resurrection of the dead. 

This is why I call it the Cult of Paulianity, because it is basically a first century ethnocentric "suicide cult" about ideally celibate voluntary martyrs pretending to be male brides after being supernaturally inseminated by a Jewish Messianic Husband;  in order that a Gentile man can change his ethnicity from Gentile to Israelite through gene replacement magic.

What this means for me is that being someone of  Scandinavian descent, I find it problematic to think of myself as an "impure animal" and needing to have my very DNA code rewritten. Not to mention that, even if its only meant to be interpreted metaphorically, I find it rather off-putting as a man, to think of myself as a "bride" and inseminated with the seed or sperma of a male husband. 

Cherry Picking a More Protestant Interpretation 

I am convinced that the above is what the New Testament is actually ultimately all about. However,  people can still basically interpret the Bible how they want and make it useful as a modern Gentile Christian. I am not here to tell somebody how to interpret the Bible. I am just interpreting it the best way I know how after studying biblical scholarship. I'm one of those people who thinks the truth matters and that if this is the most accurate interpretation of the New Testament, I think that ignoring it is problematic. However, if somebody wanted to ignore the scholarship on this issue and go about interpreting the New Testament through the more common interpretive lens of Protestantism (which often ignores objective biblical scholarship) I am actually fine with that. For most Protestant men ignore the Pauline language of being a male-bride and don't believe their Gentile genes need to be replaced; but instead they believe that "faith alone" (mere beliefs) gains them access to resurrection and entering heaven. 

I am not here to tell anyone what to think or do. This is just my perspective based on what I consider to be the more accurate and objective biblical scholarship.

I think one could even read this website and agree with some of it and still be a Christian and simply cherry pick out from the Bible what they find useful and ignore the rest. I think this is actually what Christians are already doing nowadays. In other words I don't think most Christian readers of the New Testament actually take the New Testament seriously or literally but consciously or unconsciously cherry pick out the parts they like and ignore the rest. I happen to be of a personality type that is not able to do that. For example, when I was a Mormon I did not have a "shelf," which in Mormonism is a metaphor for putting your doubts or questions on the metaphorical shelf of your mind as you leave it there and don't deal with it. When I was a Mormon I was unable to have a shelf, if I had a question or doubt, I immediately tackled it and either resolved it or it led to my disbelief in a particular doctrine or policy in Utah-based Mormon Church. The same thing occurred in my analysis of the Bible and the New Testament in particular. I did not put anything on a shelf. If I had a question or doubt I immediately tackled it. 

So I think most Christians are basically practicing a version of Christianity that is not actually New Testament Christianity. So this website is not a criticism or an attack on Modern Christians, because I don't think they are actually practicing or taking seriously or literally New Testament Christianity. 

So what this website does is analyze New Testament Christianity in the first and second centuries (in which it was written), and I uncover the fact that it is largely the product of the mind or in my view the mental illness and wrongness of the Apostle Paul's apocalyptic worldview and his attack on biology and the body. 

Let me be quick to say that in case this language sounds anti-semitic, I am not anti-semitic. I am pro-Judaism. I respect and admire the Jewish People. In fact, I would argue that many Jews themselves, such as Jews who criticize Jews for Jesus, would have similar criticisms of Paul and the New Testament. In other words, many Jews (or Israelites) reject Paul's message and do not believe that gentiles/pagans can, or need to, magically become Jews through the supernatural sperm of a messiah. 

The truth is I actually honor and respect Jewish culture and identity in the Jewish religion. At one point in my deconversion from Mormonism, I even considered converting to Judaism. I occasionally listen to Dennis Prager and respect and honor his Jewish tradition, culture, and identity. I think Judaism is a positive contribution to American society and culture. 

Another reason this matters to me is because after doing my genealogy recently around 2023, I realized through DNA testing as well that I am Germanic and Scandinavian with Viking ancestry. This led me to realize that I have my own ethnic identity and cultural tribe through my forefathers/mothers and their Norse culture and mythology. But growing up I knew nothing of my ancient cultural heritage because it was replaced with Paulianity. 

Seeded Male Brides: Apostle Paul's Ethnocentric Genetic Replacement Theology

 

Was the Apostle Paul engaged in a kind of ethnocentric genetic replacement theology? Was Paul preaching that a Gentile's own ancestral cultural DNA lineage needed to be replaced with Israelite genes through the seed (sperm) of an ethnic Jewish Messiah?

According to Wikipedia the people of Rome were composed “mainly of Latin-speaking Italic people. The Latins were a people with a marked Mediterranean character, related to other neighboring Italic peoples such as the Falisci.” On the page for the Italic peoples it states, "The Italics were an ethnolinguistic group who are identified by their use of the Italic languages, which form one of the branches of Indo-European languages."

These Italic people would have had their own genealogy and ethnic lineage and religious heritage and culture. Paul was basically seeking to replace their ethnic and cultural lineage with his Messianic theology. In other words, through his supernatural mystery cult ideology, their entire ethnicity and culture and previous pagan religion of the past would be erased and replaced with a Jewish heritage and identity. 

This is explained, in not exactly the words I use above, on the Data Over Dogma YouTube Channel, on Episode 26 (October 1, 2023), “A Jewish Paul with Matthew Thiessen”: where in this podcast episode, after discussing how Paul was basically embarrassingly wrong about the imminent apocalyptic end-times (the expected very soon return of Christ by Paul which he clearly got wrong), around twenty minutes these biblical scholars then discuss how in Romans 1: 18-32, it is basically Paul putting down non-Jews (Romans) who he describes as inherently sinful or vice-ridden by their ethnic nature as non-Jews; and how pagans trying to be perfect and holy by performing the Torah law codes is not good enough. At 30 minutes, Matthew Thiessen says that basically people don't want to see Paul as actually engaging in ethnic stereotyping in Romans 1: 18-32, but that is what he is doing.


This reminded me of Paul (or a pseudepigraphic author echoing his views) making a racist statement in Titus 1:11-13, where the author of Titus affirms the words of the Grecian poet Epimenides who said those who resided on the island of Crete (the Cretans) were, as a people or nation, “always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”


Back to the podcast, Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that for Paul, the Pagans/Gentiles needed to actually become ethnic Jews themselves. Beginning at 40 minutes, Thiessen basically explains that Paul was being ethnocentric; and at 44 minutes he explains that Paul believed that Pagan/Gentiles needed to literally become Abraham's sons (ethnic Jews) as his direct seed (meaning of Jewish genetic lineage).


Here is what Thiessen says at the 43-45 minute mark:

… Paul talks about Abraham in both Galatians and in Romans … Paul is adamant [in saying to his Jewish opponents regarding the solution for pagans/gentiles], “Oh yes, you're right, we have to follow Abraham, but you're doing it wrong.” There he makes a really complicated argument in Galatians 3 and 4 … [Paul] doesn't say you don't need Abraham as your father. He actually says, “Yea, you need to have Abraham as your father because God made a whole series of promises to Abraham and to his seed [i.e. Abraham's ethnicity]. [So] if you want those promises you have to become Abrahamic seed and Abrahamic sons to inherit them.” So there is a very, again, ethnocentric, if we want to use that word, I think it's a very dangerous word to use but I don't mind using it about Paul. There is an ethnocentric component that Abraham and [genetic] descent still matter for Paul and genealogy matters. And so the way that Paul creatively gets around it or creatively thinks through it, is Jesus is Abraham's seed through David and if the Messiah's spirit, his pneuma, his "stuff," gets into you and you [as a non-Jew] are placed in the Messiah [contained in his Jewish DNA/ethnicity] then you have also taken on a [Jewish] Messianic identity. So you become Messianic, and you become sons and seed [DNA] of Abraham too; and not in sort of like a wishy washy “spiritual way” that we [modern Lutheran/ Protestant influenced people] mean it, but spiritual in the way that ancients meant it. This pneuma has been inserted into you. There's a chapter [in my book] where I talk about it as some pneumatic gene therapy. I think Paul is really thinking your genealogy, your whole DNA structure, has changed radically because the spirit of the Messiah [i.e. the pneuma containing Jesus’ Jewish DNA] has invaded your body quite physically. And now you [as a pagan/gentile] got this connection [to Abraham’s Jewish genes] and so then you get everything [an ethnic Jew gets], including resurrection.

In his talk Gentiles as Impure Animals in the Writings of Early Christ Followers, Matthew Thiessen begins at the 2 to 8 minute mark by explaining that Mark, Matthew, Luke and Paul are all basically describing non-Jewish gentiles as impure animals. Matthew Thiessen begins by discussing how the Jesus-character in the Gospel of Mark responds to a person of Greek genetic descent as a dog. He goes on to explain that despite Christian apologetics, this really was in reality a product of Jewish ethnocentrism. Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that the Gospels actually present Jesus as only going to Jews and not Gentiles, and the woman being called a dog was clearly meant as an ethnic slur.

At 8 minutes into the video, Thiessen discusses the Gospel of Matthew and how Matthew carefully edits Mark to remove certain things he doesn't like; but he does not remove the Israelite ethnocentrism. In fact, in chapter 15 of Matthew, he doubles down and contrasts the non-Jewish woman (an impure dog) with Israelites as pure sheep. Thus, Jews are holy sheep and gentiles are unholy dogs. 


At 10 minutes, Matthew moves on to the Gospel of Luke and Acts. He says that Luke and Acts or Luke-Acts (the product of a single author) is not this safe haven for "Gentile friendly" information as some wish, but instead retains the same ethnocentrism discussed above. Thiessen then goes on to discuss Acts chapter 10, that describes Gentiles as impure animals. Thiessen explains that basically the author of Luke believes that Gentiles are born to be inherently genetically impure just like some zoological animals are impure by their nature. At 14-15 minutes, he explains that for Luke, a gentile is impure or unclean in the same way any other animal is unclean or impure. So that only a new act on the part of the God of Israel could rewrite a gentile's DNA and transform the gentile's formerly genetically impure DNA into a Jewish DNA in order to make them pure and holy. According to the Gospel of Mark, there is an essence to Gentile identity that fundamentally distinguishes them from Jews, as they are akin to impure animals and are by nature unfit for incorporation into holy Israel (God's chosen ethnic tribes). 


At 15 minutes, he explains that the woman remains the dog in Matthew 15 because she is genetically impure; but she still benefits from pure Israel. Thiessen explains that the message of these authors is that Gentiles who enter into the Pauline movement remain Gentiles outwardly and thus are not to keep the ethnic aspects of the Jewish Law that apply only to ethnic Jews; yet whereas they were formally impure animals they have become purified and grafted into Israel through "pneumatic gene therapy," which is a process of replacing their non-Jewish DNA with the DNA of the ethnic Jewish Messiah. God has basically begun rewriting the DNA of these impure animals (gentiles) so that now they are becoming pure and holy. Paul literally calls his followers "holy ones," translated "saints" in most Bible translations. Gentiles become receptacles of the Sacred Pneuma. 

Side Note: The gentile remains a gentile and does not get circumcised to follow Jewish ethic rituals because only in the resurrection are they fully transformed into a pure pneumatic body and their former impure gentile flesh is "taken off" like a buried seed losing its shell to grow into a plant; in other words, only in death and resurrection does the Gentile then fully "put on" the new clothing/body composed of the Messiah's pneuma forming a new celestial pure body (see 1 Corinthians 15). This would be why the gentile is not to perform the ethnic Jewish law code because they are not yet fully ethnic Jews even as Christians ("holy ones"). They have only begun to be grafted into Israel through "pneumatic gene therapy," which is only finalized in the resurrection. This would also explain the eucharist (ritually consuming the body and blood of the Jewish Messiah), which was a kind of weekly medicine, a supernatural refueling of the messianic Jewish Jesus's pneuma being re-poured into the Gentile in the eucharist as part of the ongoing process of pneumatic gene therapy. From this perspective, the eucharist can be seen as a constant reminder of the gentile's impure flesh and their need of this ongoing process of replacing their gentile genes with Israelite genes which is finalized in the resurrection.


At 16 minutes, Thiessen discusses how Paul also uses "dog language" to refer to the Philippians as Paul argues that his opponents are basically gentile dogs in sheep's clothing. In other words, Paul's enemies are called "gentile dogs" as an insult, which he does because they are trying to get his gentile "holy ones" (undergoing a supernatural process of gene swapping/pneumatic gene therapy) to become practitioners of the ethnic Jewish law codes; so Paul is basically saying that his gentiles "in Christ" are not fully Jews yet but still stuck in gentile flesh bodies, so they do not need to follow the ethnic codes of Judaism. They are instead saved with the pneuma of Christ in them and the hope of resurrecting into a new pure celestial body. In criticizing these opponents of his Paul refers to them as dogs.

At 23 minutes, he explains how in the Book of Enoch, non-Jewish nations are described by impure animals and in the final end of times or the End of History, it describes the inclusion of gentiles when they are transformed into white sheep (meaning pure Israelites) in 1 Enoch 93:7-8.

At about 29 minutes, he explains Galatians 3:28 as Paul not actually distinguish between Gentile dogs and Jewish sheep, but what he is saying is that in the end, ultimately those who are in Christ (genetically transformed through the DNA of Christ) become equal with Jews; but while on earth there is still a distinction in kind, because the Gentile is still in a mortal flesh body and still has Gentile DNA mixed with Jesus's Jewish DNA. So the finalization of the "pneumatic gene therapy," the complete transformation from an impure "dog" (gentile flesh-body) to pure "sheep" (pneumatic-body) does not occur until the resurrection: when the mortal body is laid in the grave and the new pneumatic body rises from the grave.

At 32 minutes, he goes on to explain that even with the language of how being in Christ there is no male or female, Jew nor Gentile, you still have differences in kind being maintained: wherein there is still a distinction between gender roles (man over the wife) and different ethnicities because the non-Jew is still stuck in the gentile flesh body prior to death and resurrection. 

Seeded Male-Brides: Matthew Thiessen on "Pneumatic Gene Therapy"

In this blog post, we will see that what Paul literally believed was that the DNA of his Israelite messiah was going to literally transform the DNA of his Gentile-followers. First, see this post explaining that Paul likely saw the spirit (pneuma) as a supernatural pnenomenon but also as an actual material substance. 

 The following are excerpts from the book A Jewish Paul by Matthew Thiessen (2023 Edition), from chapter 8 "Pneumatic Gene Therapy." The words in brackets are my own words. The footnotes are from the origional text. The web links were also added by me. Here is the first excerpt:

... Paul’s writings demonstrate his abiding commitment to ancient ethnic reasoning. Gentiles need to become connected to Abraham so that they can inherit God’s promises to him and his seed [lineage]. Paul argues against gentile circumcision not because he is trying to break down ethnic boundaries but because he does not think that circumcision has the power to bridge the genealogical gap between Abraham and the gentiles. For Paul, only the divine power of the pneuma [pronounced "nooma"] (often translated into English as “Spirit”) can truly connect gentiles and Abraham. Gentiles, in short, need to undergo pneumatic gene therapy in order to inherit the many things God promised to Abraham. ... 

 

... Paul argues that circumcision and adoption of the Jewish law in its entirety will not work for gentiles because Israel’s God never intended for non-Jews to undergo circumcision and adoption of the Jewish law. [2] ... a circumcised gentile has not addressed the underlying condition: he has dealt only with the flesh, not the pneuma [again, pneuma is pronounced nooma]. ... 

 

... Romans and Galatians speak about Abraham and Abraham’s seed at some length (Rom. 4 and Gal. 3– 4). Abraham is the father of all who believe, and those who trust in the Messiah are Abraham’s seed (Rom. 4: 11, 13; Gal. 3: 6, 29). These passages show that Paul believes that gentiles do indeed need to become related to Abraham in order to inherit what God promised. But if circumcision and law are unable to make gentiles into seed [lineage] of Abraham, what can? ... in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 Paul sets out to show how one becomes a seed [decendent] of Abraham. Galatians 3: 29 provides the clearest distillation of Paul’s thinking on this point: “If you are [part] of the Messiah [ei hymeis Christou], then you are the seed [sperma or ancestors] of Abraham.” For gentiles to become [the Jewish] Abraham’s seed [genetic ancestors], they only need to belong to the [Jewish] Messiah. One does this by being immersed into and being clothed in the Messiah. Paul uses the language of containment—entering into (eis) and becoming wrapped by or clothed in (enduō) the Messiah (Gal. 3: 27). Such statements encourage us to think in very spatial categories. The Messiah is a location or a container or a sphere into which gentiles must enter in order to be related to Abraham. [6] ... 

 

... By receiving with faith the good news that Paul proclaimed, the gentiles became recipients of this powerful pneuma [or nooma] (3: 1– 5). Paul goes on to compare this gentile faith to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15: 6, concluding that those who are born out of faith are Abraham’s sons (Gal. 3: 6). [7] The logic, then, of Galatians 3: 1– 7 is that through faith one receives the pneuma (cf. 3: 14). Simultaneously, the one born out of faith becomes a son of Abraham. ... 

 

... It is not faith itself but what faith brings that makes one Abraham’s son. Faith brings the pneuma, and it is the pneuma that creates a connection between Abraham and the gentile believer. Why? Because of the identity of the pneuma that these gentiles receive. According to Galatians 4: 6, God sends the pneuma, which he identifies as the pneuma of his son, the Messiah, into the hearts of these gentiles in Galatia. ...

 

... I recall a pastor telling me as a teenager that the thought that Jesus enters into someone’s heart was laughable—that this was nothing but a mere symbol or metaphor. I think Paul would disagree. Jesus the Messiah invades the flesh-and-blood bodies of those who trust in him via his own pneuma. When gentiles receive the pneuma by faith, when this pneuma enters into their hearts, they have been infused with the stuff of the Messiah, which now permeates their bodies. Simultaneously, these gentiles are clothed in the Messiah. The Messiah, then, both envelops them and indwells them. ... 

... Understandably, this strikes us as odd. The best analogy that I can come up with is a sponge that one immerses in a pail of water. If held underwater long enough, the porous body of the sponge is filled with water while also being surrounded by it. The water simultaneously enters into the sponge and “enclothes” the sponge. This is close to, if not quite the same thing as, what Paul envisages. I have argued elsewhere, following the lead of Caroline Johnson Hodge and Stanley Stowers, that Paul depends here on the ancient science of his day to depict what happens to Messiah [8]. [Footnote 8 reads: Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs; and Stowers, “‘ Pauline Participation in Christ.’” ... According to Stoic philosophers, [the mixture of two substances was] called krasis. This is where this philosophical discussion becomes relevant to Paul (and others): the Stoics thought the supreme example of krasis was the mixture of an element they called pneuma with other, coarser substances that were made out of the four lower elements of air, fire, earth, and water. So, for instance, the Stoics believed that the soul was made from the material of pneuma and that this material perfectly combined (krasis) with the elements that made up flesh-and-blood bodies to make an organic unity. Pneuma continues to exist as pneuma, and flesh as flesh, but they share the same space. The Stoics called this the interpenetration of two substances. ... note how well this description fits what Paul says in a dense section of Romans 8 that talks about the very substance of the pneuma: “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the pneuma, since the pneuma of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the pneuma of the Messiah is not part of him. But if the Messiah is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the pneuma is life because of righteousness. If the pneuma of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his pneuma that dwells in you” (8: 9–11). The first sentence parallels Stoic thinking about krasis (whether Paul knows it or not): the Messiah follower is in the pneuma; simultaneously, the pneuma is in the Messiah follower. Again, the best example I can think of is a sponge (the person) both saturated and surrounded by water (the pneuma). Via his pneuma, then, the Messiah dwells in his followers, and they dwell in him. They are in him and of him, and he is in them. This is no mere external relationship to or with the Messiah; it is full and intricate and intimate participation in the Messiah.

 

I have been convinced by other scholars that the pneuma, God’s pneuma, the Messiah’s pneuma, in Paul’s mind is not something immaterial but the finest, most perfect form of matter. [Footnote 10. See especially Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self.] These arguments depend on ancient Stoic thinking again. Yes, this is controversial to many Paul scholars, not least because classical Christian theology has insisted on the immateriality of God. Such theology insists that God cannot be made up of matter because that would mean God is divisible and subject to change and decay. But that is not how some ancient people thought about the stuff of pneuma. Philosophical and scientific reflection on pneuma goes back at least to Aristotle, who argued that it was in some way related to a fifth element that made up the cosmos. Whereas previous philosophers had proposed four elements— fire, air, earth, and water— Aristotle conceived of one more element, a heavenly one called aether. ... Aristotle believed that aether was unlike the other four elements. It alone was unchanging, eternal, and divine. [11]. ... Aristotle had no problem speaking of pneuma both as a body and as matter. [12]  ...

 

... Paul was neither a Stoic nor a highly trained philosopher. But the basic elements of Platonic and Stoic thinking were the conceptual air that most people in the Greco-Roman world breathed. One would surely be wrong to think that all people today know what quarks and hadrons are, but many of us have a basic understanding of what gravity is or what atoms, protons, and neutrons are. So too, it is hard to believe that someone like Paul would not have known how the term pneuma was being used more broadly in his day. And, if we can trust Acts on this point, Paul came from the city of Tarsus, a known hotbed of Stoic philosophy. This was his world, even if it is not ours. ... unless he unmistakably signaled that he meant something quite different, his readers would inevitably have heard pneuma as those around them were commonly using it: to refer to a type of matter that was eternal and divine. While we cannot know what was in Paul’s mind, I would suggest that unless he was a very poor communicator, he would have known he needed to clarify what he meant by pneuma if he meant something dramatically different from what most others around him would have meant by the term. Otherwise he would have opened himself up to inevitable misunderstandings. ... 

 

... when Paul speaks about the pneuma entering into people’s hearts, as he does in Galatians 4: 6 and Romans 5: 5 and 2   Corinthians 1: 22, or more broadly about those who follow the Messiah receiving the pneuma (1   Cor. 2: 12; 2 Cor. 5: 5), modern readers should take this as materially as possible. The pneuma is the material gift from God—it is the presence of God and God’s Messiah—that enters into human hearts, the epicenter of human bodies. The holy pneuma materially inhabits human bodies (Rom. 8: 11; 2 Cor. 6: 16, quoting a modified form of Lev. 26: 11; cf. 2 Tim. 1: 14). [13] ... 

 

... gentiles have been infused, therefore, with the unchanging and eternal stuff of the Messiah, who himself became pneuma at his resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 45; 2 Cor. 3: 17– 18). By infusing gentiles with the Messiah’s pneuma, God has intervened in the gentile condition by editing their genetic code, modifying gentile DNA, so to speak. The pneuma is a vector inserted into the bodies of gentiles so that they now contain the Messiah’s genetic code: anyone united to the Lord is one pneuma with him (1 Cor. 6: 17).

 

Think about what this means so far. The Gentile Romans were not acceptable as Gentiles in Paul's mind. They needed to have their genes transformed though the pneumatic substance containing the genes of the Jewish Jesus, whose seed/sperm/DNA would make these gentiles descendents of Abraham. 

This same idea of "gene replacement" is echoed all throughout the New Testament. Let's look at just one verse in 1 John 3:9 (EXB):

Those [All] who are God’s children [born of/begotten by God; 2:29] do not continue sinning [or sin], because the new life from God [or God’s message; or God’s Spirit; his seed/sperm] remains [abides] in them. They are not able to go on sinning [or sin], because they have become children of God [are born of/begotten by God].

 

In other words, because Jesus decends from Abraham, when he implants his sperma in them through his pneuma, one's DNA is replaced and they partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).  

Mathew Thieseen continues:

... Just prior to Galatians 4: 6, Paul outlines an argument that the Messiah is the seed [ancestry] of Abraham (Gal. 3: 16). ... Immediately before Abraham trusts God’s promise, he complains to God that all God’s promises seem to be oblivious to the fact that Abraham still has no child to inherit what God promises to give him. As Abraham puts it, “You have not given to me a seed [sperma/descendants]”(Gen. 15: 3). God responds with yet another promise: “The one who comes out of your belly will inherit you”(15: 4). [14] Genesis 15 defines Abraham’s seed (sperma), therefore, as “the one who comes out of your belly.” This phrase occurs in only two other places in Jewish scriptures, both of which refer to David’s offspring. Once it refers to one of David’s sons, who seeks to kill David (2   Sam. 16: 11). The other is 2 Samuel 7, where through the prophet Nathan, God promises to David that he will raise up David’s seed (sperma), “the one who comes forth out of your belly” (7: 12). The Hebrew in both passages is the same, potentially creating in Paul’s mind a connection between Abraham’s seed and David’s seed. [15] 

 

If Jesus is the Messiah, then he is not only the seed [ancestor] of David but also the seed [ancestor] of Abraham, whom God promised in Genesis 15. And if gentile believers have the Messiah’s pneuma, then they have his material in them and are, at the same time, clothed in the Messiah. They are in the Messiah, and the Messiah is in them. They have received an infusion of the Messiah’s DNA, so to speak. Consequently, they are now materially, genetically, and genealogically connected not just to the Messiah but also to Abraham. They have undergone divine, pneumatic gene therapy to address the fact that they were previously unrelated to Abraham. ... Through the pneuma and in the Messiah, gentiles have become Abraham’s sons and seed [i.e. of his genetic lineage] .

 

... [Paul was arguing that] Gentiles had not received the pneuma through works of the law [like circumcision], so why would works of the law address something that the pneuma had not already? By adding works of the law to the pneuma, such people were in effect (although presumably not intentionally) implying that works of the law could do something that the pneuma could not, which is, of course, to imply that the Messiah  had not fully addressed the gentile condition. 

 

Paul again depends on the physics of his day when he makes this argument. Human flesh was made up of a combination of the four lower elements, and so it was mutable and non-eternal. To place confidence in a practice such as circumcision, then, was to place confidence in something that was passing away. If the Galatians tried to forge a connection to Abraham via circumcision, whatever connection they made, being merely skin deep, would simply not stand up to the test of eschatological time. They were making themselves Abrahamic sons according to the flesh (Gal. 4: 29), at best citizens of the “now Jerusalem,” a terrestrial [earthly] and therefore non-eternal citizenship in a Jerusalem that would not exist in the eschaton [end-times (the new earth)] (4: 25). In contrast, gentiles who became connected to Abraham through the Messiah’s pneuma were Abraham’s sons according to the pneuma (4: 29), connected to Abraham via an unchanging, indestructible, eternal material, and therefore were citizens of the Jerusalem above, the celestial and eternal Jerusalem (4: 25). To outline Paul’s argument succinctly:

 

Gentiles need to become Abraham’s sons and seed [ancestors] to inherit God’s promises.

The Messiah is Abraham’s son and seed [ancestor].

Gentiles, through faith, receive the Messiah’s essence, his pneuma.

Through faith and pneuma they have been placed into the Messiah.

The pneuma of the Messiah also infuses their bodies.

They have the Messiah’s essence in them, and they exist in the essence of the Messiah.

Gentiles have become Abrahamic sons and seed [i.e. his genetic ancestors].

 

 This is why I have titled this blog series, Seeded Male-Brides. 

 

 

 

Seeded Male-Brides (Introduction)

 Given the rise in anti-Semitism as of 2024, I want to begin this blog series by saying specifically that I oppose any form of anti-Semitism. 

When I talk of "the Jews" as a people and ethnicity in the ccontext of the New Testament, I am not referring to all Jews (then and now). I have a deep respect for the Jewish people and their ethnic heritage and Jewish religion. Whenever I might sound like I might be being critical of Judaism, I am not. I am actually being critical of the ideology and ethnocentrism of the Apostle Paul and some of the New Testament authors. In other words, the Jews who composed the New Testament are not to be equated with all Jews. I am distinguishing Jews who believe in and practice Judaism today and the Jewish-Christians who composed most of the New Testament. For example, just go on YouTube, and do a search for  "Tovia Singer and the apostle Paul" (or Google it). Tovia Singer, as a Jewish Rabbi, is very critical of Paul and the Messianic Jews who composed the New Testament. So too, I am only analyzing the New Testament authors and being critical of their ideology but I am not being critical of all Jews (then and now). 

My thesis, based on other biblical scholars, is that the Pauline cult looked down on Gentiles to a certain degree even though it often sounds like the opposite at times. In brief, the Pauline message is that the goyim (non-Jews) must be supernaturally transformed into Israelites through the seed (DNA) of the Jewish Messiah. Paul was thus seeking to erase and replace the ethnicity or genes of the Roman goyim with Jewish genes. This was not what ancient Jews themselves thought or believed in but was unique to the apostle Paul. In this blog series, I will show that what this Pauline mythos ends up meaning is that the cultural ethnic identity of non-Jewish pagans needed to be essentially erased and replaced with a "Jewish identity" by being supernaturally adopted into Israel through the implanted seed of a Jewish Messiah. In other words, the Pauline gospel-message is that ethnic pagans needed to be part of the chosen people by being grafted into the Israelite lineage (DNA). This was accomplished through them supernaturally receiving the Jewish Messiah’s divine sperma and receiving supernatural replacement gene therapy. All of this is explained in detail through several blog posts in this blog series. 

For example, the Pauline portraits of Jesus in the Gospels, where Jesus sometimes seems to talk down to Gentiles, is better understood as not necessarily the actual attitude of the historical Jesus, but is instead better understood through this blog series that covers the larger underlying context of Seeded Male-Brides. In other words, in order to better understand why the Jesus-character or Christ of Faith in the Gospels (which is not necessarily the Historical Jesus) sometimes talks down to pagans/Gentiles, one needs to understand the underlying Pauline idea of Seeded Male-Brides. Paul is seeking to "save" pagans through an ethnocentric mythology of literally replacing pagan genes with Jesus' Jewish genes. Therefore, the Gospels, which are influenced by the Pauline mythos, present various potraits of a Pauline-Jesus who often acts as if pagans are inferior to Israelites, and this is because underlying these Pauline portraits of Christ is the Pauline idea that pagans need to be supernaturally transformed into Israelites (that is, their pagan DNA has to be replaced with Jewish DNA). Again, non-Christian Jews, then and now, do not teach this. 

Again, due to a rise in anti-Semitism as of the year 2024, I want to be crystal clear that this blog series is in no way meant to be critical of Jews themselves or Judaism. I have a lot of respect for Jews as an ethnicity and for the Jewish religion. This is not a criticism of today's Jews or Judaism. Jews for Judaism never sought to replace Gentile DNA with Jewish DNA, that is a distincly Pauline idea. In New Testament times, as today, a Gentile could convert to Judaism without him changing his DNA. This idea of Gentiles needing to be supernaturally transformed and become spiritual Semites/Israelites is a distincly Pauline and New Testament idea. There is also no evidence that the Historical Jesus expected Gentiles to become genetically Israelite. 

This is also mostly only a critique of the apostle Paul's ideology and the Pauline aspects of the New Testament, and is not a criticism of most Protestant sects and Catholicism, which no longer teach these Pauline ideas. In fact most Christians do not even know about this idea of Seeded Male-Brides. Today's Christian theologies have completely ignored and reshaped the original New Testament theology, so that it's not about being seeded with the sperm of a male messiah, but it is now about Martin Luther's concept of being saved by grace through faith (i.e. religious conviction alone saves you). Meanwhile, most New Testament translations cover up the problematic language of Seeded Male-Brides. 

So I do not have a problem with most versions of Christianity today because it is simply a completely different religion from the origional New Testament Pauline religion. For more details on transformation from Pauline-Christianity into today's modern version of Christianity, see the book: The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James C Russell.

Paulianity is a Spirit-Possession Cult

 

First, a starting must read is:

•  1 Corinthians 11:3-16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation [click link for PDF] by Christopher Mount (July 2005; Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2): 313. DOI:10.2307/30041015). 

Also see:

• Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity by Stevan Davies

• The Religion of Paul the Apostle by  John Ashton

• Paul in Ecstasy by Colleen Shantz

• Spirit Possession in Christ Cults Associated with Paul and Roman Discourses of Political Power by Christopher Mount

• Paul, Jewish Mysticism, and Spirit Possession (From the book Apocalypticism and Mysticism in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity) by Adela Yarbro Collins

• The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles by Guy Williams

• Singing in Paul’s Cult of the Possessed by Jesus’ Spirit by Dragana Jeremić-Molnar

• Spirit Possession: Multidisciplinary Approaches to a Worldwide Phenomenon [PDF Link] Edited by Éva Pócs and András Zempléni

Most modern Christians, with the exception of pentecostal churches, ignore the New Testament world of literal spirits possessing human bodies on a regular basis. Modern Christian theologians offer various methods for avoiding the obvious constant talk of exorcisms and being bodily possessed by literal spirits, whether its a demon or the Messiah, in the New Testament. Just one example is A New Paradigm for Spirit Possession (PDF link) by Matthew R. Anderson, where he attempts to ignore all the other scripture  passages about spirits literally possessing people -- from causing harmful suffering, epilepsy, etc., or causing someone to randomly speak in unlearned foreign languages (or the "language of angels") and perform miracles like curing blindness and performing exorcisms -- by instead arguing for an interpretation of the Holy Spirit moving within people to aid them in merely speaking with boldness.

For me, this unfortunately means that the New Testament is an outdated ethical guide for modern living, being filled with just too much outlandish spirit possession phenomena for it to align with today's world of modern science and medicine; including neuroscience and psychiatry essentially debunking most of the claims of "demon possession" as scientifically explainable phenomena we now call epilepsy or mental illness and personality disorders, etc. 

Thus the wild world of malevalent invading spirits in biblical times is now considered by most people today as just primitive superstitions; that was the result of a scary time in history when people did not understand that most diseases were caused by germs and there was no such thing as M.R.I. scans of the brain or psychiatry. 

 The New Testament texts are thus very problematic. For while there are indeed nuggets of good ethical ideas here and there, there are just too many "landmines" waiting to be stepped on at every page causing an explosion of irrational superstious nonsense: from flying demons invading humans to apocalyptic end-times hysteria, etc. These harmful ideas can and do lead to harm, whether it was calling women witches and burning them alive just a hundered or so years ago to even today there being cases of fanatical Christian parents believing their child is literally possessed by a demon and thus causing them harm or even death; which occurs nearly every year even in our modern scienctific age.  

Thus the attempt to cherry pick out or extract the nuggets of ethical goodness in the New Testament, is hampered by the overwhelming number of passages about evil demons possessing people and the alleged claims that spirit possession by a Messiah can allow someone to heal even amputtess or cast out demons from someone having an epileptic seizure.

 The truth is that modern Christians are embarrassed by this possession stuff, which is why the groups like the pentecostals who try to reanct this primitive spirit possession world are considered on the fringe of Christianity and often laughed at as crazy by the majority of more "sober" Christians. This is because most Christians know deep down that they cannot replicate the crazy spirit possession world of the New Testament today.

Seeded Male-Brides (Part 1): Christians as "Spiritual Semites/Jews"

 Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, taught that a Gentile's blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob (Israelite blood) then magically circulated in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits. Here are some quotes:

“[A]s the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene… while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite.”

~ Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 3, p. 380

 

[Brigham Young confirmed this:]

“[Joseph taught] that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits.”

~ Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 269

(Source)

Where did Joseph Smith get this strange idea? Is this unique to Mormonism? As I cover in this blog series, it turns out that it's based on the theology of the New Testament itself. In other words, the Apostle Paul did in fact literally teach that the Gentile needed to literally become the seed or DNA of Abraham through receiving the seed/DNA of the Jewish Jesus (through a supernatural transformation).

In the short video, If Jesus Was Jewish, Why Am I Christian? (Romans 11) by The Bible in a Year, it explains this. Here is some of the transcribed text from the 1-3 minute mark:

Jesus was a Jew which is not a religious term but a cultural term and a tie to God [and the] the chosen people. The Jews are from the tribe of Judah. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Jesus is a Jew. ... Did [Jesus] give up his Jewish faith? No. [Then] why aren't we Jewish [as disciples of Jesus]?  Okay, well I'm Irish Scottish, culturally speaking I'm not Jewish. But here's the catch. One of the Popes made a very interesting comment, he said that as a Christian, as a Catholic, we are all Jewish Semitic; we're Jewish semites; really we are Christian semites. We we have a tie to the Olive Tree [Jews], we've been grafted in to the olive tree, [into] this tradition, in the Jewish culture. ... That's why Paul said [to] support the tree. The Olive Tree supports you and so we are spiritual semites [i.e. spiritual Jews], that's what one of the Popes said. We are spiritual semites, that is an amazing thing; while we are culturally and ethnically we are not Jewish. We are spiritual [semites/Jews] and Jesus didn't give up his Jewishness. Mary was a Jewish mother. Joseph was a Jewish stepfather. Jesus dressed like a Jew, ate like a Jew, worshiped like a Jew, prayed like a Jew and taught like a Jew. In every way [Jesus was Jewish]. In fact, I would argue that is the key one of the main keys to understanding him, which is understanding him within the Jewish culture. He didn't come and and live among the Russians or the Americans or the Canadians or the Germans or the South Americans. He came as a Jew in Israel 2,000 years ago.

 This guy does a good job explaining how most Protestant and Catholic Christians really don't understand what it means to be a New Testament Christian. As the guy explains, Jesus was not teaching and promoting Germanized Christianity but lived and died a Jew for Judaism. He was of the tribe of Judah, of the lineage of the Jews, the genetically "chosen people" according to the Hebrew Bible. The guy in the video then talks about how as an ethnically  Irish person he was grafted into the Jewish People, and is thus a kind of Semitic/Jewish Christian.

 The Protestant churches also began to become more feminized in order to market more to women. This is admitted by the Evangelical Christian named Ruslan in his episode titled "Has the Church Become TOO Feminized? (that Premiered Aug 26, 2022). He flat out admits that a lot of Christianity sounds like songs to your "boyfriend Jesus," which of course is awkward for Christian men to think that way. Here is the transcript:

... some women really be like "Jesus is my boyfriend," until I marry, until I meet my guy, Jesus is my husband. Some women like that weird theology. Some of you [Evangelical Christian] guys hold [the view] where you think that book [The Song of Solomon] is about Jesus and the church. ... I'll be honest with you a lot of our [Evangelical Protestant] worship songs, let's keep it [real], they're like love songs to Jesus, right? Think about hymns ... my son [... said, if you] remove the American context, we sing soft rock love songs to Jesus, that is what [Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)] is. If you aren't coming from a paradigm like that and that's predominantly what CCM music is, I think that's very feminized, right? If you can literally take the song and swap out the word Jesus and put the word "baby" or "her," "she," how is that not feminine, right? It's soft music, it's very soft music. Now I think this has gotten better, [... but] generally speaking, a lot of the stuff we sing is very soft; and I think it's difficult for men to sing soft rock love songs to Jesus. We're supposed to love Jesus, we're supposed to have reverence for Jesus. But the songs start feeling like Jesus is your boyfriend, like that's weird and that is because the church has been feminized in my opinion. ....

[The theology and doctrine is an issue as well ...] here's an example take a book like Song of Solomon which is a romance novel, it's a romance book; it's about a man and a woman, that's what that book is about, right; it's about a man and a woman, it's about their love, it's about passion, young Jewish boys weren't allowed to read it until they became a certain age; and there's a weird [Protestant] theology that some of you guys hold, I'm gonna offend some of you guys, [that is] a weird theology some of you guys hold: where you think that book is about Jesus and the Church, and if you take that to its conclusion there's some really weird stuff happening, some sexual stuff happening with Jesus and the Church and where the bride and Jesus is [i.e. the male Christian as the bride and Jesus as the husband of the male-bride are like the couple in the Song of Solomon]. Stop [thinking that]. Those are metaphors, that's a metaphor .... that's not literal, but some of you guys are like I'm gonna get to heaven and have a romantic relationship with Jesus, like it's just weird. Some of this stuff is mad feminine, like let's call it what it is. If you read Song of Solomon [that way about it, it is no] wonder why some men have trouble going to churches. Because you're telling them that you they're going to be a part of something [where they as a man are] going to be Jesus's wife in heaven. Think through this. ...

... the new Israel [is] the church, Gentiles [are] being grafted in, it's beautiful; but it's not a romantic relationship, but that's a lot of the tone and the music around it; and it's okay for women because some women really be like "Jesus is my boyfriend" until I marry, until I meet my guy, Jesus is my husband. Some women are like that, it's much more sensible for women to view Jesus this way. .... So this is real and I didn't make this stuff up, [a lot of] men have been saying this stuff for years. Men have been saying this stuff in church for years and this is why a lot of men have trouble going to church. ... 

A lot of ministry ...  a lot of these churches, the the entire staff [are] women and [there is only a male] pastor or two [... and] some elders, but then all the staff and everything is ran by [women] .... 

... I think that sometimes men, masculine men, [don't like this stuff], men that like to work out, men [that] like to box, men that like to go hunting, men that like to fill in the blank [that are] quote-unquote stereotypically masculine; I'm not saying if you don't do those things you're not masculine. I'm just saying that those things tend to be reserved for a certain type of man.  

This feminization of men is not just a modern trend but is based on some outdated ideas from the New Testament itself, such as men thinking of themselves as "brides of Jesus," as basically thinking Jesus is their "boyfriend" or "fiancée" that supernaturally inseminates them with divine sperm. This is literally what the concept of being a "bride of Jesus" is saying in the original Greek New Testament if you study the words and concepts. See the links below for the biblical scholarship on this if you don't believe me:

• The Divine Sperm (Yes, It's from a Bible Verse!) By Jennifer Arimborgo

• Not by human seed but born from above to become children of God: Johannine metaphor of the family or ancient science? By Jonathan A. Draper

• Gentile Sons and Seed of Abraham | Paul and the Gentile Problem | Oxford Academic

• Jesus’ Breath: A Physiological Analysis of πνεῦμα within Paul’s Letter to the Galatians - Jeremy W. Barrier, 2014

• Green parables, biodiversity, and ecological understanding of Sperma in Matthew 13:3-9 by Gesila Nneka Uzukwu

• The Incorruptible Seed by Artlicursi.com and Part 2 here

•  What Does Being “BORN OF WATER and of the Spirit” Mean?

• ldolphin.org/sperm

When the Gentile received the spirit (pneuma) of Christ, according to Paul this fluid pneuma was literally poured into the person and began a process of swapping out their Gentile DNA for Jesus's Jewish DNA. This whole idea sounded outlandish when I first learned about the concept, but the biblical scholarship is clear on this and can't be denied. So before I continue here are some sources that go into more detail about this "gene swapping" idea that is based on sound biblical scholarship:

• "If Jesus Was Jewish, Why Am I Christian? (Romans 11)" on YouTube

• A Jewish Paul, Matthew Thiessen’s Case for Paul’s Pneumatic Gene Therapy by Clarke Morledge (Also see the book A Jewish Paul by Matthew Thiessen (2023 Edition), chapter 8 "Pneumatic Gene Therapy."

• Youtube video: Episode 26 (October 1, 2023), “A Jewish Paul with Matthew Thiessen”

• YouTube Video: Gentiles as Impure Animals in the Writings of Early Christ Followers by Mathew Thiessen 

• If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul by Caroline Johnson Hodge (pages 12-15, 140-146).

• "YouTube: "Gods Run in the Blood, or, Why Paul's Pagans were not 'Converts'?" by Professor Paula Fredriksen (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

According to Wikipedia the people of Rome were composed “mainly of Latin-speaking Italic people. The Latins were a people with a marked Mediterranean character, related to other neighboring Italic peoples such as the Falisci.” On the page for the Italic peoples it states, "The Italics were an ethnolinguistic group who are identified by their use of the Italic languages, which form one of the branches of Indo-European languages."

These Italic peoples would have had their own genealogy and ethnic lineage and religious heritage and culture. Paul was basically seeking to replace their ethnic and cultural lineage with his Messianic theology. In other words, through his supernatural mystery cult ideology, their entire ethnicity and culture and previous pagan religion of the past would be erased and replaced with a Jewish heritage and identity. 

This is explained, in not exactly the words I use above, on the Data Over Dogma YouTube Channel, on Episode 26 (October 1, 2023), “A Jewish Paul with Matthew Thiessen”: where in this podcast episode, after discussing how Paul was basically embarrassingly wrong about the imminent apocalyptic end-times (the expected very soon return of Christ by Paul which he clearly got wrong), around twenty minutes these biblical scholars then discuss how in Romans 1: 18-32, it is basically Paul "crapping" on non-Jews (Romas) who he describes as inherently sinful or vice-ridden by their ethnic nature as non-Jews; and how pagans trying to be perfect and holy by performing the Torah law codes is not good enough. At 30 minutes, Matthew Thiessen says people don't want to see Paul as actually engaging in ethnic stereotyping in Romans 1: 18-32, but that is what he is doing.


This reminded me of Paul (or a pseudepigraphic author echoing his views) making a prejudicial sounding statement in Titus 1:11-13, where he affirms the words of the Grecian poet Epimenides who said those who resided on the island of Crete (the Cretans) were as a people or nation, “always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”

Back to the podcast, Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that for Paul, the Pagans/Gentiles needed to actually become ethnic Jews themselves. Beginning at 40 minutes, Thiessen basically explains that Paul was being ethnocentric and at 44 minutes he explains that Paul believed that Pagan/Gentiles needed to literally become Abraham's sons (ethnic Jews), his direct seed (meaning of Jewish genetic lineage).


Here is what Thiessen says at the 43-45 minute mark:

… Paul talks about Abraham in both Galatians and in Romans … Paul is adamant [in saying to his Jewish opponents regarding the solution for pagans/gentiles], “Oh yes, you're right, we have to follow Abraham, but you're doing it wrong.” There he makes a really complicated argument in Galatians 3 and 4 … [Paul] doesn't say you don't need Abraham as your father. He actually says, “Yea, you need to have Abraham as your father because God made a whole series of promises to Abraham and to his seed [i.e. Abraham's ethnicity]. [So] if you want those promises you have to become Abrahamic seed and Abrahamic sons to inherit them.” So there is a very, again, ethnocentric, if we want to use that word, I think it's a very dangerous word to use but I don't mind using it about Paul. There is an ethnocentric component that Abraham and [genetic] descent still matter for Paul and genealogy matters. And so the way that Paul creatively gets around it or creatively thinks through it, is Jesus is Abraham's seed through David and if the Messiah's spirit, his pneuma, his stuff, gets into you and you [as a non-Jew] are placed in the Messiah [contained in his Jewish DNA/ethnicity] then you have also taken on a [Jewish] Messianic identity. So you become Messianic, and you become sons and seed [DNA] of Abraham too; and not in sort of like a wishy washy “spiritual way” that we [modern Lutheran/Protestant influenced people] mean it, but spiritual in the way that ancients meant it. This pneuma has been inserted into you. There's a chapter [in my book] where I talk about it as some pneumatic gene therapy. I think Paul is really thinking your genealogy, your whole DNA structure, has changed radically because the spirit of the Messiah [i.e. the pneuma containing Jesus’ Jewish DNA] has invaded your body quite physically. And now you [as a pagan/gentile] got this connection [to Abraham’s Jewish genes] and so then you get everything [an ethnic Jew gets], including resurrection.

In his talk Gentiles as Impure Animals in the Writings of Early Christ Followers, Matthew Thiessen begins at the 2 -8 minute mark by explaining that Mark, Matthew, Luke and Paul are all basically describing non-Jewish gentiles as impure animals. Matthew Thiessen begins by discussing how the Jesus-character in the Gospel of Mark in chapter 7 responds to a person of Greek genetic descent as a dog. He goes on to explain that despite Christian apologetics, this really was in reality a product of Jewish ethnocentrism. Matthew Thiessen goes on to explain that the Gospels actually present Jesus as only going to Jews and not Gentiles, and the woman being called a dog was clearly meant as an ethnic slur. At 8 minutes into the video, Thiessen discusses the Gospel of Matthew and how Matthew carefully edits Mark to remove certain things he doesn't like; but he does not remove the Israelite ethnocentrism. In fact, in chapter 15 of Matthew, he doubles down and contrasts the non-Jewish Greek woman as an impure dog with Israelites as pure sheep. Thus, Jews are holy sheep and gentiles are unholy dogs. 

Note that some scholars argue that Mark 7 and Matthew 15 are intentionally describing Jesus as ethnocentric in order to convey a kind of role model for eventually overcoming such ethnocentrism and being inclusive of Gentiles. These scholars argue that the authors of Mark and Mathew are members of a largely ethnically Jewish group of Jewish-Christians (or Messianic Jews), who have accepted many Gentile converts into their group; while these same Jewish-Christians (or Messianic Jews) are also being rejected by their ethnic Jewish peers for calling Jesus the Messiah. So the authors of Mathew and Mark are sort of torn between appeasing their ethnic Jewish peers by retaining ethnocentric pride in their ethnic Jewishness, yet also wishing to be welcoming of Gentile converts. By describing Jesus as ethnocentric and calling a Greek woman a dog, yet nevertheless Jesus goes on to heal her pagan child due to her faithful respect to the Jews and her belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the overall message is one of: Yes the Jews are the pure Chosen People, seperated from Gentile dogs, yet through Gentiles becoming Jewish through the seed (pneuma) of Jesus, they are welcomed and integrated into Israel. 

At 10 minutes, Thiessen moves on to the Gospel of Luke and Acts. He says that Luke and Acts or Luke-Acts (the product of a single author) is not this safe haven for "Gentile friendly" information as some wish, but instead retains the same ethnocentrism discussed above. Thiessen then goes on to discuss Acts chapter 10, that describes Gentiles as impure animals. Thiessen explains that basically the author of Luke believes that Gentiles are born to be inherently genetically impure just like some zoological animals are impure by their nature. At 14-15 minutes, he explains that for Luke, a gentile is impure or unclean in the same way any other animal is unclean or impure. So that only a new act on the part of the God of Israel could rewrite a gentile's DNA and transform the gentile's formerly genetically impure DNA into Jewish DNA in order to make them pure and holy. According to the Gospel of Mark, there is an essence to Gentile identity that fundamentally distinguishes them from Jews, as they are akin to impure animals and are by nature unfit for incorporation into holy Israel (God's chosen ethnic tribes). 


At 15 minutes, he explains that the woman remains the dog in Matthew 15 because she is genetically impure; but she still benefits from pure Israel. Thiessen explains that the message of these authors is that Gentiles who enter into the Pauline movement remain Gentiles outwardly and thus are not to keep the ethnic aspects of the Jewish Law that apply only to ethnic Jews; yet whereas they were formally impure animals they have become purified and grafted into Israel through "pneumatic gene therapy," which is a process of replacing their non-Jewish DNA with the DNA of the ethnically Jewish Messiah (Jesus). God has basically begun rewriting the DNA of these impure animals (gentiles) so that now they are becoming pure and holy. Paul literally calls his followers "holy ones," translated "saints" in most Bible translations. Gentiles become receptacles of the Holy Spirit (Sacred Pneuma) which transforms them into holy beings with Jewish DNA. 

Side Note: The Gentile was to remain a Gentile and not get circumcised and was not to follow other Jewish ethic rituals because only in the resurrection were they fully transformed into a pure pneumatic body and their former impure Gentile flesh was "taken off" like a buried seed losing its shell in order to fully grow and transform into a "plant-like body," in this case a pneumatic body with new Jewish DNA. In other words, only in death and resurrection does the Gentile then fully "put on" on the new clothing/body composed of the Messiah's pneuma forming a new celestial pure body (see 1 Corinthians 15). This would be why the gentile is not to perform the ethnic Jewish law code because they are not yet fully ethnic Jews even as Christians ("holy ones"). They have only begun to be grafted into Israel through "pneumatic gene therapy," which is only finalized in the resurrection. This would also explain the eucharist (ritually consuming the body and blood of the Jewish Messiah), which was a kind of weekly "medicine," or a supernatural refueling of the messianic Jewish Jesus's pneuma (seed) being re-poured into the Gentile in the eucharist: as part of the ongoing process of pneumatic gene therapy. From this perspective, the eucharist can be seen as a constant reminder of the gentile's impure flesh and their need of this ongoing process of replacing their gentile genes with Israelite genes which is finalized in the resurrection.

At 16 minutes, Thiessen discusses how Paul also uses "dog language" to refer to the Philippians as Paul argues that his opponents are basically gentile dogs in sheep's clothing. In other words, Paul's enemies are called "gentile dogs" as an insult, which he does because they are trying to get his gentile "holy ones" (undergoing a supernatural process of gene swapping/pneumatic gene therapy) to become practitioners of the ethnic Jewish law codes; so Paul is basically saying that his gentiles "in Christ" are not fully Jews yet but still stuck in gentile flesh bodies, so they do not need to follow the ethnic codes of Judaism. They are instead saved with the pneuma of Christ in them and the hope of resurrecting into a new pure celestial body. In criticizing these opponents of his Paul refers to them as dogs.

At 23 minutes, he explains how in the Book of Enoch non-Jewish nations are described as impure animals and in the final end of times or the End of History, it describes the inclusion of gentiles when they are transformed not into white sheep (meaning pure Israelites) in 1 Enoch 93:7-8.

At about 29 minutes, Thiessen explains the meaning of Galatians 3:28 as Paul does not actually distinguish between Gentile dogs and Jewish sheep, but what he is saying is that in the end ultimately those who are in Christ (genetically transformed through the DNA of Christ) become equal with Jews; but while on earth there is still a distinction in kind, because the Gentile is still in a mortal flesh body and still has Gentile DNA mixed with Jesus's Jewish DNA. So only in the finalization of the "pneumatic gene therapy" process does one lose their impure "dog" nature, only in the complete transformation from impure dog/human-flesh to pure sheep/pneumatic-body is one fully formed into a Jewish holy one. Only at one's resurrection does the Gentile's mortal body when laid in the grave, does it then resurrect or sprout the new pneumatic body that rises from the grave.

At 32 minutes, Thiessen goes on to explain that even with the language of being in Christ there is no male or female, Jew nor Gentile, you still have being maintained a distinction in gender roles and different ethnicities while still in the gentile flesh body prior to death and resurrection.

The "Pauline gospel" held to the ideal that a "male-bride of Jesus" was to be unmarried and celibate in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (unless they couldn't control their desire). This was because Paul explained to both female and male followers of his that Jesus was your "only husband" and thus as a male-bride Paul was giving his male followers "as [Jesus'] pure bride [as if a chaste virgin to the groom Jesus]" (2 Cor. 11:2 EXB, words in brackets my own). The Matthean Jesus corroborates this ideal of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7, in Matthew 19:12, where the Matthean Jesus basically says that the ideal is indeed celibacy (being a "eunuch"), but one could marry if they could not handle the purer ideal state of celibacy as virgin bride for Jesus.

 In this blog series I will further explain how, according to the New Testament, non-Jewish pagans (like the Indo-European Roman Italians or Italic peoples) who became first century Christians were expected to magically become "spiritual Semites" according to the New Testament; and how the non-Jewish male was to be thought of a seeded male-bride.