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.
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:
- 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."
If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul by Caroline Johnson Hodge (pages 12-15, 140-146).
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment