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 also respect my Mormon heritage and my Pioneer ancestors. I fully support cultural Christianity that seeks to basically instill the ethic of love thy stranger. 

I want to first make it clear that I don't think there's just one version of Christianity, but instead I see multiple Christianities, not only in the New Testament itself but outside of the Bible among the sects today. 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. I find the version of Christianity taught by John Spong and Marcus Borg to be viable options for being Christians today as they offer a kind of modernized version of Christianity for the thinking person.

What I will be critiquing on this site is what I call Paulianity. By this I mean the authentic writings of Paul and the original Pauline religion started and spread by Paul himself. I am aware of the forged or disputed letters of Paul that changed a lot of the Pauline doctrines. I am also aware that Paul did cause a shift in moral consciousness and did have some positive affect on the moral psychology of the West. I don't see things in either/or categories, Paul and what he said and did for the West is complex. 

At the end of the day, even if one ends up finding Paul problematic. Christianity is more than just the ideas of Paul. 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). In other words, I see differences between the Pauline communities and the Johannine communities. 

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; in other words, there's no need for the non-Jewish person (a Gentile) to be magically transformed into an ethnic Jew through the seed (sperma/genes) of a deceased Rabbi.

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" one finds in 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 mentally ill believing he was possessed by alien forces like Sin, 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 of the mortal-world in his lifetime, his assertion that there are demons flying around in the air causing one to sin (miss the mark) and a space-alien called Sin was invading 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 upon all humanity. Aside from that, yea, lots of good stuff on 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, 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 troubled doomsday preacher 

• Paul's followers were called "holy ones" (Saints or Christians) and they were to ideally try to be celibate as "living sacrifices" (as voluntary martyrs) in that Paul was offering their lives of suffering to his deity 

• Paul preached an ultimately demoralizing and emasculating message for non-Jewish male converts. His core message was that Gentile men (non-Jewish men) needed to die supernaturally in baptism (be buried in the water basically); and then receive a new Jewish genome that replaces their Gentile (e.g. German or Italian) 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 replacing it with Israelite genes. In other words, the Gentile is supernaturally inseminated by a Jewish Messiah as the spirit (pneuma) transforms their DNA from Gentile to Jewish ethnically (turning them into a spiritual Jew) 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 get 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 man-Bride of Christ, as a male you are supernaturally engaged to a man-messiah; 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 the ones performing ultimate acts of masculinity through domination. Paul's followers however were to perform the role of chaste virginal Brides of Christ (inseminated by his genes supernaturally). 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 his/her fiance to marry him/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 delusional (and/or mentally ill) and thought the mortal world was ending in his lifetime. He literally believed that pagans / Gentiles (anyone not Israelite) were basically impure and cursed 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 Gentiles 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 and can become whitish (pure) "sheep," as holy ones. 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 and the Jewish religion. At one point in my life 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.