Apostle Paul-His Cosmic Jesus

Ask one of your Christian friends why the Apostle Paul NEVER quotes Jesus, tells a story about his life, his miracles, his teachings or his example and you generally will be met with a look that says...."that's not true." But alas it is. Paul never knew any Jesus in the flesh. He never spent one minute with him, ate no meals with him, and never sat at his feet being taught by him. EVERY time Paul relates how he got something from "the Lord" we have to realize it was in vision or perhaps better yet by hallucination. Doesn't it seem rather odd that the man who is reported to have written most of the deep theology of the New Testament, a man who claimed to be called before birth as only Jesus and Jeremiah were, never met the teacher?

It is obvious Paul was the lone ranger in his ministry. In Galatians 2 he calls Peter, James and John, men who "seemed to be leaders" or "seemed to be important", or "reputed to be pillars". Not the picture of harmony that "Luke" so gingerly tries to portray in the book of Acts. In fact, Luke tells stories about Paul's conversion that Paul himself doesn't tell and contradicts. Whatever the relationship he had with the Jerusalem Church and direct followers of Jesus' physical ministry he ultimately said "those men added NOTHING to my ministry"

Hmmmm, not one given to taking advice or input it seems... Sounds familiar!

If Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, he was like no Pharisee history could recognize. Paul bragged about his Roman citizenship and used it at appropriate times to save his hide but a true Pharisee with Roman citizenship was akin to the President of the United States being a card carrying member of Bin Laden's merry band! Pharisee's hated the Romans and would never be Roman citizens, so we are left to wonder about what kind of a Pharisee he was. It is more likely he was a temple thug or policeman for the Sadducees when he "persecuted" the church. Perhaps a wanna be.

Paul's reasoning was not much like a disciplined Pharisee. In Galatians 3:15 and following he makes the argument that the "promise was to your seed" and then goes on to say this refers to Christ noting that the word "seed" is not the plural "seeds". Hmmmmm, Let's see. The promise is to your sheep...Since the word is not "sheeps" we know it refers to the pastor general and not the church. Nice try Paul, but I'd flunk basic Theology 101 with that argument.

For Paul, Christ was a cosmic experience, not a real person. Perhaps he was dragging a lot of his Hellenistic upbringing into the story. Paul would have grown up in Tarsus with the mythology of Mithras the dying savior god who was also crucified on a Friday, and descended into "hell" and rose three days later. The Gospel story of Jesus, written AFTER Paul had lived, written and died is not a new story... It is, it seems a retelling of the Osiris-Dionysis myth so well known in the cultures of those times. If you are not easily shaken theologically, read The Jesus Mysteries. The pagan origins of literalist Christianity is a more amazing story than we may have once thought! And the duplicity and complicity of the Literalist Church in bringing this mindset into the lives of millions with its threats and fear inducing control, is appalling. "To dare to question a received history is not easy. It is difficult to believe that something that you have been told is true from childhood could actually be a product of falsification and fantasy." (Jesus Mysteries p. 12)

I am not personally afraid of any truth though it be painful. I used to be but no more. Things, it seems, are never quite as they appear and this is true in ALL religious endeavors.

God is always portrayed with many human qualities...anger, judgment, jealousy. He often kills like a human and even seems to change his mind and allow for the keeping of good looking virgins for the troops as long as they have sufficient time to mourn their lost parents. No doubt this change of heart came when one of the troops said... "aw...I can't kill this babe, she is soooooo good lookin, can't we keep these for ourselves."

God....."Well okaaaay......"

God occasionally doesn't seem to know what man or men will do or is surprised when they do something he hadn't counted on. He even regrets starting the whole project but fortunately is able to be talked out of getting rid of the whole lot of humanity. The God of the OT is very human-like indeed. It is difficult for me to know why God needs to be worshipped and for Him to need to hear "holy, holy, holy..." over and over, day and night makes me nervous. And I no longer can identify with the concept of "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin." Why not? Can't we just say "I forgive" and forego the arterial drainage? Sounds rather cultic. In Mithraism converts crouched under the perforated altars where the bulls of Mithras were slain and thus could be "washed in the blood" as it poured down on them. This is a very old concept.

I leave you with two quotes. One you know and one you almost know and let you be the judge as to what else might be going on with Christianity and that which Pastors can't say.

"Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you have not life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live in me and I in him."

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

The first quote is from the writer of John put in the mouth of Jesus...

The second quote is from the writer of the Mysteries of Mithras.

Christianity is not a unique divine intervention. It came to us as all things do, slowly and through the process of evolution and political intrigue. Literalist Christianity is a house on sand, familiar and comfortable to be sure, but on shaky ground.

I reject shame, guilt and fear based religion. I encourage you to do the same and become at peace with yourself.