The Pulling the Thread Podcast

The “two power heresy” is one of many heterodox views in Hellenistic Jewish thought that were amalgamated to form the mythical figure of Jesus in Christianity, distinct from the historical Jesus. The New Testament writers, including Paul, also drew upon the concept of the Memra from Apocryphal books of the Tanakh, which were not accepted by Rabbinic Judaism but circulated in Hellenistic and Enochian Judaism circles. This concept was transformed into the Greek notion of the Logos of Platonism by the redactors of the New Testament. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament do not portray Jesus as a dying and rising god, nor do they mention the resurrection, ascension, or Jesus being the son of God. These elements were later added or redacted by scribes as the theology of divinity evolved.

The earliest followers of Jesus, including his family and brothers, belonged to the Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites, an offshoot of the Essenes. The Ebionites did not believe in Jesus’s resurrection or his status as the Son of God. Similar to the Essenes and Enochian Judaism, they believed that the Messiah would be the “Son of Man” rather than the “Son of God.” The emphasis on Jesus as the “Son of God” arose from Greek and Hellenized Jews and Gentiles who romanticized Jesus and transformed him into a dying and rising deity, contradicting the understanding of the historical Jesus scholars.

The New Testament’s doctrines and the views of Paul were a patchwork of heretical ideas assembled to support the Roman notion of deification. Since many Jews were not following Jesus, these ideas were necessary to create a mythological Jewish figure that would appeal to the Greeks. Similar to the deification of Roman Caesars and Emperors through Apotheosis, the Roman Catholic Church transformed Jesus, a marginalized Jew who sought to be the King Messiah and was executed for his aspirations, into a dying and rising deity. This belief contradicts the beliefs of the early Jewish followers of Jesus.

Additionally, the redactors of the New Testament and early Christian theologians incorporated doctrines like “original sin,” which are rejected by Judaism. There is no evidence that the earliest Jewish Christians believed in original sin either, as the Ebionites viewed Jesus merely as a prophet and did not consider him necessary for salvation. The concept of original sin has been utilized by Christianity to manipulate well-intentioned people by convincing them that they are inherently flawed and can only be fixed through adherence to a specific doctrine. However, this doctrine is rejected by Judaism and the early Jewish followers of Jesus. It appears to have been developed overtime.

The doctrine of Original Sin is a belief that all humans are born with a sinful nature, which is passed down from Adam and Eve. This belief is used to justify the need for salvation. However, there is no evidence to support this belief in the sayings of Jesus sources. In fact, the earliest followers of Jesus did not believe in Original Sin. They believed that Jesus was a prophet, not a deity. The doctrine of Original Sin is also used to create a sense of guilt and shame in people. This can be a very effective way to control people’s behavior. If people believe that they are inherently bad, they will be more likely to obey authority figures who promise to save them from their sinfulness.

Furthermore, the dualistic nature of Christianity has been exploited to create cognitive dissonance, resulting in emotional trauma bonds that bind individuals to the religion. Any questioning of the “faith” is seen as an attack on them. Questioning the faith is perceived as a personal attack due to social conditioning. However, their evidence and facts are being questioned. It is not personal, but to them, since they have been socially conditioned, it feels like an attack. They take on a false “martyrdom” or “persecution” complex, as if they are being attacked. Since they are conditioned with emotionalism, they are not open to sound reasoning. Consequently, character assassination and ad hominem attacks follow as a way to diminish what they perceive as an attack. Additionally, Paul’s teaching of “being a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles” has fostered a culture where deception is sometimes employed for conversion and evangelization purposes.

According to some historical Jesus scholars, Paul’s conversion did not involve following Jesus, his family, or his followers. Instead, if Paul couldn’t coerce them into becoming Hellenized Jews like himself, he purportedly pretended to be one of them in order to convert them to Hellenistic ideas aligned with Roman interests. This interpretation aligns with the content of the Epistle of Peter to James (the secret epistle of James) and the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which refers to Paul as an enemy. The Ebionites considered Paul a heretic and rejected his epistles. Some scholars do not believe the Damascus Road incident was heavenly or divine. They believe it was Paul’s new view to “become a Jew to the Jew and a gentile to gentiles in order to convert some” to his view. He may have seen a new way to influence through assimilation that was more effective than outright oppression.

However, the Roman Catholic Church, as the victors, controlled the narrative and suppressed the teachings of the Ebionites and other Jewish Christians in favor of their own version of events. The book of Acts presents a propagandistic version of Roman Catholicism supporting the apostate heretical version that Rome embraced. Some scholars argue that Paul’s statement of “being a Jew to the Jew and a Gentile to the Gentiles” is an admission of his position and actions.

Moreover, the conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion highlight the problematic layers of redaction and revisionism in the New Testament. Due to these factors, historical critical scholars and textual critics argue that the New Testament is historically unreliable. It is viewed as a theological document that has been modified and revised over time to suit the interests of those in power.

The New Testament is a complex and contradictory document. It has been redacted and revised over time, and it reflects the theological views of the various authors who contributed to it. As a result, it is difficult to use the New Testament as a reliable historical source. The earliest followers of Jesus did not believe in Original Sin or the divinity of Jesus. These beliefs were later developed by Paul and other Christian theologians. The Roman Catholic Church then used these beliefs to create a mythological Jesus who was more palatable to Greek and Roman audiences.