I think it goes without saying that in an enlightened and intellectual society most people would immediately recognize whether a quote was factual and attributable to the person referenced or not. Please don’t get me started on all of the supposed quotes from personages such as Sokrates or Platon (yes, I use the correct Greek names here). Thus, it stands to reason – it actually seems all too obvious – that we do not live in an enlightened and intellectual society. This is obvious because such quotes are rampant, and few have the knowledge to discern whether they are real and properly attributed or not.

This leads us to the quote of the day (actually made a few days ago, but it is still lingering around), made by Sen. Josh Hawley and attributed to Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. Not only have fact checkers shown that the quote cannot be attributed to Patrick Henry, but also that the sentiment expressed therein is contrary to what our founders envisioned. But, frankly, what can we expect from someone who gave a power sign to January 6th insurrectionists (albeit prior to their insurrectionist acts), encouraging them and who, by all accounts, can be classed as a Christian nationalist (and who would likely accept that title with pride)?

The frank fact of the matter is that this quote DOES express exactly the sentiment that many hold today because of misinformation – a sentiment which many wish to see as reality in this nation today. Thus, they try to use skewed history in order to facilitate their aims. Please allow me to break it down for the reader.

The first thing they are attempting to do is to skew history in such a way as to have everyone believe that freedom of religion only applies to Christians. Thus, they will state mindless things such as “peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. When their rhetoric constantly expresses the belief that our laws and even our Constitution are based on Christianity, this is where they are heading, making everyone who is not a Christian a second-class citizen at best. It is no misstatement that our founders were indeed Christians, for the most part. But the problem lies in the inference that our founders expected everyone to be Christians and that they expected history to follow suit in that everyone would remain Christian. And, frankly, if there were a few people of other faiths, such as Judaism, that would be no issue. Rule by Christians would benefit them too, it is thought. But that is the real point – it is alleged that our founders wanted Christian rule! No one else was to hold any level of political power or societal status, period. And even non-Christians would be fine with this because Christian rule would benefit them too.

To get there they not only misquote founders and others, but they, well, they have quit trying to say that separation of church and state was not a concept and have instead proceeded to say that it was and is a concept, but that it means that the state (i.e., the federal government) cannot interfere in religious affairs, but the Church CAN exert influence over government. And this is exactly what would happen if we had Christian rule. Of course, these people always overlook the fact that medieval and early modern Europe HAD Christian rule. Christian rule is presumed to be moral in their eyes. But an examination of it in European history shows a bit less morality than they wish for most to have knowledge of. The main point being that our founders understood what Christian rule was all about, so they elected to have neither a monarchy or a theocracy.

Let me drill this in just a bit more, please. Most people today – even those who know very little history – understand that we as a nation rejected the notion of monarchy and, thus, established a republican form of government with a president, not a king. For most people, that is not even a question. Sadly, there are a few today, however, who would establish a monarchy here – or, better put, a dictatorship, because that is what a monarchy really is, after all. They would allow the branches of government to remain, but all real power would be vested in the executive branch and the President if they had their way, trust me. Why? Because that is the way it always was, with very few exceptions, all the way from Constantine to the ending of the medieval world. Ever notice that democracy is just not a concept in the Bible? See, “God’s” form of government is kingship. Never mind that he supposedly told the Israelites that they would regret having a king. The only form of government being considered was in fact kingship. And that is exactly why medieval Europe always had either kings or emperors. They followed the biblical model.

But to twist history even further, some pseudo-historians have even begun calling the time of the Judges in Israel their period of so-called “democracy”. In so many words, these pseudo-historians would have everyone believe that it was not, in fact, the Greek Athenians who invented democracy, but it was instead the Israelites during the period of the Judges. I kid you not! Yet, these same pseudo-historians still adhere to the notion of a theocracy, which is, in fact, what the time of the Judges, more or less, was. It was, in short, a theocracy without a king. But once Israel selected a king, then it became a full theocracy. And THAT is what we had in medieval Europe! Those who don’t understand our history today do actually look to medieval Europe as a sort of standard. They don’t understand that our founders saw the flaws of theocratic government and shunned it in favor of a government by and for the people.

OK, so, again, their first priority has been to skew history so that most people today won’t understand that our founders were establishing a republican form of government exactly so that we would NOT have a king. Now, this leads directly to the concept of separation of church and state. Let me begin by asking a question. What would be the point of establishing a democratic form of government based on a certain religion – any religion or even the concept of religion to begin with? Put another way, how could a theocracy be created without a king or an emperor to keep it established? The point being that establishing a theocracy would make no sense at all if it was not coupled with strong leadership centered in one person who would keep it intact. In case no one has noticed, theocracies don’t work without a king or an emperor. They can’t hold together and continue to function. Why? Because inevitably rule by the many means that there will always be differing opinions and differing beliefs which will sometimes come into conflict. Thus, if you have, say, Pentecostals and Catholics in the same government they are naturally going to differ quite often. But if you have a Christian king or emperor, everyone has to acquiesce to him at all times no matter their beliefs.

Let me repeat again, please, theocracies do not work without strong rulers. Now, one may point out that, for example, the Roman Republic was a theocracy, and they would be correct. It was indeed a theocracy – and it was politically weak too. Its strongest point was its military. So, what happened? A military general – Gaius Iulius Caesar – took the reins of power over and above the objections of the Senate, thus solidifying rule by one person, a dictator, and making the Senate even weaker than it already was. He was both Pontifex Maximus and, in reality, sole ruler, albeit briefly. But his chosen successor, Octavian, was able to consolidate everything and make it all work. The Roman Republic was politically weak and could not have continued as a theocratic state without the establishment of an emperor. For better or for worse, that is what happened. The concept of separation of religion and state never occurred to the Roman. Freedom of religion did, but separation did not. And, in fact, no state or nation in all of recorded history had ever – ever – existed without an established religion until our founders made it so here!

So, the fact of the matter is that, knowing these things, our founders established a republican form of government WITHOUT establishing a religion! Our founders did not want an established religion of any kind in this country and, so, they effectively separated church and state even if no documents actually used the phrase. If they had wanted an established religion that would have been simple enough for them to have done. Even IF they had said that Christianity, in whatever form it would take, was to be the established religion, they would have understood from history that in order to do so they would have had to have established a kingship also. The point being that if they had wanted a theocracy, they would inevitably have established a kingship. There literally is no way around this. But instead, they made the executive branch of government the weakest branch! Really, the only real power the President had at first was as Commander in Chief. Not so today. I have often said that the President has too much power today and I stand by that statement regardless of the circus that the other branches often can be.

So, we should now understand that our founders did NOT want a theocracy any more than they wanted a kingship. In short, they did not want religious rule which logically means that they did not want Christian rule only. Yes, they did want government and the populace to adhere to good Christian morals and values, but not because they would be imposed by “Christian” government officials.

But another part of the reason that separation of church and state is a valid concept, and that it DOES mean that the state cannot impose a religion on the populace, is that it was already happening in the Colonies. Well, at least most of them. But some Colonies, such as North Carolina, did not have an established religion, so no particular form of worship was being imposed on the population there. Many, many, people left Virginia for the Carolinas exactly for this reason. Colonies such as Virginia were already effectively theocracies. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were being formed, this issue was naturally in the minds of those who were selected as delegates. No other state wanted to have the religion of another state imposed upon it and its citizens. Thus, the entire concept of a state religion, whether it was to have to do with individual states or the entire country, was effectively wiped out here. Notice that following the Revolution no state actually had a state religion, at least for long. Contrary to the way certain pseudo-historians would have everyone believe, no religion was being imposed in any way upon the populace. Theocracy in this nation ceased, period. The only thing left to do was to state that “Congress” could not impose religion upon anyone AND to establish that no religious “litmus test” could be used to determine the worthiness of any political candidate. They didn’t have to reiterate that states could not impose their own religions.

Pseudo-historians will point out that many state constitutions referred to God and to religion. But they fail to mention, for example, that even in Tennessee until this very year ministers of the gospel were barred from serving in the state legislature! But sadly, they changed that by vote this year.

Now, let us please proceed to the concept of state’s rights. To some degree, I actually agree with this concept in principle. That is, to the extent that the federal government cannot enforce laws contrary to the laws of a given state within the borders of that state. So far, the concept has worked fairly well, with some exceptions – the main exception being with reference to slavery – and we know how that turned out. As it turns out, freedom has to be for everyone, not just some.

Still, the pseudo-historian will apply the concept of state’s rights to religion, and this is where it will get really interesting if I am not mistaken. See, even if “Congress” cannot pass any law establishing a religion, the pseudo-historians are already implying that states can! In their conceptual world, any given state could, in fact, make laws that state that ONLY Christians could run for public office, be teachers, or any number of other things. And they could conceivably go even further by mandating that only certain kinds of Christians in any given state would be acceptable. Thus, even some Christians would be left out! So, in their world, not only can any given state make abortion illegal, but they could make being a Christian a prerequisite for holding public office, etc. In such a world, inevitably, only Christians would be elected to positions in the federal government too because they would have already been vetted by their states. Thus, Christian rule would be imposed upon the entire nation, not by Congress directly, but by the laws of each individual state. And then, my friends, we would have a theocracy. But, of course, we would need a strong leader to keep it all together and functioning now, wouldn’t we? Enter those who would have the President function effectively as a dictator and it all comes together.

When you hear televangelist-types talk about a certain politician, ahem, stating how great he has been for Israel and for Christianity and at the same time stating that they literally don’t care about his morals (and they do say this) because of all the good he has done in both realms, realize that they are not about the gospel, they are only about politics and that he is their chosen Christian dictator who would impose their views on everyone else. All of them have the very same agenda – the televangelist-types, the pseudo-historians, the fake journalists, and the wacky politicians. They want a theocracy here in THIS nation and they will literally do and say anything to make that happen!

Well, recently Brazillians democratically voted to oust their former ultra-conservative leader, President Jair Bolsonaro (whom evangelicals compared to Trump), replacing him with a much more liberal new president, Lula da Silva. Now, I really don’t get into South American politics, per se, and am only concerned with it to the extent that I, like many, prefer to see more democratic governments across the globe. That said, there are a host of others whom one might think would prefer the same thing, but they don’t. To put it another way, one might expect most Christians, especially American Evangelicals, to prefer democratic governments over authoritarian régimes. But, sadly, if their supposed “leaders” are any indication, they generally don’t. The reason for this is that a relatively new errant theology has been developed which allows these types of Christians to see dictators as good so long as they supposedly support “Christian values”. In short, Christian dictators (even if they really aren’t, but still support evangelical causes) are perfectly OK with these people. This errant theology, then, refers to any nation that has such a leader as a sheep nation, while all the rest are referred to as goat nations. So, if you follow this theology, then the natural conclusion here is that Brazil has suddenly become a goat nation, bound to be judged harshly by Christ when he returns! And, frankly, the US is in the same boat, in their view, after electing President Biden, whom some repeatedly refer to as evil and bound toward deliberately destroying this nation.

But where could such an errant theological construct come from? It comes from Matthew 25: 31-46. In this passage it is explained that upon Christ’s return he will separate people, some on one hand and some on the other. Those on his right hand are referred to as sheep, and those on his left hand are referred to as goats. Tracking so far? If you replied, “not really”, good for you! Why? Because this is exactly why I refer to their theological construct as errant. See, the passage states, in part, ³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left” (NASB). Notice that the passage, in verse 32, clearly states that he will separate the “people” into two groups, not the nations. But, those who hold to this theology take the reference to nations earlier in verse 32 as meaning entities with national boundaries like we have today. But any real biblical scholar will tell you that the word translated as “nations” here does NOT mean that. It means all of those people and tribes who are outside of Israel. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with national boundaries, modern or otherwise.

The Greek word used here is (ἔθνη) “ethne”, from which we get the words ethnic, ethnicity, etc. It could also be translated as “race” or “races”. The τὰ ἔθνη were the Gentiles so often referred to. Any foreigner – any non-Hebrew of non-Jew was a foreigner and, therefore, τὰ ἔθνη. Frankly, I have always felt that the word would better be translated as “foreigner” or “foreigners” in all passages. But that’s just me.

Regardless, the passage is clearly speaking of people, not nationalistic borders with people in them. And, therefore, they are not being separated according to national borders, but according to their works. Because the passage further states, ³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me'”, etc. No one is being judged because of what their national leader may or may not have done. This is an individual judgment.

Just like Matthew 24, evangelicals, especially the televangelists, have developed and perpetrated this errant theology so much that most who are a part of the evangelical movement have come to accept this without actually READING it. Evangelical leaders and televangelists have totally misconstrued both chapters for purely political reasons to keep their “sheep” on the ultra-conservative side, to their own detriment and to the detriment of everyone else.

You know, they often say “you can’t make this up”. Yet, when such a statement is made one already knows it is often about something that is indeed made-up. Such appears, at least, to be the case with reference to the following. In this case I will not provide a book title or author’s name simply because I would prefer not to advertise either in any way. There is such a nyriad of “Christian” books, asserting wild and ridiculous claims out there already that it would only add to the already prevailing confusion. The information presented here will do enough toward that end.

But, how to even begin? The reason I ask that question is literally because the information to be presented here is so wild and “out there” that it is difficult to know where to begin to take any of it apart. But, let me first begin with one fact. For those who don’t already know, I studied theology for many years and hold multiple degrees in the subject. So, when I state (as I will) that I have never heard of this or that, I literally mean that not only have I never run across this or that piece of information in my years of study, but I also could not find it in a diligent search of the internet today.

OK, so there is now a book out that proposes to tell the real story of Christmas and the Nativity. Now, scholars, like myself, know that there are conflicting accounts of whatever may have taken place even in the gospels, not to mention in early Christian writings. These conflicts are not really so easily resolved. Yet, Christians generally have come up with a composit story to fit the narrative anyway. It basically goes like this; Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be counted in the census so that they could be properly taxed. While there, Jesus was born in a manger, a stable, a cave, or an inn, depending upon whichever version one prefers. The wise men, of Magi, arrived to find their king and give him gifts after which an angel told Joseph to flee into Egypt to get away from Herod. Oh, and angels showed themselves to shepherds in the field and announced the savior’s birth to them.

It gets all wrapped up into one story these days, and has for a long time. The one thing that the author in question gets right is that this narrative is generally false because all of these things did not happen at once, according to the gospels. So, obviously, he gets credit for pointing that out. Not that it matters a whit to anyone these days celebrating Christmas. But the reason I came up with the title to this piece is that the author literally expands the story into something that any reasonable observer would know could not possibly be true. The story he presents is so over the top that one might think that just about anyone would recognize this. And, this even though the biblical story itself is way over the top already. There is literally no need to add to it! But, that is what is taking place here, the author explaining that it comes from years of research on his part. Well, I already know the types of sources he would have to be using for this, if any, and they would mostly be considered unreliable among scholars mainly because their writings would not be anywhere close to contemporary with the gospel writings. But we don’t have to dwell on the author’s supposed sources here anyway.

Thus, the first glaring statement made by the author that I wish to present here is probably the wildest, and most ludicrous, of all. First, think for a moment about the gospel accounts. Any scholar today knows that the original texts did not use the term “wise men” for the men from the East who supposedly followed a star around until they found Jesus and presente him with gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The story goes that when they arrived in Jerusalem, they first went to see Herod and asked where the child could be found. Herod, not knowing, but being very suspicious, instructed them to continue looking for him and report back to him when they had found him. But, they didn’t report back to him and the family fled to Egypt until Herod’s death. So far, so good.

Now for the author’s expansion of the story acording to whatever sources he may have found, which he verbally told to Jim Bakker today. The author states – without alluding to the fact that the Magi were priests of the Zoroastrian religion – that these Magi, who could have been as many as twelve altogether (somehow three is preposterous) brought with them vast amounts of each of the three items in question and presented them all to Jesus because they had to give him wealth equivalent to his true status – they being able to afford this because they were the richest people on the earth at that time anyway. So, they didn’t present Jesus with just three small boxes of each item, but instead had so much that they had to have a virtual army to guard both them and the vast treasure on the way to see Jesus! And, so, finding Jesus and his parents in a cave which was used to shelter animals, they presented him with this untold vast amount of wealth!

Aside from the fact that it has always been problematic that Zoroastrian priests would somehow know and accept who Jesus was when everyone else on earth either rejected him, or had to be trained to understand who he was during his lifetime, the author expects the potential reader of his new book to accept that these Magi traveled a vast distance, laden with an untold amount of wealth through hostile territory, guarded by a virtual army, and first went to Herod asking where Jesus was and then presented him with all of this wealth while he lay in a cave! Oh, I forgot, the arrival of the Magi, according to the author, took place two years after Jesus’ birth, so he was no longer in the cave. So says the author anyway.

But the latter doesn’t really matter, does it? After all, no one today really cares exactly when this even took place when celebrating Christmas. Right? But the author continues by stating that Jerusalem was in an uproar over their arrival, and that Herod was greatly concerned too with so many people suddenly arriving in Jerusalem (he seems to have forgotten that if it was two years after the birth of Jesus it was during a time when Jerusalem would have been filled with people already, celebrating one of their holy times). Well, naturally he would be if this scenario was possible! But the author seems to miss something else here. If such a caravan was about to arrive in Jerusalem they would have been seen and known about while they were still very far away. Scouts would have seen them and Herod’s army would have been prepared to protect the city from them.

It’s bad enough to believe that “wise men” would go up to King Herod and ask him where the new baby king was to be found; but to believe that they brought a foreign army and untold treasure with them as they did it is beyond the pale. On top of that, to believe that Herod would have simply told them to search for the baby and bring back word of his location is just beyond outlandish! Herod would have been much more likely to have had them executed on the spot, and confiscated their treasure. No foreign army would have been allowed into the city!

Beyond all of this, the author continues that Joseph was already wealthy anyway because his work would have been in high demand. I’m not making this up. Regardless, we are to believe that the already wealthy Joseph, and his young wife, Mary, were therefore already wealthy and that they accepted a horde of treasure from priests of a foreign religion who understood somehow who Jesus really was when no one else but Mary did. Then they had to flee to Egypt with all of it and await Herod’s death. And, by the way, years later when one of the Apostles was traveling to India to spread the gospel he first found the Magi on his way and preached to them, converting them and baptizing them. Why this was necessary when they supposedly already knew who Jesus was to begin with is unclear. Again, I have never run across any of this in my years of study – none of it.

Oh, did I mention Mary? If the above scene is not bizarre enough let’s also have a Mary who fully understood practically all of her life what her role would be and, so, when the angel came to her and told her that she would bear the Messiah, she was ready and complied. How could this be the case, you ask? Well, see her parents knew, somehow, and instilled within her from an early age that she would be given some important spiritual task. So, when the time came she simply complied. Of course, the author repeatedly referred not only to Mary as a young woman of 12-14 years of age, which is probably accurate, but also referred to Joseph multiple times as a young man. But all accounts and scholarly concensuses have always referred to Joseph as just a bit older (around thirty, at least), probably already having children by a previous marriage, who were Jesus’ half-siblings.

I’m not quite sure why the author proposes that Joseph was a young man. However, the author does make a big deal about the supposed fact that both Joseph and Mary were of the Davidic line. Thus, in the author’s mind, this made Jesus the legitimate heir to David’s throne. The obvious problem with this, of course, is that any male child descended from David patrilineally would have had a legitimate claim to the throne. Oh, did we forget that Joseph was supposedly not the real father of Jesus? Descent from Mary only simply would not cut it. It would be helpful if there were none who could claim patrilineal descent, but that’s all. Regardless, somehow descent through both Jesus’ step-father and his mother made Jesus THE legitimate heir. And Herod would have somehow recognized this.

Oh, and now we can get to something that has always been one my favorite Christmas themes – swaddling clothes. Growing up I recall every year the reading of the Nativity account and the mention of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, as if that was cute and one should react, “awwww, isn’t that sweet!” In my studies later in life I came to understand, via scholarship, that swaddling clothes were pieces of cloth that ALL babies were wrapped in, sort of like a diaper plus some. Basically, they were meant to keep the newborn from squirming around too much. So, when the shepherds were told by the angels to look for a baby in a manger (still) wearing swaddling clothes, that made perfect sense. So, again, ALL newborns would have been wrapped in such bandages and, therefore, that would not have been in the least unusual. But that is what the shepherds had to look for.

How strange it would have been if it had been, say, unusual to wrap a baby in such strips of cloth and for shepherds to be told to look for that! But, that is exactly what some modern scholars (I found one on-line today), including this author, have proposed. Their alternate proposal is that the place where the baby Jesus was born was in a cave next to the field in which the shepherds brought up lambs for sacrificial slaughter. These lambs, when newborn, were supposedly wrapped in strips of cloth so that they would not thrash around as they were laid on the stone manger to be inspected by priests to see if they had any blemishes on them. Now, while this general scenario is indeed possible, I have never heard of animals being wrapped in anything referred to as “clothes” in ancient times. We dress up pets sometimes today in pet clothes, but they didn’t do that in ancient times. And, indeed, IF this scenario is to be seen as correct, then the shepherds would have seen it as quite crazy to find a baby wrapped in the same cloth strips they used for lambs! In fact, they would likely have accused the supposedly already rich holy family of theft! Need I say that I have never heard of this either before?

The real symbolism, if there is any here, that the author and some scholars have obviously missed, is that soon after birth Jesus was anointed and wrapped in swaddling clothes, i.e, strips of cloth, just as he would be anointed and wrapped in bandages, i.e, strips of cloth, after his crucifixion, both birth and death really being the same.

Finally, even though there is more, I will end with this. The author also proposes that, first, there were innumerable angels who came down and announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds. But he also gives us a reason why that was the case. See, apparently the angels were a bit curious themselves. The author sates that no angel had been allowed to see the face of god up to that point. So, once Jesus was born, they came down to see the face of god.

One thing I have learned throughout the years is that belief is almost always predicated on the sensational and the outlandish. The more ludicrous a story is, the more people will believe it. I mean, if it makes sense, no one wants to believe it. Trust me on that. And, happy holidays.

I have come increasingly to the realization that most people have this “head up in the sky” attitude about religion. What I mean by that is that most people appear to think that the religion they believe in or practice has some direct, unbroken, connection to the ancient past. Basically, they see their own religion as either unchanged, or changed very little, from the ancient past. And that includes people from all religious persuasions, denominations, sects, cults, or whatever. And, obviously, all think they are perfectly right.

What really prompted me thinking about this more than usual was the looming possibility of another war, perhaps a world war. We are dangerously close to a war that would be very, very costly in many ways. But few ever stop to think about how war itself tends to change religion, and that this is one actual cost or casualty of war. For those who either don’t know already where I am going with this, or who only vaguely see where this is leading, the blunt point is that war changes religion and that it really does not remain intact in its given form following major armed conflicts.

Now, obviously, there are many reasons for a religion to evolve, so war is only one of them. But my point today is to emphasize the role of war in changing religion precisely because few seem to think about this. And also the fact that war can be one of the greatest reasons why a religion would find it necessary to change and evolve in order to survive. Are there those who tenaciously hold to a given religious perspective or persuasion regardless of circumstance? Yes. However, the historical trend is that these people wind up as a distinct minority, very often virtually forgotten by the rest of the world. The Mandaeans might be one example of such a trend.

Anyone who has done very much study and scholarly research on the subject can readily attest to the fact that, following the Roman occupation of Greece, the temples and oracles, along with the sacred mystery enactments, tended to slowly decline. Whereas once upon a time the Oracle at Delphoi, for example, was THE place to go to consult about just about everything, for all practical purposes, after Roman occupation it became less and less sought until it virtually ceased to function prior to being forcibly closed by Christian tyrants. And the polytheistic religious practices of old had also deteriorated until laws were enacted making participating in any of them punishable by all sorts of cruelties.

This same general trend took place, not just in Greece, but practically everywhere else too. And the real initial cause for it was simply war. When Greece was in the ascendency, Greek/Hellenic religion flourished, albeit in an already changed fashion following the conquests of Alexander the Great. But once Greece was defeated and subjugated, her religion went into decline. And because of the genocidal repression of her religion and people by late Roman and Byzantine despots, her religion became virtually non-existent. In some ways it morphed into the type of Christianity found there today. But the actual religion really no longer existed.

Having stated these things, it is not Greece or Hellenic religion that is my focus here, precisely because that ancient religion did cease to exist. Some of us are working to sort-of recreate it today, but it will never be the same religion no matter what we do. It can’t be exactly because, to recreate it, one would necessarily have to rebuild all of the ancient religions centres in Greece, for example. It saimply can’t be done, at least within our lifetimes.

No, in this blog I wish to actually focus on Judaism primarily, and American Christianity to a lesser degree. And the focal point from which I wish to draw will be 70 CE. Those who have studied even a little bit know that Christianity was a nascent religion at that time. In fact, it had yet to fully break away from Judaism proper. It was literally still a branch of Judaism. Of course, internal religious conflicts and squabbles led to a slow break-away.

All that said, one should already be able to discern (even without previous study) that I have alluded to the fact that Judaism itself was hardly monolithic. People today have a bad tendency to see both Christianity and Judaism in this stage as monolithic religions without much, if any, dissent. But that was far, far from the case. Still, regardless of these facts, whatever it was that existed of both religions, as it were, prior to 70 CE basically no longer exists today, no matter what some purists or fundamentalists may think. And that is exactly because the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, which was the center of both.

Because of this, both religions had to evolve, and do so separately – the split already taking place in any case. Frankly, the only reason that Judaism itself likely survived is exactly because the Romans allowed it to happen. Their genocidal effort toward wiping out Judaism and the Jewish people was really almost successful. And whereas it wasn’t so much successful in 70 CE under Vespasian and Titus, it was later in 135 CE under Hadrian. As I stated, the Romans essentially allowed its survival, though, because a certain Jewish Rabbi managed to persuade Vespasian to allow him to leave in peace and establish a religious school elsewhere. It is from THIS that most of modern-day Judaism springs, and it is NOT very much like that which existed in Jerusalem and elsewhere prior to 70 CE.

As for nascent Christianity, it had already taken root in so many other places that it had an advantage on survivability (not that Judaism had not done the same, but Christianity was, in a way, better able to continue to function mostly intact without Jerusalem. Christianity had almost outgrown Jerusalem by then). But it was still forced to change even more because of this war.

Now, over the past two-thousand plus years, both religions have changed a rather great deal. Actually, that is an understatement. If someone from 70 CE were to observe either today, they would hardly recognize them. Oh, some sects and denominations do somewhat of a better job at reproducing whatever they deem as “original” than others, but no one gets it quite right, trust me. But, in the greater scheme of things, that in and of itself really doesn’t matter anyway. It only matters to the purist and the fundamentalist.

But, let’s be clear. Both Judaism and Christianity changed after 70 CE. Frankly, Judaism itself changed following both the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests too. That which existed in 70 CE was quite unlike what we are finding via archaeology existed prior to either of these conquests. After all, YHWH no longer had a consort or was represented by a bull.

In conclusion, to get to the real point of all of this, the spectre of war that looms over us today – if it happens – could very well not only seal the fate of our nation, but also of American Christianity itself. And it is my opinion that American Christianity, in whatever form it may survive, will likely be even more radical than that which exists today. The reason for this is because the survivors will be able to point to their so-called “prophecies” of doom and gloom and say that they were right.

I have often said that it really didn’t take a prophet (or prophets) to predict that the Assyrians or Babylonians would come down and destroy Israel or Judah. Anyone should have been able to see that. But, since their predictions were put down in writing, they get credit for having warned those people. Today, it doesn’t take a prophet to predict that some war or another, probably a major one, will likely soon break out. It may even be one that will spell our own demise. But, since there is a parade of people claiming to be prophets predicting such, they will inevitably get the credit for having warned everyone. And from this the new form of Christianity will spring. This will be necessary for its survival. And in one or two hundred years, it won’t even look like whatever we have today. But it will still calim direct, causal descent from that which exists today. Trust me on this.

Not what I intended to write about here today, but going to. Of late I have had increasing trouble going to check on the status of my Amazon and Kindle books, and today I have had enormous difficulty even finding this site so that I could post something new. Attempting to find this website on any search, even when typing in a complete http://www.wordpress.com search, leads to multiple other sites, mostly including wordpress.org, which is NOT the same thing. These two issues lead me to conclude that someone has made a real effort to eliminate any traffic to any of the resources I use to write (and I suspect this will be true of other Pagans and witches). Well, at least for now, I found another way to access my own blogsite, no thanks to those who take it upon themselves to try and decide for everyone else what they can and cannot read. End of rant, for now.

On this date, August 22, 2022, an airing of the second installment of the Jim Bakker Show with guest Jonathan Cahn took place. It should first be stated that this is not the first time Mr. Cahn has been a guest on said program, nor will it likely be the last. This date being a Monday, the previous airing with him as guest in this sequence took place the previous Friday. On that date Mr. Cahn introduced his new book, which Jim Bakker repeatedly labeled as already a “best seller” (which I doubt to be the case), entitled “The Return of the Gods”. Excerpts from the book’s explanation on Amazon follow:

“Is it possible that behind what is taking place in America and the world lies a mystery that goes back to the gods of the ancient world…and that they now have returned? . . . The mystery involves the gods. Who are they? What are they? And is it possible that these beings, whose origins are from ancient times, are the unseen catalysts of modern culture? Is it possible that these gods lie behind the most pivotal events, forces, and movements taking place in our nation and around the world at this very moment? Are the gods at this very moment transforming our culture, our children, our lives, and America itself? Could this mystery have even determined the exact days on which Supreme Court decisions had to be handed down? What is the Dark Trinity? Who is the Possessor?  The Enchanter? The Destroyer? And the Sorceress? Could a sign that has appeared all over America and the world be linked to the gods of Mesopotamia? And if so, what does it actually mean? Could the gods have returned to New York City and an ancient mythology played out on the streets in real time? Is it possible that the gods lie behind everything from what appears on our computer monitors, our televisions and movie screens; to the lessons given in our classrooms; to the breakdown of the family; to wokism; to the occult; to our addictions; to the Supreme Court; to cancel culture; to children’s cartoons; to every force and factor that has transformed the parameters of gender; to that which appears in our stores, on our T-shirts, and on our coffee mugs—to that which is, at this very moment, transforming America and much of the world?  Is it possible that behind all these things are ancient mysteries that go back to the Middle East and ancient Mesopotamia? Is it possible that the gods are even affecting your life right now?  How can you recognize it?  And what can you do about it?”

This excerpt, as well as comments made by Cahn and Bakker, will form the basis of my response. Let it first be said that I really wanted to ignore this because I have seen and listened to Mr. Cahn, with his wild viewpoints, several times on previous occasions on this very show. He is among those that I simply can’t believe anyone follows or takes seriously. Yet, he is a best-selling author, apparently (I have seen no stats myself).

And I will tell the readers what else I have not seen. I have seen NO credentials for Mr. Cahn. Not only does he apparently possess no educational credentials for any kind of ministry, as far as I can tell, but he also appears to possess absolutely NO credentials for calling himself a Rabbi either. Now, people need to understand that today’s Judaism takes the education of its Rabbis very seriously. It is not at all easy to become a Jewish Rabbi. It takes YEARS of intensive study and contemplation. But things are different for those who wish to call themselves “Messianic (i.e., “Christian”) Rabbis (for he is far from the only one). No, for them it seems that the ONLY qualifications are Jewish ancestry and adherence to some form of Christianity. It seems that literally anyone who comes from a Jewish family who converts to Christianity can march around calling themselves a Rabbi! For those who don’t understand how they rationalize this, it’s rather easy. Jesus had no known formal education as a Rabbi either; yet people apparently referred to him as such (although, frankly, the term used did not necessarily mean an actual, educated Rabbi, it simply meant “teacher”). In any case, Mr. Cahn is no Rabbi and has no credentials to be teaching any form of theology at all (I do, by the way). Yet, he has a following.

I really don’t have the time or the disposition to get into all of Mr. Cahn’s wild imaginings and ramblings, which would make a hippie psychedelic trip seem like a boring Mennonite church service. So, let’s get to the nitty-gritty, shall we? Mr. Cahn proposes that the ancient deities were actually real, but it is unclear by his speech if he considers them to have been demons themselves, or if they simply had minions that were demons. Either way, he makes it a point that they were all evil and up to no good, wanting only the destruction of humankind. And he directly claims that because all ancient societies, except for Israel, were polytheistic and, therefore, worshipped these entities – these gods (whatever they were and are) – that all of these ancient societies were by default demon-possessed.

Now, please just think about that on a rational level for one moment, if you will. Every society in the ancient world was possessed by and guided by demons and evil gods which, by default, literally means that every person who lived in said societies along with every single thing they did had to be evil. So, by extension, then, the great civilizations of Egypt, Greece, and Rome (which I haven’t heard him mention yet), along with that of ancient Mesopotamia (which he has mentioned), had to be evil. Every person who lived in those civilizations – Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Galen – you name them – along with every single thing they did – the creation of democracy itself and/or the republican form of government (which our own government has been modeled on from our very beginning) – all of that had and has to be evil because demons and evil gods inspired it all. For the reader’s understanding here, even the Bible doesn’t go that far.

Thus, to the proposed question “[i]s it possible that behind what is taking place in America and the world lies a mystery that goes back to the gods of the ancient world…and that they now have returned?”, the obvious answer for Mr. Cahn is “yes, they have returned”. Of course, you really have to be a little bit quirky, in my view, to even propose that ancient gods have somehow “returned”, as if they had gone somewhere else and are suddenly back. But, I suggest that this very construction demonstrates his lack of theological training. It seems to me that no actual theologian would even consider proposing such a scenario. But he makes it even worse, as stated on the Jim Bakker Show, by comparing this supposed return to the parable of Jesus in which Jesus speaks of someone who had been demon-possessed, but who had become well and healed from this, only to become possessed yet again later. Matthew 12:43-45 reads:

“43 Now when the unclean spirit comes out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they come in and live there; and the last condition of that person becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.”

Here, Cahn expands a parable that is clearly about an individual person (and has nothing whatsoever to do with the present time) as an example, into a parable meant for the nations, specifically the USA. Of course, this isn’t the only biblical passage that is routinely taken out of context by so many, and expanded into something that is supposed to have present national implications. This is a new characteristic of end-times biblical “experts”. In so many words, not only is this not a standard interpretation, it isn’t the interpretation presented down through the centuries.

But let me be clear what Cahn is saying here. He is stating that the old gods and their demonic hordes had been cast out of the world, for the most part, by Christianity, but now they are returning as evidenced by our current wicked ways. He is stating that the ancient deities are causing us to decline into immoral activity and thought, just like in ancient times when Israel strayed and worshipped other gods. And Cahn openly stated that America was founded as a “new Israel”. Therefore, since our foundation was Christian, and we are straying from that, the fault lies in the return of the old gods! So, everything that people today observe as evil and immoral is being caused by the return of these ancient deities. Well, if Christians wanted someone or something to blame other than themselves, Cahn has handed that to them on a silver platter! By extension, then, anyone who dares to worship any of these deities must be evil, bent upon the destruction of our culture and nation, and worthy of biblical mandate. They certainly don’t belong in America, now do they?

Yes, everyone should be afraid of these gods who have “returned” to take up their places again. Most notable, according to Cahn, of these gods is Ba’al. That Ba’al was never established in the Americas in ancient times or even up to now is irrelevant to a mind like Mr. Cahn’s. Ba’al is coming back! And all of the hideous consequence of his “return” are at play, including, but not limited to, child sacrifice in the form of abortion (not a strictly new idea since most televangelists make the same equation) and other grotesque sexual perversions, such as sex change operations! Notice that the listed perversions focus on sex (usually focusing on women), just like they invariably do whenever conservative religious zealots are ranting about what is wrong with society and culture. It’s literally ALWAYS about sex! If anyone still wonders why America is such a pent-up culture, I have just handed the answer to you. For these people, no matter what they say, sex is little more than a necessary evil with only one goal – procreation. Anything outside of that is against the will of their god. So, for them, any type of perversion or immorality naturally leads back to sex somehow.

Thus, Cahn equates Ba’al with the entity he calls “the destroyer”, who brings with him all of the perverse sexual sins of the universe! And Ba’al, in the mind of Cahn, has “returned” in order to destroy us! Cahn further claims that one of these gods visibly manifested itself on camera and he has a film of it, but I have not seen said footage as of yet. Regardless, said entity does not have to manifest himself as some kind of ghost or anything. No, he is manifested as – get this – the statue of the bull on Wall Street. I kid you not! I won’t even get into the rationalization necessary for this. He sort of explained it. And it was ridiculous and repugnant! But, obviously Ba’al is not just there, he is practically everywhere – on the internet, on TV, even in some churches! And, of course, he is in our schools seeking to pull away our darling little children and eat them!

Well, one truth that few can dispute is that much of this really isn’t terribly “new”, as far as effort is concerned, at least. From the outset Christians have worked in every possible way to denigrate, castigate, and vilify any and all of the ancient deities. They have sought to blame them for all of the ills of humankind down through the ages. And, naturally, they have tacitly transformed them into hideous demons! Thus, obviously, those who worshipped them were deluded or evil.

The funny thing here is that, for some reason, Cahn’s rationale necessitates that somehow America (the USA) was not among all of those other nations that were ruled by these gods since it’s founding was on Christian principles. How he can rationalize this would take some major mental gymnastics, I am sure. But that in and of itself negates his premise. For if the USA was exempt from this trend, then a “return” of ancient gods here would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. But somehow he rationalizes this by pointing – get this – to the 60s and 70s, to hippie culture, insinuating that everything we see today is emanating from that period in our history. So, apparently, the USA was god-fearing, then it turned to Ba’al for a couple of decades, then it returned to god, but now Ba’al and other gods are returning! I can just hear some hippie asking Cahn for some of whatever he is on! But it wouldn’t be a pleasant trip, I suspect.

As of this date, Mr. Cahn is slated to be the guest for a few more days, something that is rarely done on this program. I can only imagine what may be in store. But this does feel like an opening salvo of persecution of Pagans in this nation. After all, what are good god-fearing evangelicals who listen to this tripe supposed to do? Are they just supposed to read his salacious book and then forget about it? Is it supposed to be just another round of Christians whining about all other religions? No, it seems to me that there is more at work here. Mr. Cahn has created a picture of warfare here. The evil gods and their followers MUST be destroyed!

My response to all of this is certainly not to be confrontational in-kind. It is no desire of mine to stir up people to confront Christians in any way whatsoever about this wild buffoonery. But it is necessary that people be informed about the clouds on the horizon here. I note that Mr. Cahn seems to wear black exclusively. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. I like wearing black myself. But, while people would see his adornment of black as, perhaps, a sign of piety, I, as a Pagan, would be seen by many as evil for doing the same. If I don the black, I must be of Satan! Hmmm.

Regardless of whether evangelicals like Mr. Cahn like to hear it or not, the USA was founded on a concept called freedom. Let me state the word again – FREEDOM. That includes what we call freedom of religion. That’s not a new “woke” concept, regardless of what some may think. I broke away from Christianity because of the myriad of outright lies and falsehoods that the religion espouses, not so much what they believe, but what they do. It’s not about belief, as such. People who have any real understanding of Paganism know that it just isn’t about “belief”, it’s about right actions. That naturally flies in the face of those like Mr. Cahn who go to great lengths to show that all evil, including evil actions, flows from evil beings who somehow have complete sway over people like me. To someone like Mr. Cahn, religious freedom is ONLY for people who follow HIS god.

But let me explain that there really can be no greater expression of freedom than to leave the self-debasing, unhealthy, monotheistic religions with their psychological garbage about how evil humankind is without their god, to embrace the purity and beauty of polytheism or even simple animism. And that truly is the ultimate expression of freedom. It is my freedom! No longer wallowing around in self-loathment and self-pity because of what some ancient ancestor supposedly did. I have tasted of true enlightenment and true beauty, two things that the monotheist claims the polytheist knows nothing of.

In my mind it takes a heart that truly loathes itself to make the kind of claims that Mr. Cahn is making here. But I truly hope that that heart finds enlightenment in this lifetime. For my part, I will strive to die well and, hopefully, carry my own level of enlightenment into the next life, starting all over again. For we Pagans understand that we are a part of something much bigger than ourselves – our lives in the here and now – and that it all continues into infinity. Our lives don’t stop when the physical body can no longer function and we don’t transition into some spiritual realm of bliss and unending worship of god. We transition into the next life, and the next, and the next…. This world can be a frightful and cruel place. But that is what makes it a place of spiritual growth. It is what our souls need as a purpose for existence. And we don’t concern ourselves with base and petty spiritual warfare. So, people like Mr. Cahn can paint our blessed deities as evil or whatever. But that only demonstrates the darkness in their own hearts. I, for one, am free of it. And at my death I want the world to witness the FREEDOM I possess. And that freedom includes more than anything else freedom from the fear of death. I wish everyone had what I have in that basic, fundamental freedom.

OK, I don’t claim to be some kind of expert in Norse theology, such as it may be. I state that, in part, because I have not studied any of it in depth. But I also state this because I don’t think there is very much in the way of “theology” that we either find from olden sources, or have developed in more modern times. I have never, for example, read a Norse treatise on the soul. In short, there does not seem to be much actual “theology” to it, which is actually fine because an extensive theology probably is not necessary to it. Yet, I can also empathize with anyone else who may feel the need for that today, and I think that the (unnamed) author I will be referring to may be in that latter category. All religions evolve, after all, developing theology along the way. It’s just what religion does, contrary to what fundamentalist-minded persons may insist is the truth. In short, it is absolutely OK for a religion to evolve and change.

Anyway, getting back to the Norse-type modern religions, no extensive theology, as far as I can tell, has been developed yet – nothing very complicated or that would require a great deal of thinking. Again, that is perfectly fine, in my view. That said, imagine my curiosity when I came upon a fairly extensive treatise on the nature of the soul with reference to the Nordic religions written by someone else. Naturally, as usual, I asked them to respond with a question like “where did you get this theology?” And I waited….

As I waited, I looked up each word the writer used for the soul in their treatise. This is fairly easy to do because, even though I don’t speak any form of Nordic or Germanic language, you can literally find most anything on Google. So, let us begin with each word that the writer used for “soul”. As in all instances where definitions and meanings are sought, there are always exceptions and additions that can be found, so I do not claim the following are definitive.

The first was “lik”. Lik can be defined as a person’s “form, shape, figure, appearance · image, effigy · character, persona (in a work of art)”.

The second was “ek”, which can be defined as “the energy of motion of a body, equal to the work it would do if it were brought to rest”.

The third, “hugr”, which can be defined as one’s inclination, sympathy, or very strong emotion.

The fourth, “wode”, which can be defined as one’s madness, craziness, insanity, possession, rabidness, furiousness, etc.

The fifth, “hamingja”, which can be defined as “a type of female guardian spirit in Norse mythology. It was believed that she accompanied a person and decided his luck and happiness”.

The sixth, “fylgja”, which can be defined as “a kind of guardian angel, guardian spirit, tutelary entity, which was held to follow each person or family and the relationship being affixed or bound at the process or ceremony of naming”. This, by the way, could be equated with the “diamonion” that Socrates mentions guided him so often.

The seventh, “mannsfylgja”, which can be defined as “the strengths and talents earned in prior lives or a prior life”.

And, finally, the eighth, “kynfylgja”, which can be defined as “family characteristic, peculiarity”.

Now, before we go on to more of what the writer stated, I must point out that, as a theologian with many years of training (mostly Christian), I have never encountered the human soul divided into so many separate parts in any theological system. Not saying that I have studied them all, but if it is divided thusly in any theological system, it certainly isn’t a Western system – maybe Eastern, perhaps Hinduism, but not Western. Do I need to point out that the Norse system would have to be Western?

Anyway, in so many words, in Western theological thought, the soul simply is never divided into so many parts. In fact, it really is never divided at all. This, not withstanding the evident confusion of certain segments of Christianity these days, some virtually defining the soul and spirit as one and the same, while others define them as separate, but somehow both going to heaven or hell. So, let’s actually define the soul, shall we? Miriam-Webster defines it, in part, as “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life”, and/or, “the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe”. Keep in mind here that there is no division of soul specified. It is basically that part of the human being that has consciousness and survives after the death of the body and is, thus, immortal. By extension, therefore, it is NOT the body, nor is it part of the body. Thus, again, it is NOT the body. The reason I emphasize this will become clear as we continue.

Now, if the reader has noticed that this all sounds very Platonic, then they may receive an “A” for class today. Indeed, our Western concept of the soul very much emanates directly from Plato’s teaching on the soul. That the concept has been corrupted by Christian dogma over the centuries is, however, a sad reality. This is partly the reason that some are confused as to the definition of, and/or the nature of, the soul.

As for Plato’s understanding of the soul (from Wikipedia in order to quickly obtain the information), “Plato’s theory of soul, which was inspired by the teachings of Socrates, considered the psyche (ψυχή) to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. Plato considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of a person’s being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn (metempsychosis) in subsequent bodies. Plato divided the soul into three parts: the logistikon (reason), the thymoeides (spirit), and the epithymetikon (appetite)”. Plato was the first person in the history of Western philosophy to hold that the soul was both the source of life and the mind. In fact, he was the first in the Western world, as far as we know, to really attempt to formulate an understanding of the soul in writing. Thus, all concept of the soul really comes from Plato’s writing.

Now, one may have already noticed that the above statement says that Plato “divided” the soul into three parts. That, however, is not exactly the case. Plato was not stating that the human soul had three distinct parts to it, each of which had it’s own life and existence separate from the other two. Instead, these were three “essences” or “aspects”, if you will, of the single soul. These were “the logos (λογιστικόν), or logistikon, located in the head, which is related to reason and regulates the other parts (the actual mind/thoughts of a person), the thymos (θυμοειδές), or thumoeides, located near the chest region, which is related to spirit (feelings), and the eros (ἐπιθυμητικόν), or epithumetikon, located in the stomach, which is related to one’s desires (intentions and actions). Thus, the soul thinks, feels, initiates action, and sometimes acts upon desires. It is, in short, the thing that allows us to be active, unlike plants. Without the soul, we might have life, but it would be a subsistence life with no action involved (most religions posit that a person receives their soul at birth, not at conception). There would also be no part of us which would be eternal. And, by eternal, he meant forever with no beginning and no ending, like the universe itself. The soul always existed and always will exist. It cannot be harmed, destroyed, or die by definition because it is immortal. Thus, it becomes either reincarnated as another human being, or transmigrated into an animal, over and over again throughout eternity. If one lives well, then one is reincarnated into a better state than during one’s previous human life. If one lives badly, one may be transmigrated into a worm, for example, and from there have to work back up to human level!

THIS is Western thought, as far as is known, concerning the soul, for the most part, prior to Christianity. So, one would have to assume that the Norse had a concept similar to this even though, I suspect, none of them ever read Plato. Why? Because my studies have led me to the understanding that Plato was not the first person to come up with this; he was simply putting down in writing the understanding that was already prevalent in the world as he knew it. Basically, this was the common system that everyone held to already (one has to understand that there was some form of common religion in Europe and adjasent areas in primordial times, represented by the various “Venus” figurines found by archaeologists). It is obvious that reincarnation and transmigration were concepts that predated Plato in the Western world. How much they had actually contemplated the soul prior to his writings, I cannot guarantee that anyone really knows. But, his concepts concerning the soul fit perfectly with these other concepts in any case.

Now, back to the post in question. The writer first states that “the milti part soul” is one of the most confusing aspects of Norse religion for the “convert”. My confusion there, in reading it, was that I had never heard of the milti-part soul to begin with (nor are people “converted” to any form of Paganism). The writer continued with “[t]here are several parts of the soul that make us ‘one’, or ‘whole’. Some are  parts that die when we die. Some are parts that go on to live in the halls of the gods. And others are  parts that get passed down to be reincarnated into your family bloodline”. Here is where the writer made his first error (but not the only one found here). THE SOUL CANNOT DIE! Therefore, no part of the human soul dies, period. What dies is the human body.

He went on to define “lik” as the physical body itself. Based on what I found myself, I would agree that “lik” means the physical body, or at least the perception of other people concerning the physical body. Therefore, it is by definition physical and NOT soul. He states that it dies. He is correct. The body does die. The soul, however, does not. Therefore, this cannot be a “part” of the human soul.

He goes on to define “ek” as ego, which does not correspond with the definition, but does seem to correspond with Plato’s thymos (θυμοειδές), or thumoeides.

The writer’s definition of “hugr” would correspond with the Greek Logos (to mind), which, frankly, is the soul. The writer continues by stating that this is the part that lives on after death to “visit the gods”. That would be correct. The soul, or mind, does live on after the death of the body.

He defines “wode” as the breath of life, akin to the “chi” in Eastern cultures. This would, more or less, be the human spirit. Neither in Platonic philosophy, nor in most Christian theology, is the spirit and soul seen as one and the same, or the spirit seen as being a part of the soul. Again, even the author states that it is the “breath of life”. Therefore, it cannot be classified as an eternal entity that continues on after the death of the body. Therefore, it cannot be seen as the soul or any aspect of it. And it really does not correspond with the above definition. However, if one wishes to equate soul and spirit in some way, I have no overt issue with that since it is generally understood that one’s soul enters the body at the time of birth, just as the air we breathe does.

The writer’s definition of “hamingja” is, for me, actually pretty interesting. I don’t think that Plato would argue against it. The reason for this, as already stated, is because reincarnation/transmigration is a system in which good begets good results and evil begets bad results. Thus, it is something that the soul incorporates as part of itself during each successive lifetime. This, by the way, is what would allow the soul to eventually escape the “eternal wheel of reincarnation”, as Neitzsche would refer to it, and dwell in bliss with the eternal ones. However, it does not correspond with the above definition in any way.

The writer’s definition of “fylgja” includes the statement that it is “a part of the soul, that seems more ‘attached’ rather than wholly apart of the soul”. He further describes it as a “guardian angel” that often manifests itself as female, sometimes as a Valkyrie, and sometimes in animal form. Well, first, the soul does not “manifest” itself into any form. It’s form is the body into which it inhabits at any given time or any given reincarnation. Also, the soul is not sort-of, kind-of attached to itself. It simply is itself. The writer’s definition here almost corresponds with the above definition, but not quite. The fylgja is a separate entity and is not the person’s soul. It may be bound to the person, but it is not the person’s soul. This also has no correspondence with Platonic thinking. In fact, it sounds decidedly Christian; and Christians would call this a demon spirit. Socrates might have referred to it as his diamonion (demon spirit). But it still wasn’t his soul.

The writer’s definition of “mannsfylgja” is “an individual fetch. It is the part of the soul which is a summary of all one has done. All your acts of bravery, courage, and cowardice!. Kind of like your scorecard”. Frankly, it would be more logical and reasonable to state that mannsfylgja and hamingja are one and the same.

Finally, the writer defines “kynfylgja” as “the family fetch that represents all your ancestors who have come before you”. He adds that it is gigantic and “[i]t represents the great deeds and actions of everyone in your bloodline who has come and went (sic). All their deeds that still flow through your blood, and a part deep within your own psyche.  Its a part of what helps make up your DNA,  what determines your temperament, your fears and desires”. Well, just no. If this is a part of a person’s soul that represents everyone in a person’s bloodline who physically came before them, with all of their attributes attached to it, then that defeats even the concept of soul itself. And, frankly, why would there be a need, or desire, for everyone else’s deeds and works to somehow be attached? It would have to include their bad deeds along with their good deeds. This would make the process of reincarnation entirely self-defeating. It also barely corresponds with the above definition.

Monotheistic dogma has clouded clear Western theological understanding for over 2,000 years. But, it’s really pretty simple. The universe is eternal – has always existed and always will. The soul, likewise, is eternal in the same way. The soul is not somehow created by some god when we are conceived or birthed. In fact, there is no “creation” and no creator god, period. Myths are for teaching, not for literal belief. So creation narratives in them are strictly mythical, to teach lessons. You are, therefore, one with the universe and with nature. The soul abhors matter and flesh and always wants to escape it. It loves to be pure thought and knowledge. However, the combination of soul and matter is a universal design meant to improve both. That is partly why we must take care of nature itself and not destroy it. Frankly, death would never happen if the soul enjoyed being attached to the physical realm. But death is necessary for life. Birth and rebirth are simply a part of the eternal system. Everyone knows that birth comes from the female, not the male. The feminine aspect is necessary to creation. We all know “it takes two to tango”. That is, in a nutshell, why polytheism is logical and monotheism is not. Creation cannot come from nothing and the male cannot give birth. Neither can a virgin. The Earth herself is our mother, providing us with both soul and matter. There is no eternal heaven or hell. There is only life, over and over again forever. Even when and if a soul reaches total enlightenment and is allowed to dwell with the Immortals, this is so rare as not to upset the balance in any way. And none of this works under a monotheistic, patriarchal system.

The question for today is literally, where to even begin? Yesterday (June 16, 2021) on the Jim Bakker Show, the special guest was Joel Richardson and the focus of the program was the underground church in the Middle East. Naturally, the conversation gravitated to persecution. Doesn’t it always? The church, we are told by Richardson, is today growing in Iran and Afghanistan by leaps and bounds, while the church in the US and the West is declining. On top of that, we in the West, by inference and allusion to the book of “Revelation”, are essentially not only tacit persecutors of the growing church, but also of the Jewish people because so many in the church itself are anti-Semitic and hate Israel.

In order to illustrate this, Richardson cited a well-known (and worn out, I think) passage from “Revelation” (more accurately, the Apocalypse of John) which reads “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and make them know that I have loved you” (Rev. 3:9, NASB).

Now, anyone who has studied this passage on a scholarly level is aware of the fact that it, often along with other New Testament passages, has been used time and time again by those who wish to hate as an excuse to persecute the Jewish people. By an odd extension, today it is also often used by those who wish to hate to persecute certain Christians who appear to not love the Jewish people or Israel enough.

Richardson, as he quoted the above passage, was alluding to this issue within the Christian church, and he was correct in so doing. This, even as he expressed this concern as if it were something to be addressed because it previously has not been, which is simply not the case. In fact, it has been addressed by many scholars, both within the church and outside of it, for some time.

If that had been the only issue with what Richardson had to say on the subject, there would have been no perceived need to write anything here. Sadly, this was not the case because, true to form (meaning typical of Christianity’s response to just about everything when utilizing “history”), he went on into an absurd historical construct which was, frankly, entirely false.

Having quoted the above passage, Richardson continued, “Now, these were not Jewish people. They were actually gentiles that in the first century had created synagogues claiming to be Jews. And why did they do that? Well, the reason is because under the Roman Empire there was an exception. . . . It was an exception for ancient religions where if you were part of an ancient religion you didn’t have to do sacrifice to Caesar; you didn’t have to engage in the pagan temple rituals. And, so, you even had gentiles that pretended to be Jews and created synagogues so that they could avoid some of the requirements of the Roman Empire. But they were persecuting the Christians. And, so, this is a well-known historical fact. So you will have Christians today that will quote these passages from Revelation and they will apply it to modern-day Jews….”

Obviously, Richardson continued on. But this quote is the extent of that which is necessary to utilize from him because everything else is irrelevant to the points that need to be made here. The frank fact of the matter, as a biblical scholar, I was absolutely appalled by this “explanation” of said passage. But, that is nothing new for me since these religious literalist-types constantly today, and have constantly in their past, misquoted passages and misconstrued history to fit their view so often as to make it simply fiat. But, the need to counter this blatant twisting of history presented itself to me nevertheless.

Where to begin? I will begin with the FACT that, although elements of what Richardson stated are indeed true, they are taken out of context and twisted into something that does not resemble reality in any way whatsoever. And, I submit, he knows this. But, the average listener would not know this because they would not have the scholarly background by which to discern it. I, on the other hand, immediately recognized the faults in his explanation exactly because of my scholarly background. For those who are still unaware of this, I am a biblical scholar with multiple advanced degrees in the subject, who happens to be a Pagan (more or less exactly because of my scholarly background).

All that said, let’s get into his explanation and carefully dissect it as we might a subject in a biology lab. The first and foremost thing that must be brought out here is that the above passage from John’s Apocalypse is not, and never has been, a literal piece of history. It is clearly, as one would see when consulting other scholarly materials on said passage, an allusion TO something that was taking place during John’s time, but not an actual, literal, event that anyone would have experienced directly.

What do I mean by this? What I mean is that the writer of the Apocalypse was addressing a situation in which he perceived that the churches which adhered to his doctrinal stance were being persecuted by other churches. But, even that is not a completely accurate statement because the writer refers to them as those who believe they are true Jews, but are not. As I have brought out in my first book, “Apocalypse and Armageddon, The Secret Origins of Christianity” ALL of the first “Christian” churches sprang directly from Jewish synagogues. Yes, there are other scholars who do not agree with this. But, frankly, it is as plain as day if one reads the book of Acts and the writings of Paul. As I have explained, Paul, and others, went directly to Jewish synagogues in the diaspora to get converts. Never once, according to the documentation, did he or any of the others go directly to gentiles to attempt to gain converts. But, lots of the coverts to the early church were, in fact, gentiles who had begun the process of becoming a part of the Jewish religion, but who had not completed said process. That was one of the main reasons that a dispute concerning circumcision arose in the early church – because a Jewish synagogue would require circumcision and it was felt by many that the Christian church should also require it. But Paul led the charge against this requirement and ultimately prevailed. This made it so much easier for the church to gain adherents from among the gentiles because most of them did not want to become circumcised.

Thus, the early Christian church was very quickly populated by converts who had initially intended to become Jewish by religion, but who had seen the benefit of not having to become circumcised. In so many words, they didn’t have to go all the way if they became Christians instead. And, as it turns out, they didn’t have to follow Jewish dietary laws either, which also made Christianity more appealing than Judaism.

Even having stated all of that, at this time Christianity was actually not seen as separate from Judaism. It was seen as another branch of Judaism or quasi-separate. The actual split had not yet taken place. Thus, Christian churches could rightly be called synagogues. In fact, they were. Both the synagogue and the church were referred to as “assemblies”. It is exactly the same term. From whence do you think the Assemblies of God gets their name? But, obviously, this is nuanced throughout the New Testament, especially in English translations.

But, Richardson continues that these gentiles were not really Jewish but had created synagogues of their own so that they could be exempt from certain Roman regulations, such as making sacrifices to Caesar. Now, having studied this period extensively, I actually almost laughed him to derision when I heard him say this, it was so appallingly untrue! There are multiple reasons why this statement is false. First and foremost is the fact that no Pagan would have had any real scruples concerning sacrificing to the Roman emperor, or to any deity for that matter. That’s what really made Richardson’s explanation so laughable. He proposed that Pagans had an issue with sacrificing to a human who was seen as divine. Ridiculous! Worship of, and sacrifice to, personages who were elevated to divinity in the minds of others was so common as to make it almost a competition between the gods and men! Heroes had always been given divine status and worshipped from time immemorial. Often various rulers, especially in the Greek and Hellenistic words, had also been. There was absolutely nothing new in any of this, and only a few agitated against this in any way. Most often these were adherents of some philosophic school which found some basis in rejecting all kinds of social mores of the time, such as eating meat or even beans. But they did not often convert to Judaism in order to satisfy whatever philosophical scruples they may have had. That was simply not a solution because they would have found many of the precepts of Judaism to be burdensome as well.

In addition, the plain fact of the matter is that, during the first century emperor worship, and sacrifice to the emperor, was really in its beginning stages of development. Frankly, there was no general requirement for anyone to sacrifice to the emperor so early in history. That came later and, in fact, Christians were persecuted for their objection to it and sometimes even executed for refusing to do so. But that was NOT in the first century.

Now, in fact, the Jewish people were early exempted by the Romans from having to participate in any way in polytheistic religion. That included the cult of the emperor, in whatever form it took during its various stages. Judaism was designated as an ancient religion and given recognition as such. For the Roman, if a religion was ancient then it could be accepted, or at least tolerated. That was exactly the problem when Christianity broke away from Judaism. Since Christianity was then to be seen as “new”, it did not automatically enjoy the exemptions that Judaism had been afforded. But, the Christians expected this, so there was conflict.

Now, this does not mean that Judaism was actually favored, as such, or that the Romans even liked the religion. On the contrary, there are many writings that demonstrate how loathsome at least some Romans felt the Jewish religion and people to be. Did that prevent at least some people from finding this religion interesting enough to become converts to? Not at all. But, again, they did not do so for the reasons Richardson specifies.

Frankly, Judaism was not the only religion that some Romans found objectionable. Any religion that was seen as in any way corrupt, in bad taste, or excessive might be found to be objectionable to a proper Roman because the Romans were, in fact, very conservative in their religious attitudes. Even so, if they felt that they had appropriate reasons in so doing, they would still accept or tolerate even the excessive, orgiastic cults such as that of Kybele. But, adherents of these religions were NOT exempted from sacrifice, either to the deities or to the emperor. Only Judaism enjoyed such a privilege simply because it stood so opposed to it and the Romans knew it was necessary to exempt them so that they might be good citizens of the empire. And, in fact, as long as the temple stood in Jerusalem the priests made appropriate sacrifices in behalf of the emperor’s well-being and the well-being of the Roman state. It was a reciprocal relationship with an effort toward, more or less, mutual respect. But this is exactly one of the reasons that some Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, objected even to the temple itself because they saw it as having been defiled (the reference to Jezebel that I will get to). And, this is partly what is being touched on in the above passage from the Apocalypse. Every Jewish sect saw themselves as the “true Jews”, including the Christian sect. And this WAS during the first century.

So, the frank fact of the matter, thus far, is that; (1) the so-called “synagogues [or assemblies] of Satan” were NOT separate synagogues founded by gentiles pretending to be Jews in order to be exempted from sacrifice to the emperor; (2) emperor worship and sacrifice were not really major issues during the first century anyway; (3) all Jews referred to themselves as the “true Jews”; (4) therefore, when Christianity did split off from the rest of Judaism it expected to be granted the same exemptions that the Jewish religion enjoyed, but the Romans did not see things the same way because Christianity was now seen as new and, frankly, excessively superstitious.

As a momentary aside, if the reader does not fully believe me when I emphasize that even the earliest Christians saw themselves as the “true Jews”, please just read the book of Acts. When Paul was questioned by Roman authorities the very first thing he did was to overly-emphasize the fact that he was a Jew. He never once stated that he was a Christian, although he did acknowledge this by stating that he was a member of the sect of the Nazarenes. But, before King Agrippa Paul stated, “So then, all Jews know my way of life since my youth, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and in Jerusalem, since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. For this hope, O king, I am being accused by Jews” (Acts 26: 4-7, NASB). In each case, when Paul refers to “the Jews” it should actually read something more like “those other Jews who are not really Jews and who don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ”. That is implied in this entire passage.

Now, on to the statement made by Richardson that these “fake” Jews were persecuting Christians, according to the above passage from the Apocalypse. Frankly, that’s not even what the passage says. But, it has always been a mantra of Christianity that the church has been persecuted by others even from the very beginning. So, they literally look at everything as a sign of such persecution (like “Ancient Aliens” looks at every rock and says aliens must have been here). In this way it is rather easy to simply extrapolate that this passage is about others – other Jews – who were persecuting the early church. The main problem with this is that there is no evidence for it. Were there conflicts between the Nazarenes and other Jewish sects? Absolutely. We DO know that from history. Was this persecution of Christians – was it always a one-way street so that others were always picking on the poor Christians? In a word, no. It is a historical fact that early Christians did a lot of things that brought on opposition from others, sometimes deliberately. They still have a tendency to do that today.

But, beyond this, another problem is with the fact that Richardson, and presumably others, want to take this passage literally at face-value. In other words, it just had to have been referring to a historical event, even if we don’t know the details of it because, again, there isn’t any evidence.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary right in the Apocalypse. In the second chapter where the writer is dictating to the church in Thyatira, he states, “But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with plague, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you” (Rev. 2:20-24, NASB).

Good scholarship on the subject of this passage demonstrates that the writer is using a common (for that time) rhetorical device here. Thus, this passage is rhetoric, not a description of a literal event. The writer is doing this for effect to get a point across to the readers. No, Jezebel was not a real person (it might have been the defiled temple), etc. But the writer does connect Jezebel with Satan and, thus, this passage is directly connected to the writer’s reference to the synagogue of Satan. See how that works?

As I show in my first book, “Apocalypse and Armageddon”, John’s area of authority was in Asia Minor where these seven churches were located. And John did not agree with Pauline teaching that converts could eat sacrificial meat. Yes, contrary to the picture drawn of early church history, there was great conflict between opposing factions from the very beginning. THIS is what the writer of the Apocalypse, whether it was John or a disciple of his, was referring to when he references “the deep things of Satan” and “the synagogue of Satan”. HIS people were NOT to participate in such things! THEY were the TRUE JEWS.

But, don’t take my word alone for it. If one requires scholarly input from another source, the article by Mark R. J. Bredin entitled “The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2:9” (Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture, 1 Nov. 1998) states in abstract: “The accusation that the synagogue was a synagogue, not of Judeans but of Satan is connected with an internal dispute on how one faithful to Israelite traditions should live with the Roman economic system. The author of Revelation was arguing that there should be no compromise with Rome, and those who did compromise were not fit to be called Judean. The Synagogue, on the other hand, argued that peaceful coexistence with Rome was possible. It is suggested that the synagogue accused members of the church in Smyrna of not being Judean because they refused to pay the special Judean tax that allowed them to practice their religion unmolested. For the author of Revelation, however, to pay the tax would be an act of apostasy, as the tax paid for the rebuilding of the Capitoline temple”.

Now, a careful reading of this abstracted passage from said article shows that a real, physical synagogue, as such, is not being referred to. What is being referenced is another branch of Judaism as opposed to the “true” branch. Further, the main issue was participation in the doings of the wider world, specifically the Roman economic system which, in part, depended upon pagan temple sacrifice. Of course, the seemingly corrupted Jewish temple in Jerusalem also depended upon such sacrifice. But these converts lived in areas where traveling and sacrificing at that temple, even if it were allowed, would have been impractical, at best. The writer didn’t even want his followers paying the tax mentioned because they were separate from those other Jews who did pay the tax. But, that effectively helped to set up the inevitable conflict with the Romans once the Romans recognized them as a separate religious sect – as a new religion.

Thus, it is in fact NOT a well-known historical fact that this entity referred to as the “synagogue of Satan” was persecuting the churches. That is simply NOT the case at all. This is a rhetorical device employed to draw a distinction between “us and them” in the minds of the readers. Fake gentile synagogues that persecuted early Christians simply DID NOT EVEN EXIST.

Let’s make sure we all understand this. It is against international law according to UN mandates for Israelis to continue to create new settlements in any disputed territories, including East Jerusalem. Yet, in every instance in which the UN attempts to hold Israel accountable for these violations, the US casts the deciding vote not to allow this to happen. And it is this continued theft of land and homes that sparked this latest round of hostilities. Now, I do agree that the Jewish people were and are entitled to a homeland. This became necessary following the Holocaust during WWII. The world needed to be reconciled to the fact that, if the Jewish people did not have a homeland, then they would continue to be systematically persecuted, oppressed, and even murdered, all over the world. However, in creating this homeland, we have inadvertently created unforeseeable problems that continue to persist today. I think it is fair to say that no one really realized how the creation of Israel would destabilize the region because, at that time, the area that was made into Israel was not a very desired place to live. However, there were people living there who have been systematically displaced as time has gone on. They called this land their home. Yet their rights are roundly ignored, especially by us. The ironies are myriad. A people who were persecuted and oppressed the world over for generations, now oppress others. Religious leaders (especially evangelicals) and politicians in the US support Israel – a Jewish nation – while ignoring the plight of Palestinians, the majority of whom are actually Christians. If war breaks out anywhere else in the world, you can bet it will be the leading event on every newscast. But, when it’s Israel, we try to ignore it until it becomes too big to ignore. Televangelists howl that “God” is going to judge and potentially destroy America because of our supposed sins of homosexuality and abortion! Yet, when confronted with the fact that in Israel both are legal and accepted, well, I will just make this point by citing a broadcast of “Frances & Friends” from last week. When a caller asked how they could support Israel when both are legal there and at the same time condemn their own nation for the same supposed sins – the panel’s basic answer was that Israel is the only true democracy in the region. Yes, you got that right. Apparently “God” must favor Israel because it is a democracy, regardless of its “sins”! But the same somehow doesn’t go for us. And what does democracy bring to the region? Well, just look for yourself. If there is a corrupt government in the world, it’s that of Israel. And we support them with military and economic aid. If we didn’t, they would not survive. Now, I am not by any means suggesting that Israel does not, even now, have a basic right to exist. But, if for no other reasons than humanitarian ones, a Palestinian state also has a right to exist and Israeli settlements must come to a complete end. Full stop. And let’s make no mistake, condemnation of Israel for the things that nation is doing is NOT anti-Semitism. Some people have tried very hard to equate the two, and they are in error. One can, and should, support the Jewish people in their very reasonable need for security and safety while at the same time standing against the unconscionable actions of the government of Israel. Televangelist-types, such as those on the panel of “Frances & Friends” have come out stating that the ONLY solution is a one-state solution – that one state, naturally, being Israel. Supposedly, such a state would grant full rights to Palestinians and others who also resided there. But we already see that such a scenario clearly does not work because non-Jews are marginalized, at best, in Israel even today. So, how would it be any different in the future? If Jewish settlers have the right to displace others who have lived there for generations, even against international law, then this is no solution. Their actions are creating future terrorists, not mitigating terrorism. Many years ago when I was first attending college, I briefly had a room mate who was a Palestinian Muslim. We got along fairly well even though we were both, at that time, rather fanatical about our religions. I was an evangelical Christian then. But, that came to an end when I inadvertently interrupted this guy during important rituals one day. Without going into detail, it was at that time that I cane to realize just how unhinged – how truly crazy – this guy was. But, all these years later I can see why he was. He would tell me how he hated Israel and America because his family had been displaced. I couldn’t understand that then because of my religious beliefs. But I can now.

In his Manna Fest program entitled “Your Fiery Trial – Know the ‘E’ Factor” (3/21/2021), Perry Stone, citing 1 Peter 1:1, began by stating that the word “strangers” (parepidēmois, or παρεπιδήμοις, in Greek) used there referred to those of other nations; “pilgrims”, or Gentile believers living throughout the nations. This is a perfect example of someone with little to no theological training trying to explain meaning. The fact of the matter is that the writer of 1 Peter, whoever he really was (and it may have been Peter) was not addressing his letter to Gentiles who lived among Gentiles. But that is the inference made by Mr. Stone here. It is not a logical inference, but that never stops any televangelist from spouting any sort of nonsense they desire, after all. No, in actuality, the writer was addressing the same people that the first evangelists always reached out to – former Gentile proselytes to Judaism. At no time did any of them ever reach directly out to non-Jewish persons.

But, most who have studied this won’t tell you that. Look, even some of my former professors, whom I greatly respect, will dispute me on this. But the real truth is that everywhere any of the apostles went, they focused their attention on those who were already a part of Jewish Synagogues. They went into what is known as the Diaspora and sought converts from among those, mainly focusing on proselytes to Judaism from among the nations. So, in effect, Mr. Stone almost had it right, but just didn’t have it quite right. Jewish people who lived among the nations were often referred to as “strangers” or “sojourners”. Frankly, even into late medieval times people from other “nations” were still referred to as “strangers” when they settled into England (some of my own ancestors among them). They didn’t have to be Jewish; they just had to be “other”.

Now, one may try to counter what I have stated here by pointing out that Peter himself, according to the book of Acts, did go to the Roman Centurion, Cornelius. Surely, one might say, he was not Jewish, right? Well; wrong. The passage in Acts actually explains, for those who understood when the book was actually written, that Cornelius was, in fact, a proselyte to Judaism. How so? This is done by referring to him as a “God fearer” and emphasizing all of the good works he had done. The very term “God fearer” simply meant that he was a proselyte to Judaism.

Well then, someone else may counter, what about Paul’s visit to Athens? Surely, one might say, the people he encountered there were not Jewish. After all, they seemed to better fit the mold of Greek philosophers. And, in fact, that is exactly how they are portrayed by the writer of Acts. However, one can see, by reading the passage, that Paul had not sought them out, but just happened to be out in the public square, if you will, when he encountered them. The place where they were gathered – the Areopagus – was exactly the area where anyone would go to promote one’s own philosophy and hope to gain followers. It would also have been the one place anyone would go for any sort of entertainment, or to take part in certain court hearings. In so many words, it was, naturally, the place where people gathered. Paul would have certainly gone there. All that being said, I consider this event to have been entirely made-up by the writer to explain how Paul got from Northern Greece and Macedonia to Corinth. He could hardly have avoided Athens, after all, right? But, I don’t believe he actually ever went there because of one critical factor. As I explain in my first book, Apocalypse and Armageddon, he made no attempt to establish a church there as he had done everywhere else he went before he was imprisoned. For me, that demonstrates that this event was an invention of the writer.

In the end, one has to eventually come to understand that the entire scenario of Paul, or any other apostle, going around the empire reaching directly out to Pagans is a myth. That is simply not what happened, and one can see it simply by reading the very book of Acts. In every single case, even after Paul swore he would never go into Jewish Synagogues in the Diaspora again, that is exactly what he did in the very next instance. That proselytes were easy fruit to pick, so to speak, since they had not yet fully converted to Judaism (it was a process that took time and effort) seems obvious. Regardless, Jewish people in the Diaspora were habitually referred to as “strangers” or “sojourners” because they were not seen as permanent residents, so this is in no way unique to whoever wrote 1 Peter and it in no way refers only to Jewish proselytes from among the nations. It refers to any Jewish person who was living among the nations – anywhere.