This article will be the official final entry at this blog; and it will replace the very first entry in the Directory entitled Do Gnostics Need to be Christians?, which will be retired. This was the very first of my articles that I wrote back in 2007; and it is the one and only article to ever be retracted.
In that original article I proposed a sweeping solution to all the enigmas and contradictions in the Christian legacy. I proposed that the best way an aspiring Gnostic can ever reconcile it all is to just sever ties with it–to just severe ties with the Christian name, and even the name of Jesus, and just be done with it all. I even suggested that maybe the orthodox apologists were right. Maybe the Gnostics aren’t entitled to the Christian name and its dubious legacy, and maybe we’re better off without it.
I based all this on the historic evolution of Christianity and the fate of the so-called “heretics”. The “orthodox” Christians were victorious in that fateful battle between orthodoxy and heresy. They won the popularity contest, and they acquired the rights to the “Christian” name and also the name of Jesus. And in those names they used the power of the state to persecute and even eradicate the heretics, with the name of “Jesus” on their lips and on the walls and gates of their institutions. Can we even seriously consider the name of “Jesus” to be holy after all these things have happened? (Such was my line of reasoning.)
However, after 15 years I no longer feel that this kind of separation is necessary or should be advocated. My understanding of the issues has evolved and my position needs to be revised. And while my basic premise of Christianity’s evolution is essentially true, it’s also over-simplified. I feel like I haven’t acknowledged the true complexity of this evolution and my original essay is therefore lacking in nuance.
Christianity: A Legacy Reconsidered
What we know as mainstream Christianity today, both Catholicism and the Protestant sects, is the product of 2,000 years of evolution. And the watershed in that evolution is ancient Rome. Christianity’s eventual popularity with the Romans would lead to profound cultural and theological changes in the Christian religion. The mainstream “Christianity” we see today is the off-shoot of a Roman religion. It has been filtered through ancient Rome. Its “God” and its “Lord Jesus” have also been filtered through ancient Rome.
Christianity’s evolution and fate can be seen in the first 300 years, from 25 AD to 325. It begins with the Apostles, followed by the next generation “The Apostolic Fathers”, and then the Heresies and the Apologists, and then the pre-orthodox Church Fathers, and finally the orthodox Church Fathers and the intervention of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council of Nicaea (325).
Over the course of 300 years the Christian Church evolved from being a fringe sect to becoming a key institution of the Roman state. In the age of the Emperor Constantine Christianity was no-longer the “church” of Acts chapter 2, or the “church” St. Paul visited at Corinth.
Even the very word “church” had a different meaning in the 4th century as compared to 300 years earlier. In Paul’s day the word “church” (ekklesia) referred to a group of people or an association. There were no buildings and the members met together in private homes, usually of wealthy sponsors. In Acts chapter 2 the church is described as a community or commune, like a Jewish kibbutz. Whereas 300 years in the future the “Church” refers to an institution with large buildings and a system of career clergy that had the virtual power of magistrates. And if you had opinions the clergy didn’t approve of they could have you exiled or imprisoned (execution was later added to the penalties for heresy [1]).
The Church of the Fourth century had evolved in the image of the Roman state and social structure, and conformed itself to serve the needs of Roman society. And the greatest irony of all is that this once persecuted Church ended up becoming a state monopoly that excluded all other sects and other religions (Judaism and Paganism). The Church proclaimed itself as “Catholic” which means “universal”, meaning that this is the one universal and true religion, to the exclusion of all others [2].
The theology of the Church and its Lord also evolved and went through changes as the Church became a Roman institution. They became the potent symbols of the status and power of this Roman institution. Jesus was worshipped as a deity in huge vaulted churches and cathedrals that were based on pagan temples and symbolism. The Christian priests adopted the style and attire of their pagan predecessors. And they took over the pagan calendar and Christianized it. All the pagan holidays were rebranded as “Christian” holidays; and all the patron gods were rebranded as Christian saints.
The early Church Father Tertullian of Carthage conceded how the Church even in his day (pre-orthodoxy) was already imitating pagan customs. The rites of the early Catholic Church already had an unseemly resemblance to pagan cults, such as the mystery cult of Mithra which was very popular in Tertuallian’s generation. He conceded that these cults also had a baptism and a resurrection, and an oblation of bread. He noted how their priests were also limited to a single marriage and also their sacred virgins with their devotion to abstinence. (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 40)
Tertullian also mentioned the priestly offices of the historical figure Numa Pompilius (753-672 BC). In Roman history he was credited as the originator of Rome’s pagan religious establishment. It was a highly organized institution and the Roman papacy (“Pontifex Maximus”) and the Cardinals (“Collegium Pontificum”) were patterned after it. Tertullian acknowledged the parallels even in his own day. (ibid.)
Another important insight can be seen with the early apologist Justin Martyr (100-165 AD). In an address to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, he described Christian doctrine as the fulfillment of pagan ideas:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.” (Justin Martyr, Apology, 21)
Justin argued that “demons” created the pagan myths in anticipation of the Advent of Christ (ibid. 54). But his contrived argument reveals that he found meaning in Christian doctrine which he perceived as the fulfillment or perfection of pagan ideas. He never tried to argue that the Christian revelation is unique. (Justin also argued that Socrates and Plato were proto-Christians, ibid. 5, 59 & 60)
On a psychological level Justin never truly rejected paganism. Rather, the Christian message breathed new life into old and familiar ideas. I believe this is insight, and an example, of how and why the people of ancient Rome discarded their pagan traditions in favor of Roman Christianity (Catholicism). I would also like to propose the unique theory that Christianity offered a positive creation story which was truly lacking in pagan mythology (see my article Gnosis and the Pagan Creation).
The people of ancient Rome favored Christianity because it brought new life to ancient and familiar ideas and presented these ideas in a more concise form. At an early stage Roman Christianity had become a reformed worship of Jupiter–and the true Father of Jesus, and the True Doctrine, were steadfastly rejected as heresy (e.g., Justin Martyr, ibid., 26, 58). But even that isn’t the end of the story.
Getting back to Tertullian’s comments about the doctrines of Mithra. Many historians believe the theology of later Catholicism was shaped in the image of Mithra and Sol the sun-god. In the days of Constantine Roman paganism had progressed toward a theological henotheism, or “solar monotheism”, in which the sun-god was erected as the supreme deity and all the other gods were just manifestations of the deity in various aspects. The symbols of this sun worship were eventually adopted by Roman Christianity. And Jesus’s birthday was assigned to the birthday of the Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun (Dec. 25th). Thus Jesus came to be worshipped in the image of the sun-god. And the Christian sabbath was established on “Sunday” (“Dies Solis”) which everyone knew was dedicated to the Sol Invictus. There is absolutely no sanction for any of this in the Bible.
After 300 years of evolution and cultural appropriation, and syncretism, Roman Christianity can no longer be said to preserve the same spirit and doctrine that existed three centuries earlier. The very God and Lord of Roman Christianity are mere caracatures of an earlier era and doctrine. One cannot seriously insist that they are worshipping the same God. Moreover, in the later period the Church “laity” was not permitted to read or possess their own copies of the scriptures. The purpose of this prohibition was to maintain control of doctrine and to prevent misunderstandings, speculations, and, above all, heresies. Regardless of whatever “God” was said to be in the scriptures, access to those scriptures was denied to the average Christian worshipper and whatever they knew of God depended solely on the priests and their rites and symbols.
Of course these prohibitions and controls could not prevent the outbreak of heresy among the clergy, which is where most heresy originated. Over and over again certain priests would notice that the scriptures did not support the theological positions of the orthodox Church. The priests would either form secret sects inside the Church. Or they would split off and create a separate sect; or they would take over an entire diocese if the heresy was supported by the bishop.
In order to maintain control of doctrine and heresy, across the Roman Empire, the Church acquired police power as part of the Roman state. The Church gained the power to literally decide life and death, and to have people exiled or imprisoned; and eventually heresy became a crime punishable by death. The harshest penalties were ordered by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I, in an edict dated from January 23, 386:
“If those persons…should attempt to provoke any agitation against the regulation of Our Tranquility, they shall know that, as authors of sedition and disturbers of the peace of the Church, they shall also pay the penalty of high treason with their life and blood. Punishment shall no less await those persons who may attempt to supplicate Us surreptitiously and secretly, contrary to Our regulation.” (Codex Theodosianus, XVI.I.4.)
It’s important to understand that Emperor Theodosius wasn’t conceiving these policies by himself. These ideas came from the bishops around him, and he granted them–the Church–the power to decide literal life and death. In the edicts from earlier emperors such as Constantine the heretics were harassed with confiscation of properties and writings, and the imposition of fines or exile. Under Emperor Theodosius the Church turned that fateful corner where the heretics would eventually be burned alive for heresy.
One of the capital crimes that was condemned by the Church was the very doctrine that Jesus’s Father was not the God of the Old Testament. This doctrine was classified among the highest blasphemies and eventually the heretics weren’t just put to the sword, they were burned at the stake. Note the irony of this: In the same way the Roman pagans once persecuted Christians and even burned them alive, the Roman “Christians” were now persecuting and burning the heretics who also claimed the Christian name.
This irony is very disturbing to me, because I believe without a doubt that the New Testament writings in fact teach that Jesus’s Father is not the God of the Old Testament. I have documented this in my articles over and over again. (Some readers will agree with me and others will reject this no matter how much evidence I present.) I find it very strange and mysterious to see this branch of Christianity that has such a pathological reaction to this doctrine.
With regard to my retracted article, I feel that I’m not doing justice to the issues if I do not acknowledge that the Jesus of Roman Catholicism (East and West) is no-longer the Jesus of the Gospels or of St. Paul. I mean no offense to devout Christians today who worship at their churches in good faith. But orthodox tradition and its history are what happens when sacred things pass through the hands of the profane. And I do not refer to mainstream Christians today. I refer instead to the feckless populations of ancient Rome and their profane political leaders and priests. They turned a noble doctrine into a twisted characature of itself and then passed it on to the Faithful.
There’s a long history that follows this. After the fall of Rome, the apostate Roman Church evolved into the Medieval Church with its institutional barbarism [3]. It became the institution we know as “Christendom”. Its abuses inspired the Protestant Reformation a thousand years later, which attempted to return to the standards of the pre-orthodox Church Fathers, as the Catholic Church existed during the 2nd century. But the theology of the Protestant Reformation is still essentially Roman. It has merely reverted to an earlier stage in the Roman Church’s evolution–in which its theologians (Irenaeus) still opposed the True Doctrine.
Reconsidering all this as set forth above: I must acknowledge that orthodox tradition must be regarded as a second-hand copy, or parody, of the original. Its popularity cannot justify its authenticity because the majority are not experts, they are followers. Orthodox tradition is not the pure and original doctrine; nor are its God and Savior the pure and original items. They are popular Romanized characatures of an original and ancient Inspiration.
They preach “another gospel” and “another Jesus”
The evolution of Christian orthodoxy can be traced back to factions among the earliest Christians. Even at that early time Christians were already accusing each other of preaching “another gospel” and “another Jesus” which was attested by St. Paul (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:8-9). And these contradictory teachings can be seen in the Gospels, as I have documented in numerous articles. And this leaves us with the complex question of which “Jesus” is the true Savior? and which is the true Gospel? and which God is the true Father? [4]
All of the extant historical evidence indicates to me that the historical flesh & blood Jesus was a Jewish prophet. And his original message and prophecies were meant for Hebrews only (Jews and lost Israelites). And all honest and informed readers know that these prophecies failed. This “Jesus” promised his followers in Matthew 10 and elsewhere that the “Son of man” would arrive before the end of their “generation”. (Mt. 10:23, 24:34)
The enlightened universal “Jesus Christ” evolved later and is the product of reflection and inspiration rather than historical fact. This latter Jesus is a spiritual reality, which is what matters. And this Jesus is more than likely a fusion of the historical Jesus with John the Baptist. And all those enlightened teachings, and the obscure theology, that have been associated with Jesus actually originated from John the Baptist and his sect (which included Simon Magus). This figure remains as the Savior in Gnostic Christianity. But another form of this Jesus also evolved in a separate direction as a product of Catholic orthodoxy, as I explained above. This is the Jesus who was deified among the pagans of ancient Rome. And like their pagan predecessors, they worshipped the world and the God who created it, without regard for the context & nuance of scripture that formed the True Doctrine.
I know I’ve said a lot in the above paragraph that will be difficult for many readers to accept and are in need of a full explanation. I have written numerous articles where I explain the connections with John the Baptist and Simon Magus. One of these articles is entitled John the Baptist, and the others are my three-part series St. Paul and the Apostolic Tradition, especially part II.
In the end, I believe Jesus is a symbol of a higher reality. And we must accept the fact that no one really has a monopoly on Jesus. We all have the name of “Jesus”, but it is not the same gospel or the same theology for every person. One is material, the other is Natural (of the Soul), and the highest of them is Spiritual and alone embodies the True Doctrine, which is the Plan for Salvation–in which the Divine Fullness regathers from the world That which belongs to Itself. –jw
APPENDIX
JESUS: WHAT’S IN A NAME?
This is a topic I want to address separately, which involves the problem of the way the name of the Lord has been handed down via Christian orthodoxy. This is not something that I want to hold over people or judge people over today. I still use the name Jesus in my articles as it appears in the scriptures. But as the readers will have noticed already, my position on the issue is nuanced. I don’t accept the name of “Jesus” entirely at face value and I want to explain why. The very name Jesus itself is a product of Roman Christianity and its long history of dubious appropriations. The argument can be made that “Jesus” is not the true name of the Christ in scripture.
The popular name of Jesus is the product of a name that has been filtered through three transliterations from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and finally the modern European languages. This process of transliteration is extraneous and corrupt because it includes an extra unnecessary step, which is the transliteration of the name from Greek to Latin instead of from Hebrew to Latin, which would be the normal course.
If the name is transliterated correctly, using the minimal logical steps, then the true name of the Savior, in scripture, is JOSHUA, not Jesus. Here’s an example from the Old Testament Book of Joshua 1:10 from the Greek translation (LXX) in which the name Joshua is translated directly from Hebrew into Greek: Ἰησοῦς. Next, let’s compare the translation from Hebrew to Latin (LV): Josue. And next, the English translation from Hebrew (KJV): Joshua.
Now, let’s compare the Greek NT from Matthew 3:13: Ἰησοῦς. Note that the name corresponds directly to the Greek OT: Ἰησοῦς. The name is exactly the same. Next, let’s compare the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 1:1: Jesu. Note that the Latin translation does not match with the Latin translation of Joshua 1:10: Josue. Why? Because the name has been transliterated from the Greek NT instead of preserving the original Latin name as translated directly from Hebrew. This leads to the mottled transliteration of the name Jesus, it is a second generation derivative. If we translate the name straight from the Hebrew, Greek or Latin translations of the Old Testament then the correct name of the Savior in English is JOSHUA.
Again, the name “Jesus” is created though an extraneous transliteration process. (The are other words I could use to describe this but I won’t go there.)
In orthodox tradition the NAME of the Son of God is sacred. If that’s true then the correct name is JOSHUA. But in Roman Christianity they have also lost the NAME along with everything else as I have explained above. It’s not just another Jesus, it’s also another name. It’s not a revealed name, it’s a name corrupted by an incorrect and unnecessary transliteration. This is how Roman Christendom found the name of its Lord. It is a name of Roman origin. The argument can be made that “Jesus” is the name of a Roman deity.
With all that said, I believe the Savior still answers all who call to Him with a pure heart. I believe there are good people to this day in the Catholic Church who perform good works with charity, blessings and exorcisms. My essay is not addressed to these people and I know the issues are complicated. We are who we are by nature even if not everyone gets the name right. I still use the name “Jesus” in my articles because that’s the name people know from the scriptures. But to me the Savior transcends the name.
Notes & Elucidations
1] Emperor Constantine decreed that the property and writings of the heretics be confiscated; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 64-65. See note #2 for more details.
2] The Emperor Theodosius I formally declared the Catholic Church to be the official religion of the Roman state and all heresies and the traditional pagan cult were banned, viz. Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2 & 10.4. Catholic Encyclodepia/ New Advent, entry: Theodosius I.
Epiphanius of Salamis reported that he caused some 80 heretics to be sent into exile by reporting them to the bishops: “And so they were expelled from the city, about 80 names…” (Panarion, 26.17.4-9; c. 375 AD).
Heresy first became punishable by death under the Roman Emperor Theodosius I in an edict from 386 AD and is part of the Codex Theodosianus XVI.I.4, which contains the codified laws of all the Christian emperors.
3] Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) was a Dominican priest and scholar of the Medieval Church. Here is an example of his position regarding the heretics of his day:
“With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.” (Summa Theologica, 11:3)
Where Aquinas says “put to death” he means burned alive. The coldness of his writing is obvious; the whole issue is just a footnote to him.
4] An example of the two Jesuses and two gospels can be seen in the conflicting teachings regarding the Law of Moses between St. Paul and the Gospel of Matthew.
The “Jesus” of Matthew commands his followers to observe all of the Law, not withstanding the smallest “letter” or “stroke”; whereas Paul teaches the opposite. In Matthew 19:16–17 Jesus tells the young aristocrat that in order to have “eternal life” that he must “keep the commandments.” Whereas Paul warned his followers regarding the Law: “Therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified…” and “…whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” (Rom. 3:20, Gal. 5:3-4, cf. Rom. 14:5)
In these conflicting passages we can see that the earliest Christians were deeply divided, and that the “Jesus” of Paul and the “Jesus” of Matthew are irreconcilable in terms of the concept of redemption. Thus in Paul’s letters “Jesus” saves man from the Law; whereas in Matthew “Jesus” saves man through the Law. These two concepts of redemption are irreconcilable–and represent the teachings of two opposing Christian factions.
By Jim West. Copyright © 2023. Edited 2-16-24.
All Rights Reserved.
Gnostic Sophistries... 
Leave a comment