HALF-BAKED

HALF-BAKED

(PART V)

A RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”

by Lee Cook

Fast Forward

Ms. Cook has now decided to shift gears, taking us into New Testament territory, albeit through the maligned revisionism that is Part IV of The UB. The passage below is a paraphrased version of what begins as The UB’s retelling of Acts Chapter 2:

The Apostles had been intensively and extensively trained by Jesus in the gospel which they had been ordained to take to the uttermost parts of the world: the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. However, following the sudden and stunning crucifixion of their Master, the eleven frightened Apostles went into hiding. They had been in hiding in the upper room for forty days when they, and the others present, became conscious of a strange presence in the room: the Spirit of Truth had arrived. They were suddenly imbued with a new and profound sense of spiritual joy, security, and confidence which was followed by a strong urge to go out and publicly proclaim the gospel of the kingdom and the good news that Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter stood up and proposed that they go to the temple and begin the proclamation of the good news committed to their hands. On this very day began the transformation of the gospel of Jesus into the new gospel about Jesus. [194:0:1,2]

The prologue of Paper 194 “informs” us that with the coming of the “Holy Spirit” to the apostles upon the “day of Pentecost” (parentheses to be explained later), Peter had gotten it all wrong from the very beginning. From the first two chapters of the New Testament Book of Acts, we learn that Peter had called a disciples’ meeting in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ ascension on the Mount of Olives. The account in Acts tells of the coming of the Holy Spirit, and of Peter’s and the other apostles’ miraculous transformation upon having been filled with the Spirit. And Paper 194 of The UB, entitled “Bestowal of the Spirit of Truth,” appears at first glance to follow suit. But The UB’s account transforms what was the turning point that led to the launching of Jesus’ church on Earth as He Himself proclaimed (see Matt. 16:18) into a confused rabble of deranged fanatics:

“These men had been trained and instructed that the gospel which they should preach was the fatherhood of God and the sonship of man, but at just this moment of spiritual ecstasy and personal triumph, the best tidings, the greatest news, [all] these men could think of was the fact of the risen Master. And so they went forth, endowed with power from on high, preaching glad tidings to the people—even salvation through Jesus—but they unintentionally stumbled into the error of substituting some of the facts associated with the gospel for the gospel message itself. Peter unwittingly led off in this mistake, and others followed after him on down to Paul, who created a new religion out of the new version of the good news.” (194:0.3; emphasis original)

The ramifications of this Spirit-empowered “error” were far-reaching, according to The UB. Section 3 of Paper 194 tells us “What Happened at Pentecost”:

“Many queer and strange teachings became associated with the early narratives of the day of Pentecost. In subsequent times the events of this day, on which the Spirit of Truth, the new teacher, came to dwell with mankind, have become confused with the foolish outbreaks of rampant emotionalism.” (194:3.1)

“This spirit was bestowed for the purpose of qualifying believers more effectively to preach the gospel of the kingdom, but they mistook the experience of receiving the outpoured spirit for a part of the new gospel which they were unconsciously formulating.” (194:3.5)

Oddly enough, The UB sings the praises of the “Spirit of Truth” as that which was “bestowed upon all sincere believers” and that “every soul received him in accordance with the love for truth and the capacity to grasp and comprehend spiritual realities” (194:3.6). Why, The UB goes so far as to agree with the account in Acts, regarding the believers’ spiritual unity: “It was literally true that ‘there was but one heart and soul among the multitude of the believers’” (194:3.17; citing Acts 4:32). And yet, it was the apostles’ “misguided” response to this “Spirit of Truth” that persuaded all other believers into going along with the launching of the “error-ridden” Christian church! Under the section entitled “Beginnings of the Christian Church,” we read these words of “historical” note:

“What has happened to these men whom Jesus had ordained to go forth preaching the gospel of the kingdom, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man? They have a new gospel; they are on fire with a new experience; they are filled with a new spiritual energy. Their message has suddenly shifted to the proclamation of the risen Christ . . . . The gospel of the kingdom, the message of Jesus, had been suddenly changed into the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (194:4.4,5)

“In the enthusiasm of Pentecost, Peter unintentionally inaugurated a new religion, the religion of the risen and glorified Christ.” (196:2.1)

And the rest, so they say, is history. Preaching Christ crucified — could the apostles have been more off-key?! However “sad” this state of affairs is portrayed in The UB, what the “celestial” authors do not seem to realize is how poorly this “outcome” reflects on their apparently misguided theological construct. Here we have their “Spirit of Truth,” supposedly a supernatural bestowal of deity, who enables true believers to “love the truth” and “comprehend spiritual realities.” And prior to this bestowal, “Jesus” of The UB is instructing his hand-picked apostles to preach this “gospel of the kingdom” throughout the duration of his ministry on Earth. But in spite of all efforts made by the Master to prepare them and the divine assistance provided by the spiritual Helper, they still got it wrong when it came time to take matters into their own hands! Such a lack of foresight on the part of “Jesus” and the ineptitude of the “Spirit of Truth” leaves one wondering why anybody would swallow this tripe.

And regarding the “day of Pentecost,” this is yet another error of The UB that has crept into Ms. Cook’s treatise. In keeping in tandem with Acts Chapter 2, Paper 194 portrays the coming of the “Spirit of Truth” on the Day of Pentecost. As Ms. Cook rightly acknowledges, The UB places this day forty days after the Crucifixion (193:5.1,3,5; 193:6.1,6; 194:0.1). But as anybody familiar with the Hebrew calendar will tell you, the Day of Pentecost, or the Feast of Firstfruits, is always observed fifty days after the observation of Passover. Because Jesus was crucified on Passover Day (which The UB gets right[1]), the Day of Pentecost would have landed fifty days later, not forty as The UB wrongly asserts.

But misplaced dates aside, we have bigger problem to fix. The essence of The UB’s position regarding the impact of the “Spirit of Truth” is that the apostles “got it all wrong.” We must read between the lines to get this message, but it is there nonetheless. A brief synopsis of the sequence of events involving Jesus of Nebadon’s teachings, his “resurrection,” and the coming of the “Spirit of Truth” is in order at this time.

True to their preconceived agenda, the authors of Part IV of The UB present a “Jesus” who taught the apostles the gospel of “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” Put in more succinct terms, the “gospel” that “Jesus” taught is the realization that one is already a member of the kingdom of God, and that one need not put their trust in the vicarious sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross to atone for their sins. This message had been supposedly drilled into the apostles’ heads so many times that one would think it would have become a mechanical mantra by the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. But they were so taken aback by the undue cruelty of his death that they forgot all about the mantra by the time the “Spirit of Truth” had arrived, and instead focused on his death and resurrection. Thus the “gospel of Jesus” (that is, Jesus of Nebadon’s message regarding the fatherhood/brotherhood thing) was “mistakenly” replaced by the “gospel about Jesus” (which is the gospel message of salvation through the blood of Jesus that has been preached by the Christian church since its inception on the Day of Pentecost). Hence, the apostles got off on the wrong foot, and the burgeoning church has been proclaiming the “wrong” message ever since. But Ms. Cook forgot one detail in the telling of this sequence of events.

In keeping with the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus described in the four Gospels of the New Testament, so does Jesus of Nebadon make several “appearances” to the apostles and to other disciples. Throughout these “appearances,”[2] Jesus of The UB continues to echo this mantra ad nauseum to his constituents of his directive to teach his new “gospel” to the world (190:3.1; 190:4.1; 190:5.4; 191:2.1; 191:4.4; 191:5.3; 191:6.3; 193:0.4; 193:1.2; 193:2.2; 193:5.2). During many of these “appearances,” the Cosmic Christ also informed his followers about the pending arrival of the “Spirit of Truth” (190:2.6; 190:5.4; 191:4.3; 191:5.3; 191:6.2; 191:6.3; 193:0.5; 193:3.2; 193:5.2). We even have the blessed assurance from “Jesus” himself that the “Spirit of Truth” will aid them in the dissemination of this “gospel” with supernatural power:

“‘And when you go abroad to tell all nations the good news of this gospel, I will go before you, and my Spirit of Truth shall abide in your hearts.’” (193:2.2)

“‘I have asked you to tarry here in Jerusalem until I ascend to the Father, even until I send you the Spirit of Truth, who shall soon be poured out upon all flesh, and who shall endow you with power from on high.’” (193:3.2)

Why, we even have the bold declaration by “Jesus” that this “Spirit of Truth” will not mislead the disciples in any way:

“‘Soon will the Spirit of Truth come upon you, and he shall lead you into all truth. Go you, therefore, into all the world preaching this gospel . . . .’” (191:6.3; emphasis added).

So, what happened? How is it that the apostles got it so wrong that we are now stuck with 2,000 years of aberrant teachings regarding the “true” significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection? If we are to believe the revelators’ rendition, we must blame the “Spirit of Truth” for allowing the apostles to get “overexcited” and undo what three years of preaching by the Master had intended. Either that, or we must come to the realization that this whole “other gospel” is the figment of an overactive human imagination.

It’s All Greek to Me

By the time the new Christian religion had crystallized, it had ceased to be the religion of Jesus although it does contain numerous of the truths he taught. The formulation of the new Christian religion was influenced primarily by three persons: Peter, Philo of Alexandria, and the aggressive and indomitable Paul. In some respects Paul, the philosopher, can be considered the sole founder of the Christian religion. Peter, the outstanding preacher of the twelve, did more than any other man, aside from Paul, to establish the new religion of Christianity and to send its messengers to the four corners of the earth in one generation. These three apostles, wittingly or unwittingly, fastened many of their personal beliefs onto their new religion. The Christian religion has passed through many phases of evolution since the times of its founders. For several centuries following the departure of Jesus, the formulation of the Christian religion was a work in progress, getting farther and farther away from the religion of Jesus with each new revision. [98:7:11] [139:2]

To correct Ms. Cook, Philo of Alexandria was not an apostle, nor does The UB grant said position to Philo. Cook is partially correct, however, in that she asserts that early Christianity was primarily influenced by Peter and Paul, both having been apostles appointed by Jesus to preach His new Gospel (Matt. 4:18-19; Acts 9). But even though historians agree that Philo was a significant influence of Judaism just prior to and during the time of Christ, his contribution to Christian thought was fleeting at best and was felt long after the apostolic age, during which time the canon of the New Testament was written.

Before we address the pertinent issues, let us allow The UB to speak for itself concerning Philo’s “influences” on Christianity:

Paul’s PHILOsophy

“Though the Hellenized Jewish beliefs were very little influenced by the teachings of the Epicureans, they were very materially affected by the philosophy of Plato and the self-abnegation doctrines of the Stoics. . . . The Hellenized Jews brought to the Hebrew scriptures such an allegorical interpretation that they found no difficulty in conforming Hebrew theology with their revered Aristotelian philosophy. But this all led to disastrous confusion until these problems were taken in hand by Philo of Alexandria, who proceeded to harmonize and systemize Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology into a compact and fairly consistent system of religious belief and practice. And it was this later teaching of combined Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology that prevailed in Palestine when Jesus lived and taught, and which Paul utilized as the foundation on which to build his more advanced and enlightening cult of Christianity.” (121:6.3)

From the paragraph cited above, we get the overall impression that Philo’s philosophy, which was largely influenced by the Greeks, in turn influenced the New Testament writings of the apostle Paul. Before we address these assertions, let us first take an overview of the influences that shaped Philo’s world view.

The word hellenistic was coined early in the nineteenth century as a name for the period of history that began with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. and ended with the Roman conquest of the last major vestige of Alexander’s empire, the Egypt of Cleopatra, in 30 B.C. The phrase “the Hellenistic world” is used to refer to the whole culture of the Roman Empire. While Rome achieved military and political supremacy throughout the Mediterranean world, it adopted the culture of the Hellenistic world that preceded its rise to power. Thus, while political control of the Mediterranean belonged to Rome, the culture continued to be Hellenistic.

One of the major characteristics of the Hellenistic world was a new kind of cosmopolitanism, in which the peoples and nations of the Mediterranean were united politically by the one government of Rome as well as culturally by a common language (Koine Greek). Along with the growing cosmopolitanism of the age was the general trait of syncretism. The Hellenistic world contained an almost endless variety of combinations of religion and philosophy, in which the walls between the major philosophical systems had eventually broken down.

Hellenistic Judaism was distinct both from its predecessor, the religion of the Old Testament, and from its successor, Rabbinic Judaism. By the beginning of the Christian era, Alexandria had become the chief center of Hellenistic thought. The large colony of Jews who claimed Alexandria as their home became Hellenized in both language and culture. While still observing the Jewish religion, they translated their Scriptures into the Greek language (the Septuagint). This tended to increase their cultural isolation from their Hebrew roots because they now had even less incentive to remain fluent in the Hebrew language. Given the intellectual interests of the Alexandrian Jews, it was only natural that the importation of philosophical systems to Alexandria would eventually affect them. And so they came to know about Platonism and Stoicism.

The greatest of the Alexandrian Jewish intellectuals was Philo Judaeus, who lived from about 25 B.C. to about A.D. 50. Philo was a Jewish philosopher and biblical interpreter from Alexandria, Egypt. Because of his affinity for Platonic philosophy, he is known as the Hebrew Plato. Philo’s work illustrates many of the most important elements of the synthesis of Platonism and Stoicism that came to dominate Hellenistic philosophy during and after his lifetime. He is the best example of how intellectual Jews of the Dispersion, isolated from Palestine and their native culture, allowed Hellenistic influences to shape their theology and philosophy. His attempted interpretations of the Old Testament in terms of Greek philosophy were innovative if not eclectic, and had a considerable influence on second-century Christian leaders of the “Alexandrian School” such as Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 – ca. 213) and Justin Martyr (100[?] – 164). His allegorical method for interpreting Scripture also influenced Origen (185 – 254) and later Augustine (354-430).

But these later scholars are far-removed from the apostle Paul, and many of their leanings toward Philo led them toward objectionable theological constructs that other Christian scholars viewed as not compatible with orthodox Christianity. For example, Philo’s excessive attraction to Greek philosophy led to his Logos doctrine (see “John’s WORDplay” below), which was wrongly applied to Christ by many of these later writers. Philo has been criticized for his mysticism, his allegorical method of interpretation, and his excessive attraction to Greek philosophy, which led him into errors. As an example of the latter, as a Jewish theist Philo believed in ex nihilo creation. But as a Platonist he held that matter existed before creation. In a creative attempt to reconcile these views he posited that there were two creative acts of God, one by which he brought all matter into existence, and the other by which he created the world out of pre-existing matter.

“Paul’s cult of Christianity exhibited its morality as a Jewish birthmark. The Jews viewed history as the providence of God—Yahweh at work. The Greeks brought to the new teaching clearer concepts of the eternal life. Paul’s doctrines were influenced in theology and philosophy not only by Jesus’ teachings but also by Plato and Philo. In ethics he was inspired not only by Christ but also by the Stoics.” (121:7.7)

Claims about a Greek influence on the New Testament used to be common. William Fairweather’s book Jesus and the Greeks (1924) typifies the form these allegations took during the 1920s.[3] While the number of publications making such claims began to drop after the 1920s, they were still widespread during the 1930s.[4] But skepticism about any Greek influence in the New Testament, particularly on the writings of Paul, had grown strong by the 1960s, and for very good reason.

The publications that assert a Pauline dependence on Greek philosophy all tend to center on a similar list of charges. For example, Paul’s writings supposedly evidence a dualistic view of the world, a view that is said to be especially clear in his radical distinction between the human soul and body. Moreover, it is alleged, Paul manifests the typical Platonic aversion to the body, the body being evil, a prison house of the soul, from which the Christian longs to be delivered. Until this deliverance actually comes by means of death, the Pauline Christian is supposed to denigrate his body through various ascetic practices. Such are the charges that appear in almost every publication alleging Paul’s dependence on Platonism. These claims are typically supported by references to passages in Paul’s writings. But it is a simple matter of reading these proof texts in their proper context that causes the claims about Pauline dependence on Platonism to fall apart.

Unfortunately, The UB provides no proof texts in support of its allegation that Paul leaned heavily on Platonic thought. We can nevertheless deduce logically that Platonism had no influence on Paul. For example, practically every author who claims such dependence refers to Paul’s repeated use of the word flesh (e.g., Rom. 7:5,18) in contexts that associate it with evil. The conclusion is drawn that Paul’s view of the flesh is a reflection of the Hellenistic belief that matter and the body are evil. However, a careful reading of Paul’s writings reveals that Paul is not referring to the body, but to the sinful human nature inherited from Adam. The struggle is against human nature and God’s will, not between body and soul as Platonists might loosely infer. Paul never taught that his body was evil or the source of his sinning. Human beings commit acts of sin because they are born with a sinful nature. Paul’s use of flesh in this way has no parallel in pagan usage. His teaching regarding the “flesh” was undoubtedly derived from the Old Testament (e.g., Gen. 6:3), though he develops it beyond its Old Testament usage.

The claim that Paul believed that matter is evil is also refuted by his belief that the ultimate destiny of redeemed human beings is an endless life in a resurrected body, not the disembodied existence of an immortal soul (as held by Plato). Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection of the body (1Cor. 15:12-58) is clearly incompatible with a belief in the inherent wickedness of matter. Attempts to attribute an evil matter-good spirit dualism to Paul also stumble over the fact that Paul believed in the existence of evil spirits (Eph. 6:12), a belief that obviously implies that not all spirit is good.

“Many, but not all, of Philo’s inconsistencies resulting from an effort to combine Greek mystical philosophy and Roman Stoic doctrines with the legalistic theology of the Hebrews, Paul recognized and wisely eliminated from his pre-Christian basic theology. Philo led the way for Paul more fully to restore the concept of the Paradise Trinity, which had long been dormant in Jewish theology. In only one matter did Paul fail to keep pace with Philo or to transcend the teachings of this wealthy and educated Jew of Alexandria, and that was the doctrine of the atonement; Philo taught deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness only by the shedding of blood. He also possibly glimpsed the reality and presence of the Thought Adjusters more clearly than did Paul. But Paul’s theory of original sin, the doctrines of hereditary guilt and innate evil and redemption therefrom, was partially Mithraic in origin, having little in common with Hebrew theology, Philo’s philosophy, or Jesus’ teachings. Some phases of Paul’s teachings regarding original sin and the atonement were original with himself.” (121:6.5)

Because we have already discussed the philosophic connection between Philo and Paul (or lack thereof), only the appurtenant inferences presented in the above paragraph will be rebutted. First, Paul did not “restore” the concept of the Paradise Trinity that had long been “dormant” in Jewish theology. The polytheistic Paradise Trinity doctrine espoused in The UB (i.e., three Gods whose abode is within the physical universe) is wholly antithetical to the Old and New Testaments, which progressively reveal one transcendent God manifested in three Persons. Second, it only follows that Philo would indirectly infer deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness by the shedding of blood because of his allegorical approach to the Hebrew Scriptures and his leaning toward Greek philosophy, which taught deliverance by way of the soul’s escape from bodily bondage. On the other hand, Paul’s “theories” of original sin, hereditary guilt, innate evil, redemption, and the atonement were not original, but were amplifications of what the Old Testament and Jesus had already spoken of. (See my review article, “I’m Gonna Wash That Blood Right Out of My Hair,” for further elaboration.) We will come to the allegation of Paul having been influenced by Mithraism later.

John’s WORDplay

“The Gospel of John, the last of the narratives of Jesus’ earth life, was addressed to the Western peoples and presents its story much in the light of the viewpoint of the later Alexandrian Christians, who were also disciples of the teachings of Philo.” (121:6.6)

A number of scholars have claimed that the New Testament concept of Logos, prominent in the Gospel of John and other Johannine literature, was borrowed from either Philo or Alexandrian Judaism. The Greek word logos derives from legō (“I say”), and can elicit a variety of meanings, including “word, speech, explanation, principle, or reason.” Indeed, the word was a technical term used prominently in several philosophical systems that pre-dated Christianity. For the Stoics, the logos was the principle of all rationality in the universe. But shortly before the New Testament was written, Philo described the logos as the image of God which was distinct from God and an intermediate between God and the world.

It was probably inevitable that some writers would conclude that the important appearance of logos in the prologue to John’s Gospel evidences the influence of these earlier uses. Fifty years ago, the view that the writer of the Fourth Gospel was influenced by Philo’s use of logos was something of an official doctrine in certain circles. Typical of these older works is MacGregor and Purdy, Jew and Greek, pp. 337ff. (They also claimed to find echoes of Philo in some of Paul’s writings—e.g., Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:16). With very few exceptions, however, the drift of contemporary scholarship has been away from considering Philo the source of John’s Logos.

The use of the Logos on a lower level from God led some early Christian writers, such as Origen, to assign less than full deity to Christ. This became the basis of Arianism, which was opposed by Athanasius. Some scholars have assumed that John’s Gospel (1:1) borrowed from this Greek usage of logos and, hence did not teach the full deity of Christ. There is no reason, however, to suppose John is depicting something inferior to God in the logos. John declares clearly and emphatically that “the Logos was God” (John 1:1; see also 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). John’s concept of the Logos is of a personal being (Christ), whereas the Greeks thought of it as an impersonal rational principle. The Logos is referred to by personal pronouns, such as “he” (1:1) and “his” (1:14). This was not true of the Greek logos. According to John, the Logos “became flesh” (1:14). To combine logos (reason) and flesh was contrary to Greek thought. Flesh was either evil, as in Gnosticism, or nearly evil, as in Platonic thought. Only in the Judeo-Christian tradition was matter or flesh thought respectable in any sense.

Among other forms of incorporated Greek thought, Philo taught an exaggerated view of the divine transcendence; however, this left him with the problem of explaining how his transcendent and unknowable God has any dealings with the physical universe. Philo explained this in terms of intermediary beings through whom God acts upon the world. The most important of these intermediaries, for Philo, was the Logos. His use of the term has raised questions about the interrelationship between Alexandrian Judaism and such New Testament writings as the Gospel of John.

But other, more plausible sources for John’s Logos can be produced directly from the Old Testament and were apparently not considered by those (authors of The UB included) who hold to Philo as the only possible source thereof. In fact, most contemporary New Testament scholars see no need to postulate a direct relationship between Alexandrian Judaism and the New Testament use of logos.

One alternative source is the personification of Wisdom that is in Proverbs 8:22-26. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, Wisdom is personified and speaks, claiming both preexistence and involvement in creation (cf. John 1:1-3). What this demonstrates is that if it is necessary to locate some source for John’s peculiar use of logos, there is no need to consider Philo as the exclusive source. The Wisdom literature shows how, even though totally unfamiliar with Philo, anyone could have started with the Jewish personification of Wisdom (sophia). Another possible source other than Philo for John’s use of logos is the declaration of “The Word of God” and “The Word of the Lord [Yahweh]” that is used throughout the Old Testament in ways that suggest an independent existence and personification. It is a mistake, then, to assume that the early Christian use of logos had to be derived from Alexandrian Judaism. The existence of these alternatives clearly shows how unnecessary it is to seek a Hellenistic source for the Johannine Logos.

The similarities and differences between Philo’s Logos and that of John 1 are instructive. For both, the Logos is the image of God, the medium of creation, and the means of God’s governance of creation. But only in John is the Logos truly personal, who became a truly incarnate human being and yet is identical with God in nature (John 1:1-14). John conceives of the Logos as actually living and dying on earth as a man. Whereas the Logos of Philo is not the object of faith and love, the incarnate Logos of the fourth Gospel is.

The Old Testament, not Geek ideas, is the root of New Testament ideas. John, as all New Testament writers (except perhaps Luke) were Jews. The root of their thought was in Judaism. They cite the Old Testament hundreds of times. Hence, it is contrary to the Jewish background and thought of the New Testament writers to use Greek sources for their theological ideas. The New Testament is a theistic book, whereas Greek thought was polytheistic and pantheistic. We would not expect John to borrow from such a worldview to express his ideas. The Old Testament spoke of the coming Messiah who was God (Ps. 110:1; Isa. 9:6; 45:6; Zech. 12:10), who would come in human flesh, suffer, and rise physically from the dead (cf. Isa. 53). Nowhere did Greek religion or philosophy teach this doctrine. Claims that Christianity borrowed from pagan ideas or gods are unsubstantiated.

Don’t Even Go There

It would also be a particularly serious mistake to read a Platonic dualism into the biblical teaching of human nature. British scholars Armstrong and Markus put it succinctly in a book published just five years after the publication of The UB and in a seemingly direct response to the The UB’s doctrine on ascension to the “mansion worlds”:

“In Jewish-Christian tradition man is a single whole of which body is just as much a part as soul; and for this way of thinking the resurrection of the body is a natural and inevitable part of any doctrine of the future life. And the evils and impediments to the spiritual life which our present life in the body brings are explained not as natural and inevitable consequences of earthly embodiment but as the result of the Fall of Man, which leaves open the possibility that our Redemption from that fall may bring us to a perfect and glorious life in a spiritualized earthly . . . body and not require our transference to a body actually placed in the heavens and made of celestial material.”[5]

Armstrong and Markus go on to point out that “Christian theologians insist that the resurrection bodies will be real human bodies, however spiritualized and transformed, and not properly astral or celestial bodies, thus remaining faithful to the Jewish-Christian tradition and avoiding a complete slipping back into the spatial otherworldliness of the cosmic religion.”[6] It would be difficult, then, to imagine two views in sharper contrast than the Christian and Hellenistic views of man. Ironically, it is the eschatology of The UB that fits in well with Platonism, and has no doubt borrowed liberally from its Gnostic progeny.

ENDNOTES