HALF-BAKED

HALF-BAKED

(PART VIII)

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

by Lee Cook

Rehash

One great difficulty in attaining consistency in the Christian religion is due to the attempt by early founders to incorporate numerous and sometimes conflicting concepts into their body of beliefs. Also, many of the doctrines were based on the religious experience of Philo of Alexandria, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus. The Christian concept of God is an attempt to combine three separate teachings:

1. The Hebrew concept--God as a vindicator of moral values, a righteous God.

2. The Greek concept--God as a unifier, a God of wisdom.

3. Jesus’ concept--God as a living friend, a loving Father, the divine presence. 67:7

Some additional teachings, influences, and beliefs included in the Christian religion which have further hindered the development of a consistent body of beliefs are:

1. The Melchizedek teachings, a basic factor in all religions of Occident and Orient which have arisen during the last four thousand years. [Paper 93] [98:7]

2. The Hebraic system of morality, ethics, theology, and belief in both Providence and the supreme Yahweh. Much of the strength of Christianity is due to its having borrowed heavily from both Hebrew morality and Greek thought. [98:7]

3. The Zoroastrian conception of the struggle between cosmic good and evil. [98:7]

4. The mystery cults, especially Mithraism. [98:7]

5. The historic fact of the human life of Joshua ben Joseph, the reality of Jesus of Nazareth as the glorified Christ, the Son of God. [98:7]

6. The personal viewpoint of Paul of Tarsus and his compromise with Mithraism. Paul and his successors were willing but shrewd and sagacious compromisers; they were keen theologic traders. [98:7] [195:0:5-18]

7. The inclusion of the better of the Babylonian and Persian ideas of light and darkness, good and evil, time and eternity. [146:1:3]

8. The inclusion of many of Plato’s theories of the ideal spirit or invisible patterns of all things visible and material, as later adapted by Philo to the Hebrew theology. [146:1:3]

9. Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s teachings that virtue is knowledge; goodness, health of the soul; that it is better to suffer injustice than to be guilty of it, that it is wrong to return evil for evil. Their cardinal virtues were: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. [98:2:6]

10. Greek and Persian teachings which provided clearer concepts of the eternal life. [170:5:16]

11. 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. Paul leaned heavily toward Stoicism when he wrote, “I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.”

[Philippians 4:11] [121:4:3] [121:7:7]

12. Philo’s doctrine of the temporal contrasted with the spiritual; his harmonizing and systemizing of Greek philosophy and Hebrew theology. Paul used Philo’s teachings as the foundation for his more advanced and enlightening cult of Christianity. [121:6:3] [Papers 160 and 161] [170:5:16]

In an effort to win converts from among the Mithraic cult, the Christian leaders willingly made such compromises with Mithraism that the better half of its adherents were won over to the Christian religion. Later generations of Christians made further compromises with paganism. By this paganization of Christianity the pagans won many minor victories of a ritualistic nature, but the Christians gained the ascendancy in that:

1. A new and enormously higher note in human morals was struck.

2. A new and greatly enlarged concept of God was given to the world.

3. The hope of immortality became a part of the assurance of a recognized religion.

4. Jesus of Nazareth was given to man’s hungry soul. [195:0:6-18]

The remainder of Ms. Cook’s treatise mainly comprises a repeat of what has already been said. The theme is echoed again and again of Christianity’s enormous debt to the pagan religions of old and of Paul’s personal views, as though Ms. Cook has not quite yet convinced herself of the tenacity of her ill-adopted tenets. I will dispense with further erudition of the problems plaguing Ms. Cook’s untenable position, with the exception of the only new piece of information offered in this morass of mediocrity. In Paper 121 it is stated that “Paul leaned heavily toward Stoicism when he wrote, ‘I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content’” (121:4.3). The passage cited is from Philippians 4:11, and once again, the “celestial” author is taking yet another stab at tying Paul’s epistles to Hellenistic philosophy.

It is commonly known among scholars of ancient writings that Paul’s contemporaries included the Stoic philosopher Seneca (A.D.1 - 65), and claims about a possible Stoic influence on the New Testament usually center on Seneca, especially Seneca’s possible relationship with Paul. About 100 years ago, it was fashionable in some circles to maintain that Paul used terminology that he obviously borrowed from Seneca. Wildly speculative theories about Paul’s alleged relationship with Seneca ranged from suggestions that Paul was influenced by Seneca to claims that Seneca had become a Christian under the influence of Paul.[1] Theories at both extremes of the continuum have been rejected for years, and for good cause.

The Stoics were both materialists and pantheists, believing that everything that exists, including God and the soul, is corporeal. They thought that God and the world were related like soul and body—God is the soul of the world, and the world is the body of God. Unlike the Judeo-Christian God, who is an eternal, almighty, all-knowing, loving, spiritual Person, the Stoic God is impersonal and hence incapable of knowing anything, loving anyone, or engaging in divine providence. The Stoics were also subscribers of determinism, a fatalistic philosophy that denies any possibility of free will or chance. Human free will is an illusion, so say the Stoics; hence, there is nothing a person can do to alter his or her future. The truly virtuous Stoic will eliminate all passion and emotion from his life until he reaches the point that nothing troubles or bothers him. The best life available to the Stoic is to be apathetic to one’s fate, accepting whatever happens as the “will of God.” However, it is important to remember that the phrase “will of God” means something quite different to a materialistic pantheist than it does in the context of New Testament theism.

Although the Stoic language may, on occasion, sound Christian, it takes on quite a different meaning. When properly understood, the Stoic ethic is repulsive to Paul and Christianity. It is totally devoid of genuine human emotion and compassion; there is no place for love or pity or contrition. It lacks any intrinsic tie to repentance, conversion, and faith in God. Bible commentator A. R. Faussett (Andrew Robert Faussett, 1821-1910) provided a direct response to this very allegation that Paul borrowed from the Stoic ethic, commenting on the adjective “content” from the verse in question:

“content – The Greek, literally expresses ‘independent of others, and having sufficiency in one’s self.’ But Christianity has raised the term above the haughty self-sufficiency of the heathen Stoic to the contentment of the Christian, whose sufficiency is not in self, but in God.”[2]

When Paul makes the statement “I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content” (Phil. 4:11), he is not making a blanket statement about accepting his fate in the Stoic sense. The context surrounding this verse clearly describes Paul exhorting the parishioners at Philippi to rely on the “peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” that will “guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (v. 7). This inner peace is the tranquility that comes when the believer commits all his cares to God in prayer and worries about them no more. At the same time, Paul expresses his love for the church (Phil. 4:1) and exhorts his fellow Christians at Philippi to “rejoice in the Lord” (Phil. 4:4), emotional expressions that no devout Stoic, resigned to his fate, would dare utter.

A Tall Order

The Bible contains numerous eternal truths. Some of its teachings were truly inspired. Largely through the efforts of Paul, Christianity, even with its defects, is one of the most progressive human societies ever to have appeared on earth. But the foregoing information clearly reveals that Paul, though a brilliant apostle, in many of his teachings was not writing under divine inspiration. Paul, a brilliant scholar and philosopher, did his research, made what revisions he thought necessary in the then current beliefs, then formulated his version of the Christian religion. The authors of The Urantia Book emphasize that the Bible, although a remarkable book, is not the infallible, definitive, and inspired Word of God. It does not contain all truth about God, the universe, and our planet. As truth is infinite, it will always be impossible to contain all truth in one book. [170:5:16]

Ms. Cook now summarizes his views on the inspiration of the Bible in predictable fashion, having adopted The UB’s indoctrination thereto. Unfortunately, The UB’s infectious enthusiasm for denouncing the Bible’s inspirational veracity has swept Ms. Cook overboard into a swirling sea of irrelevance. The UB does not implicitly state that the Bible “does not contain all truth about God, the universe, and our planet.” Such charges are moot, since the Bible does not claim to contain all truth regarding these subjects. It does claim, however, to be the exclusive repository of the full truth regarding man’s need for, and the means of, salvation. On the other hand, The UB does proclaim that it is a “fetish” to believe that any so-called “sacred book” (such as the Bible) is a source of truth such that “every truth is contained in the book” (88:2.7). But in fact, it would be silly to suggest that the Bible makes even this simpler but equally contrived claim.

Mail Fraud

We are cautioned that Paul, Peter, Philo of Alexandria, and numerous later authors who contributed so heavily to the final version of the Christian religion, little dreamed that their well-intentioned letters and other writings would someday be collected and regarded by still later Christians as the inspired, infallible Word of God. Such well-meaning teachers must not be held accountable for the use made of their writings by later-day successors.

Again, Ms. Cook is overstating the position offered by The UB, which makes no claim that either Peter, Philo, or any other “later authors” (whomever that means) “little dreamed that their well-intentioned letters and other writings would someday be collected and regarded by still later Christians as the inspired, infallible Word of God.” What The UB specifically states is that the Christian religion arose through the compounding of several influences, among them being:

“The personal viewpoint of Paul of Tarsus. . . . Paul little dreamed that his well-intentioned letters to his converts would someday be regarded by still later Christians as the ‘word of God.’ Such well-meaning teachers must not be held accountable for the use made of their writings by later-day successors.” (98:7.9; emphasis added)

In other words, it is only Paul whom The UB targets as whose “letters” are not worthy of inclusion into the New Testament canon of Scripture because Paul supposedly never intended for them to be there in the first place. Begging the Melchizedek’s pardon, but perhaps we should allow Paul to speak for himself, as the introductions to every single one of his epistles make his intentions for writing quite clear:

“Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures . . . . To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:1,7)

“Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God Which is at Corinth, To those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Cor. 1:1-3)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is in Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Cor. 1:1,2)

“Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ . . . .” (Gal. 1:1-3)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 1:1,2)

“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Phlp. 1:1,2)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Col. 1:1,2)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Thes. 1:1)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Thes. 1:1,2)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1Tim. 1:1,2)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (2Tim. 1:1,2)

“Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgement of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior; To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.” (Titus 1:1-4)

“Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Phlm. 1:1-3)

It can clearly be seen by reading the introductions to all of Paul’s letters that he claimed authority as an apostle chosen by Christ, and declared each message to be from God. Now, it still might be argued by some that even though Paul claimed to write on authority from God, he did not address his epistles to all Christians, and therefore did not necessarily mean them to apply to all believers worldwide. After all, each letter was specifically addressed to a specific geographic target audience, and it was only later that these epistles were assumed to be worthy of canonization by overzealous believers. However, this argument falls flat on its face because, by-and-large, the themes in Paul’s epistles are the edification of one or more basic Christian tenets of faith that had been put into practice even before Paul had converted. For example, the primary theme in Romans is the basic gospel message, which is God’s plan of salvation and righteousness for all humankind, Jew and Gentile alike. Paul wrote the letter prior to his upcoming visit as preparation for the people of the church at Rome to evangelize the City. Likewise, in even those epistles to whom his recipient was a single person, the theme was to prepare the recipient for faithful service as a Christian missionary (e.g., 1Tim., 2Tim., Titus). Rarely can it be argued that some of Paul’s instructions applied only to circumstances of the local church or individual to which the epistle was addressed, and those instances are readily meted out. The overall timeless appeal of Paul’s epistles to Christians worldwide and in all walks of life is the very reason that they have been accepted as the Word of God. It was not by mistake, then, that these “letters” were later canonized as is implied by The UB.

Can I Quote You on That?

The notion that “Such well-meaning teachers must not be held accountable for the use made of their writings by later-day successors” is never truer than when it applies to the authors of The UB. Numerous passages from Paul’s epistles are used throughout The UB in support of the authors’ theological views. One could write an entire book on this subject alone, for most of the verses cited are either taken out of context or misquoted to fit a preconceived purpose. However, for the purpose of revealing to the reader how the Melchizedek author makes hypocrites out of his alleged superiors, let me narrow my approach by settling for only those biblical verses that are quoted directly (not paraphrased) without the courtesy of providing proper reference as to their source. Furthermore, I will not include UB passages that have multiple biblical verses cross-referenced with the quote to avoid source controversy.

For instance, beginning with Paper 1 (“The Universal Father”), presented by a Divine Counselor acting by authority of the Ancients of Days on Uversa, the following passages written by Paul are quoted: First Timothy 1:17 (1:3.1) and 6:16 (1:5.3); and Romans 1:20 (ibid.). Likewise, Paper 2 (“The Nature of God”) quotes Romans 11:38 (2:1.1) and 2:4 (2:6.3); Ephesians 3:11 (2:2.1); Second Corinthians 1:3 (2:4.1); and First Timothy 2:4 (2:5.2). Paper 3 (“The Attributes of God”) quotes Ephesians 1:23 (3:1.2) and 4:6 (3:5.4); First Corinthians 12:6 (3:1.2); and Colossians 1:17 (3:5.4). Paper 4 (“God’s Relation to the Universe”) uses Romans 8:28 (4:1.4), while Paper 7 (“Relation of the Eternal Son to the Universe”) utilizes First Corinthians 13:1 (7:3.6). Paper 8, by virtue of its title (“The Infinite Spirit”), has little choice but to richly borrow from the New Testament, including First Corinthians 2:10 (8:6.3) and 12:11 (ibid.); and Romans 8:14, 26-27, and 15:30 (8:6.4).

But the Divine Counselor is not the only celestial author to borrow Pauline revelations without permission. We see that a Perfector of Wisdom, also hailing from Uversa, uses Second Corinthians 3:2 (27:5.1), in concert with Phillipians 4:3 and Revelation 20:12, to typify the “Custodians of Knowledge,” an order of primary supernaphim in Paradise that act as “living libraries” of truth and knowledge (27:5). A Mighty Messenger of Uversa ascribes First Corinthians 2:10 (28:5.21) to the local Holy (Mother) Spirit of Salvington, who “searches all things.” Moving on to Part II of The UB, this same alleged author makes use of Second Timothy 2:19 (32:4.8) to help describe the Thought Adjuster’s function. In fact, one might surmise that this Mighty Messenger just plain loves Paul, because the count is no less than nine Pauline verses used in Paper 34 alone (a mother lode in light of the limitations attached to my search, as has not been seen since Paper 8!). The verses are: Titus 3:5 (34:6.5); 2Cor. 3:6 (ibid.); 1Thes. 1:5 (34:6.6); Eph. 3:16, 19 (34:6.10); Rom. 8:14 (ibid.), 8:16 (34:6.12), 14:17 (34:6.13) and 8:2 (34:7.6).

There are many more hidden Pauline verses to be discovered in Parts II and III, but I think the point has been made abundantly clear by now. The revelators are guilty of nothing less than sheer hypocrisy, charging Paul as an unwitting progenitor of the New Testament canon while it is they who are stealing Paul’s very words and ascribing them to their own “canon”! Keep in mind that this list does not include those Pauline verses that have been paraphrased, the apparent intent being to hide the original source of the idea being presented.

Good Question!

The acceptance by later Christian theologians of both the O.T. and the N.T. as the inspired, infallible, complete, and final Word of God has placed religious leaders in the untenable position of constantly being required to explain and defend countless erroneous statements, contradictions, and other irregularities in the teachings of the Bible. Theologians are truly between the rock and the hard place: How do they graciously admit that Christians apparently have been misled all these many centuries? What is their suggested solution?

[Note especially Papers 85-90, 96-103, 121, 194 and 195.]

Does Lee Cook really believe that this ill-conceived treatise of his poses a serious threat to the veracity of the Christian faith? The only supposed “erroneous statements, contradictions, and other irregularities in the teachings of the Bible” that Ms. Cook has presented have all met with resounding refutations to the contrary, most of which had been worked out long ago. To Ms. Cook’s chagrin, all the “evidence” she cites in support of his highly untenable position derives from a book that was copied from liberal scholars of a bygone era whose agenda was to dislodge the Bible from its high estate of holy writ, but whose works have been exposed as fruitless efforts by the light of truth. It is not the Christian theologians who are in need of somehow graciously admitting that their fellow believers have been misled all these centuries, but those like Ms. Cook who today brazenly echo self-refuting postulates that have long been bereft of logical certitude.

My suggested solution to Ms. Cook and to those who subscribe to his position would be to broaden their literary horizons a bit more and educate themselves before venturing out on a theological limb from which there may be no return. But I seriously doubt that Ms. Cook was actually seeking an answer to his question.

ENDNOTES