"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker; suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation.… If it is a living and not a dying body…it will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power. But there is no point on which the ordinary consciousness of Europeans resists instruction as on this: everywhere people are now raving, even under scientific disguises, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploitative aspect” will be removed—which sounds to me as if they promised to invent a way of life that would dispense with all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Some people of Indo-European descent want to move away from Christianity because they consider it to be not part of their ethnic culture and history and so they want to go back to the Indo-European deities which they argue are representative of their own Germanic ancestors. The way I see it, my Northwestern European ancestors chose to make Christianity their religion sound 1000 AD for many reasons, but one of them being it was the means to access to trade with other populations. So for example, the Scandinavian kings chose to utilize Christianity for better ease of trade and as a way to maintain control and power through its monotheistic structure through the biblical concept of the divine right of kings.
I also see Christianity as a religion that basically squelched the growth of the Zealots' Movement in ancient Judaism, as the New Testament Gospels were basically "Roman propaganda" to counteract the Zealots who were [inciting] the people of Judaea to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Land of Israel by force of arms ..." (Source). These Zealots, and others, tried to conquer Rome and lost in 70 AD, leading to thousands of Jewish lives destroyed and the temple itself destroyed! So what the Gospels are doing is basically trying to keep further carnage and destruction from transpiring by psychologically infiltrating the mindset of these types of rebellious individuals by promoting instead a message of peace and alignment with Rome: through not a "warrior Messiah" come to conquer Rome, but a "suffering Messiah" who's martyred by Rome but then resurrects and makes the Romans Gentiles his new expanded "chosen people" through supernatural adoption. So the Gospels are basically designed to unite Messianic Jews (who believed Jesus was the Messiah) with the message that the temple was destroyed on purpose in order to bring about this new biblical concept of the Messiah. The hellenized Greek speaking New Testament authors exploited or utilized Judaism and it's monotheism, in order to merge the best of Hellenic culture with Philo-adjacent form of Judaism. So I see the Gospels as a collaboration between Indo-European peoples and mostly Hellenized Jewish authors who were highly educated Roman citizens. So in many ways the Gospel authors are "hijacking" the Hebrew Scriptures and morphing the meaning of the text to retrofit it into a new version of Israel: where Gentiles are grafted into Israel by spiritual adoption.
This "hijacking" and appropriation of the Hebrew Bible for new ends, began with the Apostle Paul basically appropriating the Hebrew Bible to his own ends; in that even though he himself was a "hebrew of hebrews," as he puts it, he utilized the Old Testament texts by changing the meaning of passages as a "midrashic artist," in order to graft Indo-European peoples into Israel. This beginning stage of reworking the meaning of Old Testament scriptures to fit an Indo-European paradigm, was continued on with the later Indo-European Christian Church Fathers who combined Greek Philosophy with the texts of the New Testament.
Considering Nietzsche's legitimate criticisms of the apostle Paul, I began to realize that the Apostle Paul is not the end all be all of Christianity. Paul simply got the ball rolling so to speak, but his version of Christianity (voluntary martyrdom, literal spirit-possession, healing handkerchiefs, etc.), is no longer believed in or practiced by most Christians.
In my view, Paul himself represents a form of Nietzschean will to power in that his ego allowed him to believe that he was called by God to graft the Gentiles into Israel before the end of days. So you basically have Paul exercising creative will to power in order to "get one over" on his opponents (the "super apostles" who were his theological rivals) as he utilized the combined authority of the Old Testament with his claim to be receiving divine communication from the resurrected Christ, to cleverly graft Gentiles into Israel in his theology (within his letters and Epistles) which became the core writings of the New Testament. In the end, the Pauline message and the Gentile Churches won out over and against the more Torah-observant sects who also interpreted Jesus as the Messiah but rejected Paul's gospel.
You have to realize that what was powerful and authoritative in the Greek speaking world of the first century were ancient religions, whether it was Egypt or the ancient texts of the Old Testament. The more ancient a religion was the more respected and authoritative it seemed in the first century Greek speaking world of Rome. So what Christianity was is a synchronistic religion that appropriated the ancient authority of the ancient texts of the Old Testament and combined them with Indo-European religious concepts in the mystery religions and Greek Philosophy and culture, in order to make Gentiles center stage in the narrative drama instead of the Israelites.
You see further will to power and a kind of "hijacking" taking place with the forged letters and epistles attributed to Paul, which were New Testament writers basically pretending to be Paul : in that they were essentially hijacking Paul's name in order for their writing to have authority and "carry weight" in convincing others; as these forgers reinterpreted things to fit their own theology and agendas. So for example, whereas the authentic Paul said things like it is better ideally to be celibate if able in 1 Corinthians 7 and live a radically egalitarian lifestyle, these forgers appropriated Paul's name and writing as if they were him: promoted instead Roman style hierarchies and marriage (like we see with the Disputed Letters of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Ephesians 5:22-25). In the authentic writings of Paul, he is more martyr-centric while promoting celibacy (instead of being family-oriented) due to Paul's claim in his writings that his Messiah was coming very soon within the lifetime of his Christan converts. So what we see is that after Paul died and the Messiah did not come quickly as he claimed would occur, these Pauline-pretenders dealt with this delay in the expected immediate return of the of Paul's Messiah (that was causing some to doubt Paul's message), by reinterpreting the meaning of the word "day" to making it mean up to A thousand years in 2 Peter 3:7-9 (which is another forged / disputed letter of Paul).
While some of the earlier Gospels, in particular the Gospel of Matthew, are more Hebrew oriented (promoting Torah-observance in some passages), and the Gospel of Mark promotes extreme pacifism and martyrdom, by the time we get to the likely Gentile author of Luke-Acts, we see a much more Indo-European mentality: as I argue in this blog post, the author of Luke actually defends soldiers having swords for self-defense, so it's no longer a strict pacifism. Then, of course Constantine and the later germanization of Christianity generated the warrior knight, chivalry, and just war theory. So that I see "Christianity" as a development toward a more Indo-European religion, especially in its American-Christian form.
So from the perspective of the cultural evolution of Christianity, you can see that it's evolving away from being only a strictly ethnically Jewish sect and toward a more hellenized Indo-European religion. From this perspective, in many ways within the Gospels, Christ becomes an avatar representing the merger and synthesis of the best of hellenized Judaism and Indo-European religion. To the point that I don't think you can call Christianity strictly a Jewish offshoot sect, for it's more of a hybrid religion: a collaboration between Roman elites, Gentile scholars, and Jewish authors who themselves were heavily influenced by Hellenic culture and the Greek language when composing the Gospels.
No comments:
Post a Comment