Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 1

Good evening everyone. Happy New Year! I hope you all had a happy Christmas with your families, and that you were able to welcome the New Year together with your family and with God. Since we are all locked down, there’s not much else to do in the evenings except come and sit and presume. I was just looking through the list of 145 people registered, and I see a lot of people who I haven't seen at workshops before. I know it might be a bit boring for some of you, but I'll introduce myself a little bit again. This is my wife and I, and that's when I had more hair. We were blessed in Madison Square Gardens. I'm British; my wife is Swiss. We grew up in Britain and have four children: our oldest son and his wife, and their two children, our first two grandchildren; then our second son, Jonathan, and Arena; our third son, Alexander; and our daughter, who is still living with us, Elizabeth. We regularly go on holiday together. The last time we were on holiday together was two years ago in France.

This evening, we are going to be talking about God's providence and restoration from Jesus until today. Somebody asked me if it was going to be the usual kind of Divine Principle lecture, and I said not really. In the last lectures I gave, we looked at Old Testament history from the time of Joshua up until the time of Jesus. We spent, I think, two weeks on that but didn’t finish it. Then in December, we looked at some good governance. This is moving on to try and understand God's providence for restoration from Jesus until today. Normally, when this is taught, the obvious conclusion is Korea, 1917 to 1920. However, when we look at the Divine Principle, you can see that’s basically the conclusion. What's happening is that God's providence has been traced backwards, looking back through history to see how God has been working. But actually, two thousand years ago, if you had stood there at the time of the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus, you wouldn't know how God's providence was going to unfold.

You wouldn't know if Jesus was going to come back within a very short time, within a few years, to the Jewish people. You wouldn't know if Jesus was going to be born in a different country or to a different religion, or at what particular moment in time. The reason is that, as we know, we have to make the foundation to receive the Messiah. It's human beings who have to make the foundation to receive the Messiah. It's our responsibility to make a foundation of faith and a foundation of substance, and nobody knows—even God doesn't know—when human beings are going to be able to do that, or which human beings are going to do it, when or where. So it's very open. If you look forward from two thousand years ago, you can see there are all kinds of possibilities. The Messiah might have been born here or there, at this time in history or that time in history. When you look forward, you can see all sorts of different avenues that God is working through, and God was hoping that different people in different places would respond to be able to make that kind of foundation.

What I'm going to be doing in the next few weeks is trying to trace some of these providences and understand why some of them worked out and some of them didn't, and how we get to Korea two thousand years later. First of all, we need to try and understand what the foundation to receive the Messiah looks like. Usually, when we talk about this, we talk about it on a personal level for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve should have made a foundation of faith. The foundation of faith for Adam and Eve was to have faith in God's commandment, which was not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This meant essentially keeping their sexual purity. That was the foundation of faith for Adam and Eve. By doing that, they wouldn't become corrupted and would be able to grow into developing a very deep relationship with God, where they could feel God growing inside them and living inside them because they wouldn't have been damaged.

The foundation of faith for them as individuals was to observe the law, maintain their sexual purity, and grow up listening to and observing their conscience, living a life of conscience, and developing their spiritual life. For Adam and Eve, making the foundation of substance meant they should have become the incarnation of the Word of God, which means they should have become an expression of the Word of God. Just like Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' Jesus himself was the incarnation of the Word, and he was a mature, complete, or we might say perfect person. For Adam and Eve, they should have reached maturity, and there should have been oneness between what they said and what they did. They would have been people of integrity, and on that foundation, Adam and Eve would have been ready to get married, and God would have blessed them in marriage. However, we know that because of the Fall, they didn't make a foundation of faith; they didn't keep their sexual purity; they didn't make a foundation of substance. Instead of becoming mature people of integrity, they developed a fallen nature, a corrupted nature, and so they didn't have a foundation to be blessed by God in marriage. They didn't create a God-centered marriage or God-centered family.

Restoration, then, is putting these things right. The foundation of faith for fallen people is to restore the foundation of faith, which basically means living a life of conscience, restoring and maintaining one's sexual purity, living a life according to the law, the Word of God, the moral law, and also developing a spiritual life—a life of prayer, study, and worship. Additionally, as individuals, we need to develop into mature persons, developing one's original nature until one becomes a mature, complete, or perfect person. On that foundation, overcoming one's fallen nature, one can encounter the Messiah and be blessed by God in marriage. That's generally what we look at on an individual level. On a larger level, when we look at the Jewish people, we see the foundation of faith was on a national level. God was looking for a spiritual community—a spiritual community is one that lives a life of prayer, study, and worship of God.

The foundation of substance on a larger level, on a spiritual community level or national level, is one where there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech. The importance of this is that someone can come along with different ideas, and just because you don't like that person's ideas, you can argue with that person, but you do not have the right to shut that person up. You do not have the right to cancel that person, put that person in prison, or kill that person just because you don't like what they say. Nor does a king or the state have the right to do that. The foundation of substance will be freedom of thought and freedom of speech, where this freedom is guaranteed by the rule of law. When the Messiah turns up and he might have different ideas, he can argue with all the existing people and their existing religious or philosophical ideas and debate with them, but they can't kill him or put him in prison just because they don't like what he's saying. This means that as a spiritual community, when the Messiah turns up, they can respond to him and be able to protect him.

Looking back two thousand years ago, we can see such a foundation existed. There was a foundation of faith among the Jewish people; their spiritual community went to the temple, worshipped in the temple, and offered God sacrifices in the temple. They had synagogues scattered all over Israel and wherever Jews were living. They would establish synagogues, which were places for the study of the scripture. Their spiritual life was focused on the study of the Word of God and prayer. That was the foundation of faith on a national level. Also, as a foundation of substance, there was freedom of ideas. When you study first-century Israel, you find there were many different spiritual groups: the rabbis, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and even among the Pharisees, there were many different groups. Different rabbis had different followers, and there’s a very common expression: 'You have four Jews, you have five opinions.' That’s just the way it is because they would spend a lot of time arguing with each other. There wasn't this idea of heresy as an important category because people were interested in ideas. They were basically a nation of philosophers, as the Greeks said, who spent all their time arguing with each other and debating the scriptures. There was a lot of freedom of ideas and many spiritual groups, and they were protected by the rule of law and commandments, which guaranteed and protected people from being mistreated.

So there was this foundation to receive the Messiah—a spiritual community that could respond to the Messiah. The question was then: were they able to protect the Messiah? Well, we can see that actually Jesus ended up being crucified, which wasn't what should have happened, so they weren't able to protect him, and that was a big problem. What should the foundation to receive the Messiah have been like? The foundation to receive the Messiah in Jesus' time wasn't as strong as it should have been; it was a very thin foundation. If things had worked out differently, if they had worked out better, the foundation to receive the Messiah would have included all the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. This would have basically been, at the time of Jesus, the whole of the Middle East—a huge foundation. But that didn't work out because Ishmael went to the desert and became the father of the Arab people. The foundation to receive the Messiah should have been in the descendants of Jacob and Esau. However, Jacob and Esau weren't able to unite. They were reconciled, but after they reconciled, when Jacob bowed down to Esau seven times and they embraced each other, they went their separate ways. The descendants of Jacob, the Hebrews, and the descendants of Esau were enemies for the next thousand years or more, so that wasn't as strong a foundation as it could have been.

The foundation to receive the Messiah could have been all the descendants of Jacob. Jacob had twelve sons, and all the twelve sons went down into Egypt, multiplied, and came out as the twelve tribes of Israel. They established a very strong independent Jewish state under Saul, David, and Solomon. However, we know that after the death of Solomon, the kingdom was split. The kingdom divided into ten tribes of Israel in the north and the two tribes of Judah, Judah and Benjamin, in the south. The Assyrians came along and invaded the north, and the ten tribes of Israel were taken away. All that was left were the two tribes, and the Babylonians came and destroyed the temple. As a result, when Jesus came, all that was left were the descendants of Judah and Benjamin—a very small foundation. If Israel had remained a strong independent Jewish state, they wouldn't have become part of anybody's empire. They could have maintained their independence against the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans. However, after that, they became too small and were dominated by one empire after another. When Jesus came two thousand years ago, they were an occupied country, occupied by the Romans. I looked at this last year; it was an incredibly harsh occupation. As a result of that, Jesus was trying to resolve the problems that were there, the Roman occupation, just like the fathers were trying to resolve the problems of the Japanese occupation. They were heavily involved in politics, and he nearly lost his life for that.

By the communists, he lost his life then as well. Jesus, in that kind of situation, lost his life; he was executed and put to death by the Romans on a political charge. The Jewish people had a foundation to receive the Messiah, but they weren't able to protect him because they had divided all those years ago. Since then, we need to look at the foundation required to receive the Lord of the Second Advent. What are the conditions that need to be met for the Messiah to be received? Just as in the time of Jesus, it all relates to restoration, specifically restoring the original nature of a human being. By making a foundation of faith and substance on an individual level, one restores their individual original nature, and this applies at family, community, tribal, and national levels as well.

The Divine Principle makes a distinction between the internal and external aspects of a human being and discusses two great cultural streams that have existed for the last two thousand years: one called Hebrewism and the other called Hellenism. The first person to make this distinction was Thomas Arnold, who wrote a book about it. He distinguished between Hebrewism, which focuses on the restoration of spirituality and man's spiritual nature, and Hellenism, which is about restoring the external environment, closely connected to science, technology, and architecture to create a good living environment. Both movements are necessary to restore human nature and to create a good living environment, which we might refer to as the Kingdom of Heaven. However, both need to be integrated, just as the mind and body need to be united.

The principle states that only by Cain-type Hellenism submitting to Abel-type Hebrewism could Satan be separated from the prevailing spirit of the age. This foundation of substance is necessary for receiving Christ so that the Second Advent can be established worldwide. If we think about Cain-type Hellenism and Abel-type Hebrewism, it is also possible to imagine Abel-type Hellenism and Cain-type Hebrewism. The main point is that if Cainism becomes Cain-type, it needs to be separated from Satan, which can only happen by submitting to Abel-type Hebrewism. This then becomes the foundation of substance to receive the Messiah.

I looked at this last time when I was discussing Joshua to Jesus, but since there are quite a few new people here today, I will go into this in a bit more detail because it is really important. Hebrewism, the word obviously comes from Hebrew, which is connected to the Jews and Israel, representing a spiritual culture. Hellenism, on the other hand, is connected to Greek philosophy. If we try to unpack how they differ, we could say that Israel, with its Hebraic traditions, is very much a spiritual culture focused on the worship of God, developing inner spiritual life, and studying religious scriptures. It has a huge interest in morality, in what is right and what is wrong.

Greece, however, is much more of a material culture. When we think about Greek art, architecture, and sculpture, it was incredibly highly developed. Greek culture is often viewed as a material culture, and Greek religion is not held in high regard. It revolves around worshipping the gods on Mount Olympus and various myths, which do not command much respect. Another significant difference is that Israel has its own laws—hundreds of them—about how they should live their lives, which they believe apply only to them. In contrast, the Greeks had a very different approach, believing their ideas and civilization were universal and the highest form of philosophy. They thought everyone should adopt this universal way of life.

When Alexander the Great invaded the Middle East, he brought with him Hellenistic traditions and expected everyone to adopt them. Many did, believing that Greek culture was superior. The Jews, however, resisted this, asserting that their literature and culture were older and better. They refused to conform, leading to attempts by the Greeks and Romans to make the Jews conform. Israel is very much a listening culture, focused on the word of God. How do you hear the word of God? The Jewish understanding is that you hear God's voice as a quiet whisper, a still small voice, as exemplified by Elijah. To hear God's voice, one must live a certain kind of life, developing deep inner peace and quietness through meditation and prayer.

In contrast, the Hellenistic culture is focused on seeing. Expressions like 'seeing is believing' reflect this perspective. Truth is perceived as something external, rather than something internal. The focus in Hebrewism is on truth as an invisible experience within oneself, while the Greeks emphasised beauty and free will. The core understanding of humanity in Hebrewism is that human beings have free will, which allows them to make decisions and be responsible for those choices. This is illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve, where they had the choice to eat or not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Their free will led to the consequences of their decisions.

The Greek understanding, however, is very different, placing emphasis on fate. Greek literature often depicts human beings as not being free, with their fates determined by the gods. This idea of determinism is prevalent today, where people often blame their circumstances or genetics for their actions. These two different understandings lead to very different attitudes towards life. The Hebrew perspective fosters a sense of responsibility and free will, while the Greek perspective can lead to a victimhood mentality, where individuals see themselves as victims of fate. Israel is very theistic and God-centered, while Greece is more humanist, focusing on human beings. For Israel, laws were revealed by God at Mount Sinai, which cannot be changed, while the Greeks believed laws could be created by human consensus.

This distinction is evident in contemporary issues, such as the clash between Islamic beliefs and Western modernity. For example, when Western parliaments decide to allow same-sex marriage, Muslims may question how such changes can be made, as they believe God's laws cannot be altered. In Israel, faith is about trust rather than mere belief, while the Greeks focus more on reason and science. This creates a false dichotomy between reason and revelation, as from a Jewish perspective, the Bible is seen more as philosophy than revelation. The people of Israel conceptualise their identity as a worshipping community, rooted in their encounter with God at Mount Sinai. This experience shaped their self-identity as a spiritual community before they formed a political or geographical community.

Even when scattered around the world in the diaspora, they maintained their identity as a worshipping community in relationship with God. In contrast, the Greek identity is tied to citizenship in a city or state, which is the core of their identity. This political identity is inherited in Europe, where citizenship defines individuals. When people emigrate, they often lose their national identity within two generations, adopting the identity of their new country. However, members of religious communities, such as Muslims, often retain their religious identity despite emigration. For instance, traditional Jews and Muslims dress modestly, while the Hellenistic tradition was more liberal in terms of dress and sexual morality. The Hebraic tradition is conservative, while the Hellenistic tradition was quite liberal, even accepting practices like pedophilia as normal.

There are two ancient cultural streams that form the basis of Europe: the biblical tradition, which comes through Judaism and Christianity, and the Greek tradition. These two traditions combined significantly shaped Christianity, which dominated much of European history. While Christianity was a powerful force, it was also incredibly totalitarian and oppressive, particularly during the medieval period. However, as Christianity declined, it has been replaced by various other influences. We will explore these themes in more detail later.

Returning to the birth of Jesus, we see a synthesis of these two traditions. It is essential for the Messiah to be born from an integration of both the Hebraic and Hellenistic traditions. The Hebraic tradition should be in the subject position, while the Hellenistic tradition occupies the object position. For instance, while material culture, beauty, art, and music are wonderful, they should be informed by spiritual values. The high points of European culture have occurred when there has been a complete synthesis between these two traditions, as seen in the works of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Mozart. Their art and music were touched by the divine, evoking profound spiritual experiences.

Conversely, when spiritual culture is lost and only material culture remains, the result can be detrimental. Poor music can convey negative values, leading people away from uplifting spiritual experiences and instead awakening violent emotions. This highlights the importance of maintaining the correct relationship between these two traditions. This synthesis was crucial at the time of Jesus and remains necessary today. Establishing a religious tradition is relatively easy, as most societies throughout history have been religious. However, finding a religious community that also allows for freedom of religion is much more challenging.

For example, in the Muslim world, there is a strong religious presence but little freedom of religion. Similarly, much of European Christianity has been deeply religious yet restrictive. This lack of freedom can lead to secularism, which ultimately results in ideologies like communism. So, what was happening at the time of Jesus? After the resurrection, the tomb was found empty, and Jesus' body was missing. This mystery has led to various theories, but if the disciples had stolen the body, they would have lived a lie. The Romans, too, would have produced the body if they had taken it. Instead, Jesus appeared to his disciples, demonstrating that he was not merely an ordinary human being.

The disciples' understanding of Jesus transformed after the resurrection. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, who doubted the resurrection, he invited Thomas to touch his wounds. This encounter led Thomas to proclaim, 'My Lord and my God.' This moment marked a significant shift in the disciples' perception of Jesus. After the resurrection, Jesus instructed the eleven disciples to go to Galilee, where he met with them and appeared to over 500 followers. They worshipped him, although some still doubted. Jesus then commissioned them to make disciples of all nations, baptising them and teaching them to obey his commands.

The disciples were filled with anticipation, asking Jesus if he would restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus responded that it was not for them to know the times set by the Father, but they would receive power from the Holy Spirit to be his witnesses. This openness about the timing of the Messiah's return is significant. Following the ascension, two men in white told the disciples not to stand gazing into the sky, but to focus on their mission. Jesus ascended as a spiritual being, and for the past 2,000 years, he has been returning spiritually, offering people spiritual rebirth and new life.

The experience of Pentecost, which occurred ten days after the ascension, was transformative for the disciples. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, allowing them to communicate with the diverse crowd gathered for the Jewish feast. This event marked the birth of the Christian Church, although the early followers were all Jews. After Pentecost, the disciples boldly preached about Jesus and his teachings, testifying to their experiences. Many were baptised, and thousands accepted Jesus into their lives, leading to the rapid growth of the early Church.

The Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, chronicles this development. It is essential to understand the context of this text, as it provides insight into the early Church's formation from the perspective of one of Paul's companions. The narrative recounts how Peter and the other apostles shared the story of Jesus, linking it to the entirety of Jewish history. As the people heard this message, they were moved and asked what they should do. Peter urged them to repent, be baptised, and receive the Holy Spirit, leading to the addition of thousands to their number that day.

This man, Jesus, was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge, and you, with the help of those without the law—in other words, Gentiles—put him to death by nailing him to the cross. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you, that is Barabbas. You killed the Author of Life, but God raised him from the dead. Now, fellow Israelites, I know you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders, but this is how God fulfilled what he foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Here lies a contradiction at the heart of Christianity; we explored the life and teachings of Jesus after the resurrection, where the resurrected Jesus appeared to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were very down-hearted and depressed, saying, 'Don't you know what happened? The person Jesus, whom we thought would save Israel, has been crucified.'

Jesus, whom they did not recognise, went through all the prophecies in Isaiah, showing the disciples that all the things that happened to him were supposed to happen. The reason Christians believe the crucifixion was God's will is that Jesus told them it was part of God's plan. Just as Joseph reinterpreted his own life, being sold into slavery by his brothers as part of God's plan, Jesus also reinterpreted his life after the resurrection. He explained that through the crucifixion and resurrection, he would bring new life and rebirth to all of humanity. This is similar to what Father did when he went to Danbury Prison, stating that it was God's will, and through this, God's grace would perform amazing things, helping Christians understand him better.

Peter's assertion that this is God's will aligns with the prophecies that foretold the Messiah would suffer. However, there is a sense that it wasn't supposed to happen, indicating a contradiction. This becomes the core of Paul's message, which we will explore later. After Pentecost, more men and women believed in the Lord, adding to their numbers. It wasn't just men; many women also believed, followed, and converted. The high priest and all his associates, members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy because so many people were following Jesus and his disciples. The high priest had arranged for Jesus to be put to death, thinking that would end the revolt.

When examining the life and teachings of Jesus among the Jews at that time, we see several different groups. The Sadducees were the aristocracy and ruling class among the Jewish people, cooperating with the Romans. The high priests and chief priests were Sadducees, appointed by the Romans to maintain order in Jerusalem and Israel. It was their duty to hand over anyone causing a political uprising to the Roman authorities. Jesus appeared to be causing such an insurrection, leading to his arrest and handover to Pontius Pilate for execution. Peter highlights that the high priests and their associates were filled with jealousy, believing that by killing Jesus, the uprising would end.

The Sanhedrin, the highest ruling court among the Jewish people, was called together. The Sanhedrin had religious authority but lacked political power. The high priest, who was part of the Sanhedrin, wanted to have Peter and the other disciples arrested and punished, even put to death. However, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a respected teacher of the law, stood up in the Sanhedrin and advised them to leave these men alone. He argued that if their purpose or activity was of human origin, it would fail, but if it was from God, they would not be able to stop them and would find themselves fighting against God.

Gamaliel's wisdom was evident as he referenced other individuals who claimed to be the Messiah but came to a nasty end. He emphasised that human efforts cannot bring about the Kingdom of Heaven, and if this movement was from God, they should not interfere. As a result, the Sanhedrin was persuaded, and Peter and the other disciples were released from prison. Gamaliel was a highly respected figure in first-century Judaism, serving as the president of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. His position allowed him to speak last, ensuring that he could gauge the opinions of others before expressing his own. This is a wise leadership practice, as it prevents the chairman's opinion from unduly influencing the others.

During this time, the number of disciples was increasing, leading to complaints from the Hellenists against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. The Hellenists were Greek-speaking Jews, possibly converts who had settled in Jerusalem. They felt that the Hebrew-speaking Jews were receiving preferential treatment. In response, the disciples decided to appoint deacons to assist with the distribution of food. Stephen, a Hellenistic Jew full of faith in the Holy Spirit, was chosen for this role. This situation highlighted the existing tensions among different groups of Jews, as they often argued with one another.

Some members of the synagogue of the freedmen, including Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others from Cilicia and Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. The freedmen were likely former slaves who had been set free, and they were also Greek-speaking Hellenistic Jews. This argument stemmed from their dissatisfaction with Stephen's testimony about Jesus. Stephen was subsequently brought before the Sanhedrin to explain his actions and teachings. In his defence, he recounted the history of the Jewish people from Abraham to the crucifixion, paralleling Peter's earlier approach. However, Stephen's rhetoric took a sharp turn as he accused the Sanhedrin of being stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, likening them to their ancestors who persecuted the prophets.

Stephen's language was confrontational; he did not identify with the Sanhedrin but instead set himself against them in judgment. He pointedly referred to their ancestors, not including himself in their lineage. This was a significant departure from the prophetic tradition, where prophets typically spoke from within their community. Stephen's accusation that they had betrayed and murdered the Righteous One was provocative, as was his assertion that they had received the law given through angels but had not obeyed it. This claim would later tie into the theology of Saint Paul, suggesting that the law was not directly given by God but revealed through angels. As the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth.

Have we ever made this kind of mistake when we've spoken to Christians? Have we sometimes spoken like Stephen spoke to Jews? I think we have, and sometimes you wonder why Christians are persecuting us, why they are so upset with us. Sometimes it's because we speak in a way that highlights their rejection of the Messiah. In other words, we are not standing within the Christian tradition; we are standing outside that, and that's very hard for people to hear, especially if you present yourself as someone involved in interfaith dialogue. You can't go around saying that and criticising people of other religions. What's going on here? They have dragged Stephen out of the city and begun to stone him. The witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul, who was very much involved in this, obviously egging people on and acting as one of the ringleaders in getting Stephen treated like this.

Meanwhile, Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues of Damascus. He wanted to go to the political leader, the high priest, representing the Roman authorities. If they found anyone who belonged to 'the Way'—Christianity at that time was called 'the Way'—they were just Jews who believed in Jesus. He wanted to bring them bound to Jerusalem. As he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' He asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The reply came, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. Get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.' He was struck blind and fell off his horse; none of his companions saw anything. They were just astonished at what happened to him and took him to a house in Damascus.

He was taken in by a Christian called Ananias, and after a few days, he regained his sight and started to learn about Jesus. So who was Saul then? Saul was a Jew; he presented himself as a Jew and a Pharisee, but he was also a Roman citizen from Tarsus, a Greek city in Cilicia. If you remember, that's where the synagogue of Friedman was, with the same sort of Hellenistic Jews. He came from that kind of background; he wasn't an authentic Jew in that sense but a Hellenistic Jew, a Greek-speaking Jew. That was basically his identity—a Roman citizen loyal to the Roman state. When we look at what Paul himself taught, it's interesting because sometimes people say there isn't much difference between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught, but they seem to be two different gospels.

Some people say Christianity is a religion founded by Saint Paul, and there is a lot of truth in that. If we examine what Paul taught about salvation, he talked about salvation by faith—in other words, salvation by belief. By believing in Jesus, you can be saved, but that's not what Jesus himself taught. Jesus, as a Jew, said that if you want to know who is going to go to heaven and who is going to go to hell, one person asked him, a young lawyer, 'If I want to get eternal life, what do I need to do?' Jesus said, 'Observe the law.' The man asked, 'Which ones?' Jesus replied, 'You should love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbour as yourself.' The young man then asked, 'Who is my neighbour?' Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, emphasising that in order to gain eternal life, you must love God and love your neighbour. The key point here is that Jesus said you don't have to be a Jew; you just need to love God and love your neighbour. It's not about believing the right thing; it's about how much you love.

Another parable Jesus taught was about judgment day, where people are divided into two groups: the sheep who go to heaven and the goats who go to hell. The ones who go to hell are astonished because they said, 'We believed in you; why are we going to hell?' Jesus replied, 'Because you didn't love me; you didn't take care of strangers; you didn't visit me when I was in prison.' The people who went to heaven were astonished, asking, 'When did we ever do anything good for you, Jesus?' He said, 'Every time you fed a starving person, you were feeding me. Every time you visited a person in prison, you were visiting me.' From what Jesus taught, it is clear that how much you love and how you live your life is what counts in determining where you go in the spiritual world, but that's not what Saint Paul taught.

Saint Paul taught salvation by faith, by belief, not by works or deeds. He also claimed that the Mosaic Law was revealed by angels and not by God, which is significant because he stated that Yahweh is an angel, not God. When people worship Yahweh, they think they are worshipping God, but they are actually worshipping an angel. So, who is God then? For Saint Paul, Jesus is God, and people should be worshipping Jesus. This focus on worshipping Jesus as opposed to worshipping the God of the Old Testament is a prejudice deep within Christianity. You often hear Christians discussing the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, often making the distinction that the God of the Old Testament is an evil God who punishes and judges people, while the God of the New Testament is a loving God. This distinction comes from Saint Paul and is something we will look at later, as it relates to Gnostic influences.

Saint Paul introduced the idea of Jesus as a pre-existent saviour, meaning Jesus existed before he was born. In contrast, the Gospels present Jesus as a historical figure born at a particular moment in history. In Paul, you get the idea that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, existing before his birth. Paul also introduced the idea of the Lord's Supper. If we read a little from Galatians, we can try to flesh this out. I find Paul incredibly complicated; the language and theology are complex. Saint Paul wasn't a regular Jew, and what he taught wasn't regular Judaism. What Jesus taught was standard Judaism. When a Jew reads the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew or Mark, it aligns with what regular Jews believe.

In Galatians, it says, 'Just as Abraham believed in God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, so you see those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.' Here, the focus is entirely on believing, not practising. For Jews, it's about observing the law; for Saint Paul, it's not about observing the law. He goes all the way back to Abraham, stating that all you need to do is believe in God, and that's enough for salvation. He emphasises that those who believe are blessed with Abraham, who believed. Paul is saying that for all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.' This is not the Jewish understanding of the law; the law is there to create freedom. By observing the law, it helps people live within the moral law, and people's conscience should be formed by the law.

Paul's assertion that anyone who relies on the works of the law is under a curse is peculiar. The Jewish understanding of the law is that it is not hard to keep; you just observe the Ten Commandments. If you make a mistake, you repent and make an offering, and you are forgiven straight away. It's not hard; it has nothing to do with being cursed. Paul states that the one who is righteous will live by faith, but the law does not rest on faith. He makes a distinction here, saying that the law came 430 years after Abraham and does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God. In other words, the Mosaic Law does not supersede the covenant with Abraham, which is a point Jews would never agree with. Paul argues that if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise, but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

He is trying to explain that we don't need the law; the law is not necessary. All that is necessary is being connected to Christ and the promise God made to Abraham. Paul then asks, 'Why then the law?' He states it was added because of transgressions until the offspring, that is Jesus, would come to whom the promise had been made. He claims the law was ordained through angels by a mediator, indicating that the law did not come from God but had a separate origin. Therefore, in that sense, it is like a curse, something imposed upon people that takes away their freedom. This is why Paul talks a lot about being free of the law. He states, 'For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.' However, I don't want to go into this now; it's getting a bit late. Paul was influenced very much by something called Gnosticism, which is a completely different worldview from the biblical worldview. Paul introduced many Gnostic ideas into Christianity, trying to repackage Jesus' message for the Gentiles, who were Gnostics and not Jews.

He had a different framework, a different way of thinking, and a different kind of worldview. He is trying to present his message in that way. It's very complicated. I don't want to go into any more detail than this today. I'll leave it until tomorrow; I'll talk about narcissism then.