The Revelation of Adam: Awakening the Devotional Conversation to Itself

The Apocalypse of Adam, a text from the Nag Hammadi Codex V, presents an interesting alternative to the traditional narrative within the Bible. Here, Adam is not merely the first man of Genesis, but a figure of cosmic awareness, speaking to his son Seth in the seven hundredth year of his life (NHC V,5 64:1-4). Unlike the patriarchal blessing of the Old Testament, Adam’s revelation is an esoteric transmission of lost knowledge—gnosis—that transcends the Creator Deity known to the Hebrew tradition.

The Eternal God and the Primordial Glory

Adam recalls a time before “the fall,” when he and Eve existed in unity with the eternal god, a transcendent deity distinct from the creator. Adam recounts:

"When the god had created me of the earth with Eve your mother, I lived with her in a glory that she had seen in the aeon from which we had become. She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal god" (64:6-13).

This description presents a stark contrast to the Genesis narrative, where Adam and Eve were fashioned from dust and placed under the rule of a singular deity. In The Apocalypse of Adam, their true origin is tied to a seemingly divine reality beyond the material realm, revealing an essential Gnostic theme: the distinction between the eternal God of Light and the Creator, who is but a lesser, flawed Being or Deity.

The Fall as a Consequence of Knowledge

The fall, as Adam describes it, was not a punishment for disobedience, but an act of suppression by the Demiurge (the Creator Deity). He states:

"Then the god, the sovereign of the aeons together with the powers, decided (against) us in wrath. Then we became two aeons, and the glory in our heart left us" (64:20-25).

This "god"—the Demiurge—acts in jealousy and fear, recognizing that Adam and Eve possess a supernatural spark that makes them superior to him and his powers. Adam continues:

"We resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the god who had created us and the powers who were with him, whom we did not know" (64:14-19).

This statement upends the traditional theological theory of Genesis. Here, Adam’s awakening is not a sin but a realization of divine origin. The demiurge, identified with the God of the Old Testament, becomes a cosmic tyrant, seeking to obscure humanity’s true nature.

Noah, Sakla, and the Suppression of Gnosis

As the revelation unfolds, Adam recounts the coming of three mysterious figures—Abrasax, Sablo, and Gamaliel—who unveil the truth about humanity’s origins (76:1-7). Yet, the demiurge, now called Sakla, attempts to erase this knowledge through the flood (69:1-71:26). However, Seth’s lineage preserves the gnosis, escaping Sakla’s wrath through the intervention of higher powers.

This is definitely a reinterpretation of the flood narrative. The Old Testament flood is supposed to be (on the surface) a “divine” cleansing of “corruption,” but here, it is an attempt to annihilate those who bear the knowledge of the Eternal God.

The Illuminator

The text reaches its climax in the hymnic section (77:27-83:4), where an "Illuminator" is prophesied to come, performing signs and wonders to expose the demiurge and his powers:

"The Illuminator will come... and he will perform signs and wonders to scorn the powers and their sovereign" (77:7-18).

This figure, most likely the Gnostic Christ, leads souls out of the Demiurge’s domain and restores them to the light of the Eternal God. Ritual participants, through this knowledge, undergo a spiritual rebirth, breaking free from the false divinity that binds them. One may understand the difference between the Gnostic Christ and the Christian Christ, as the Christian Christ, still employing the tactics of the Demiurge, yet binds individuals to flawed philosophy of the Creator Deity, while the Gnostic Christ spiritually liberates from the chains of such a Christ and flawed Deity.

The Escape from Religious Law

The Apocalypse of Adam is not merely an inversion of the Genesis story; it is a radical philosophical revelation on the fact of the devotional experience. The "God" of the Old Testament is not a Deity per se, but (in reality as you weigh the philosophy from Genesis to Malachi) represents a philosophy centered on righteousness through religious law. The Garden of Eden becomes the first scene of devotional struggle to escape legalistic devotion in favor of direct, experiential understanding.

This idea finds echoes in Psalm 51:10: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

Here, "cleansing" is not about adhering to external commandments, but about inner transformation, awakening the conscious spark within the devotional conversation’s conscience and recognizing the point of the Bible’s wisdom beyond the rule of the Figure calling for enslavement by religious law.

A Call to Awakening

The Apocalypse of Adam encourages its readers to recognize the chains of false religious authority and embrace wisdom that transcends the realm of the religious world, wisdom that, in all actuality, is found at the core of the Bible. Through the figure of Adam, it presents a stark warning: the god of this world (religious world) is not the true source of life, and salvation lies in reclaiming the lost wisdom of the “Eternal God.” In reality, the wisdom that has been lost is that the devotional conversation does well to break its bond to religious law and tradition for the cultivation of self-regulating wisdom, and that “Eternal God” is but the revelation of an understanding of personal and devotional growth eclipsing that false religious experience. This Gnostic text therefore, when coupling it with the Bible, offers a powerful critique of legalistic religion, inviting minds to escape the tyranny of religious law into the liberty of devotional illumination.

 

Linder, P.-A. & Lunds Universitet. (1991). THE APOCALYPSE OF ADAM NAG HAMMADI CODEX V,5 CONSIDERED FROM ITS EGYPTIAN BACKGROUND. In T. Olsson (Ed.), LUND STUDIES IN AFRICAN AND ASIAN RELIGIONS (Vol. 7, p. 165) [Thesis].

Did Paul Teach a Different Doctrine From Jesus?

The question of whether the Paul character, the supposed apostle of the Gentiles, preached a doctrine distinct from that of the Jesus character is intriguing. Did Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith in his Christ’s blood, death, and resurrection diverge from Jesus’ kingdom-centered message? And why does Jesus speak of the “Son of Man” in the third person, while Paul boldly proclaims the return of his Christ? This blog post looks into the philosophical and textual evidence to unravel this mystery.

Jesus’ Call to Action, Not Atonement

We begin with the Jesus character in Matthew 4:17, which says, “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” His message is clear: the kingdom of God—a sort of (on the surface) contextual experience—is imminent. Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), emphasize ethical living, philosophical Torah observance, and preparation for this “experience.” Jesus positions himself as a revolutionary teacher of Jews’ religion, philosophically approaching it from an angle geared more towards an inward experience above ultimately obedience to religious law.

The “kingdom of heaven” was the main philosophical point of the Jesus character. His parables—like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) or the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)—illustrate a relational ethic rooted in love and justice, not a theology of atonement through his death. Interestingly enough, Jesus never speaks of salvation through his blood or resurrection. Instead, he calls his hearers to observe the path his philosophy has carved out for him: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me,” (Luke 9:23).

Additionally, a curious detail emerges in the language of the Jesus character: he frequently refers to the “Son of Man” in the third person. In Matthew 24:30, he declares, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” This figure, ultimately drawn from Daniel 7:13,14 and inspired from the book of Enoch, is a figurative agent of their Deity’s judgment, yet Jesus never explicitly claims, “I will return.” It is very evident that the focus of the Jesus character wasn’t on himself, but on a message transcending himself, which is why he is scripted as saying, “…the kingdom of God is within you,” (Luke 17:21).

Paul’s Christ-Centered Gospel

Contrast this with Paul, whose letters form the backbone of Christian theory. In 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, Paul defines his gospel: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Here, salvation hinges on faith in his Christ’s death and resurrection—a doctrine absent from Jesus’ “recorded teachings.”

Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith is unmistakable. In Romans 3:25 he writes, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” This concept—atonement through his Christ’s sacrifice—marks a seismic shift from the Jesus character’s kingdom philosophy. Paul seems to have a more intimate connection to the Jesus character’s death and resurrection than the Jesus character himself. For Paul, his Jesus’ death and resurrection are not mere events, but the entirety of salvation.

Moreover, Paul personalizes his Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he states, “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout… and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Unlike Jesus’ detached “Son of Man,” Paul’s Christ is the Lord who returns to rescue believers. Wilson (2014) argues, “Paul conceived of the Christ as a cosmic dying-rising savior, not as a political messiah come to reestablish the Davidic throne” (p. 5). This theological leap—from earthly kingdom to cosmic redemption—suggests a doctrine fundamentally distinct from the gospel’s vision of the Jesus character.

The Son of Man vs. The Returning Christ

The divergence in how Jesus and Paul frame the future is profound. The Jesus character’s “Son of Man” is a mysterious, third-person figure ushering in the “kingdom of Israel’s Deity.” In Mark 13:26 he says, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” There is, in this text, a suggestion that these words align with Jewish eschatology, where the figurative Son of Man acts as their God’s agent, not necessarily being Jesus himself. Philosophically, there is no question that the Jesus character understood that he was not scheduled to return ever again, and yet, Paul’s Christ tells a different story.

Paul, however, collapses this ambiguity. His Christ is unequivocally a Jesus, returning personally to redeem the faithful and to kill the wicked. In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul writes, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” This personalization—his Christ as the returning savior—contrasts sharply with Jesus’ reticence. Wilson (2014) contends, “Paul’s focus was solely on a ‘post-death Jesus’ whom he typically calls ‘Christ’” (p. 35), highlighting a shift from Jesus’ kingdom-now to Paul’s salvation-later.

Justification by Faith: Paul’s Innovation, Not Jesus’ Teaching

Perhaps the greatest difference between the character Paul and the Jesus character lies in the theory of justification by faith. Paul’s doctrine—salvation through belief in his Christ’s atoning death—dominates his letters. In Galatians 2:16, he asserts, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” This rejection of Torah observance for salvation is radical, especially given the supposed affirmation of the law by one of the versions of the Jesus characters (Matthew 5:17-18).

Jesus, conversely, ties righteousness to action within the “kingdom” framework. In Matthew 7:21, he declares, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Beare (1959) notes, “The ethic of Jesus is fundamentally a religious ethic, wholly based upon a right relationship with God” (p. 83)—a relationship forged through the cultivation of wisdom and obedience to that wisdom, not faith in a sacrificial death. Wilson (2014) drives this home: “If we only had Paul, we’d know nothing of the great parables of the Kingdom, the Lord’s Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount” (p. 3). Jesus’ silence on atonement suggests either Paul crafted a new lens, one absent from the Galilean’s message, or that the gospels, which came after Paul, greatly deviated from the original concept of the Jesus character.

Reconciling the Divide

Can these differences be harmonized? McKnight (2010) proposes a unifying thread: the gospel as the story of Jesus. He argues, “The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus… Both ‘gospeled’ the same gospel because both told the story of Jesus” (p. 5). For McKnight, Jesus’ kingdom and Paul’s justification converge in a theoretical Christology—the person of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story.

Yet, this synthesis does not hold under strict philosophical scrutiny. Beare (1959) cautions, “Paul’s gospel is different… It is in fact a gospel about Jesus” (p. 82), distinct from the Jesus character’s own preaching. Wilson (2014) goes further, positing two religions: “Paul’s Christ Movement does not originate in the message of Jesus, nor does it represent an offshoot of the early Jesus Movement. It was, in its time, a separate religious enterprise” (p. 16). The philosophical tension is clear: the Jesus character offers a mental experience rooted in the underlying philosophy of the scriptures, while Paul constructs a future salvation anchored in a Greco-Roman savior archetype.

A Tale of Two Gospels?

So, did Paul teach a doctrine separate from the Jesus character? The evidence—textual, historical, and philosophical—leans toward yes. Jesus’ “kingdom of God,” with its ethical urgency and third-person Son of Man, contrasts with Paul’s justification by faith through a returning “Christ” whose blood and resurrection supernaturally does something phenomenal. While the Jesus character never hints at personal atonement or a second coming, Paul strangely builds his theology around these pillars. And so as readers, we’re left to ponder: Why is there such a divide between the gospel Jesus and the Paul Jesus? Are these complementary visions or irreconcilable theories? It may do us well to remember that the gospels were written 20+ years after the Paul character’s doctrine. Bearing this in mind, is it that Paul’s conception is different from the gospel Jesus, or that the Jesus character of the gospels ultimately diverges from Paul’s Christ?

 

References

Beare, F. W. (1959). Jesus and Paul. Canadian Journal of Theology, 5, 79-86.

McKnight, S. (2010). Jesus vs. Paul. Christianity today, 54(12), 24-29.

Wilson, B. (2014). Paul vs. Jesus.

The Mystery Cult Influence on Paul's Salvation Doctrine

Paul’s doctrine of salvation, as seen in his epistles, presents a profound transformation of the individual—akin to an initiation into a higher spiritual reality. This process bears striking similarities to the initiation rites of Greco-Roman mystery religions, which promised their adherents a form of spiritual rebirth and access to “divine” knowledge. However, Paul’s view of salvation also diverges sharply from the Bible’s concept of salvation, which is mainly inward and experience-based.

Paul’s Doctrine and Initiation Into Salvation

Paul’s doctrine of salvation demonstrates notable parallels with the mystery religions' initiatory frameworks of his day, but is also marked by certain philosophical divergences.

1. Baptism as Initiation into Salvation:
In Paul's theory, baptism serves as the gateway to salvation, mirroring the initiatory rites of the mystery cults. In Romans 6:3-5, Paul presents baptism as a participation in his Christ’s death and resurrection—a spiritual death to the old self and rebirth into new life. This language echoes the death-rebirth motifs in cults like Mithraism and Dionysian rites, where initiates symbolically die and are reborn​.

Despite employing the very same rite of baptism from within mystery religions, Paul’s baptism carries a different theoretical significance. It is not merely a symbolic act, but an assumed ontological transformation, uniting the believer with his Christ in a relational, rather than mystical, sense. Unlike mystery cult initiations, which often blurred individual identity in “divine” absorption, Paul yet emphasizes personal identity and agency. The believer remains distinct yet in communion with his Christ—a “life hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3)​. He took the rite of baptism and re-worked it.

2. The Eucharist and Mystical Communion:
The Eucharist in Paul’s writings mirrors the sacred meals of the mystery religions, particularly the communal feasts in Mithraism and Dionysian rites. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul presents the bread and wine as the body and blood of his Christ, fostering unity among believers and communion with his Christ. However, while the mystery cults’ sacred meals often symbolized the literal consumption of the deity (theophagy), Paul’s Eucharist, while nevertheless maintaining a yet literal stance of mystical union, serves as a supposed symbolic memorial and proclamation of his Christ’s death​.

3. Faith-Mysticism vs. Ritualistic Mysticism:
Paul’s theology introduces a unique form of faith-mysticism, distinct from the ritualistic mysticism of the mystery cults. For Paul, faith—not ritual—is the primary means of accessing “divine grace.” This is evident in his doctrine of justification by faith (Romans 3:28), where salvation is a “divine gift,” received through trust in his Christ rather than through elaborate rites​.

This diverges from the mystery cults, where elaborate initiation rituals were the primary means of salvation. While mystery cults emphasized emotional ecstasy and sensory experiences to foster divine union, Paul focuses on an internal, ethical transformation initiated by faith and sustained by the “Holy Spirit​.” Oddly enough, Christianity would move away from Paul’s stoic approach to a mystery religion and embody the spirit of former Greco-Roman cults.

4. Divergence in the Concept of Salvation:
While both Paul’s version of the Christian religion and the mystery religions are redemptive, their conceptions of salvation differ fundamentally. Mystery cults promised a form of mystical immortality—often tied to the natural cycles of death and rebirth—as in the myths of Osiris or Attis. Paul’s soteriology, however, emphasizes salvation from both the guilt and power of sin, achieved yet through his Christ’s atoning death and resurrection​.

Moreover, Paul introduces a forensic dimension to his theory salvation, absent in mystery cults. Justification in Paul’s theology is not about mystical transformation alone, but also about being legally declared righteous before “God”—a judicial act grounded in “divine grace” rather than ritual efficacy​. Again, as time would pass, the Christian church would find herself embracing a religious lifestyle that Paul sought the philosophically reform.

From the Bible’s Inward Transformation to Paul’s Theological Supernaturalism

Paul’s theology represents a significant divergence from the Bible’s focus on an inner, personal relationship with the living God, emphasizing instead a supernatural framework where salvation is externalized and anchored in the redemptive act of his Christ. While passages like Psalm 51:10 (“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”) and Job 22:21-22 (“Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee”) emphasize internal renewal and a personal encounter with the Bible’s words, Paul introduces a theoretical theological model grounded in a supernatural act of grace, often externalized in sacramental forms.

1. Inward Salvation by Wisdom vs. Paul’s Theological Supernaturalism

The Bible frequently highlights the inner dimensions of salvation—the heart, wisdom, and spiritual renewal. In Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” salvation begins with reverence, leading to a deeper understanding of truths found within the pages of the Bible. Ecclesiastes 7:12 echoes this sentiment, stating that “wisdom giveth life to them that have it,” emphasizing an internal acquisition of knowledge as a path to life.

Paul, however, shifts this internal focus to a supernatural model of salvation, where the redemptive act is initiated not by inner spiritual awakening but by “God's” external intervention. According to Paul, salvation is not ultimately an organic growth of self through inward wisdom, but a “new creation” that results from the resurrection of his Christ—a supernatural event applied to believers through faith​.

2. From Justification through Understanding to Justification by Faith

A pivotal divergence is Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. In contrast to the Bible’s emphasis on cultivating a pure heart (Psalm 51:10) and growing in wisdom and knowledge of the Bible’s devotional character (Proverbs 9:10), Paul introduces a forensic element where the believer is declared righteous by “God,” irrespective of their inner moral state. This legal declaration stems from his Christ's atoning sacrifice, shifting the focus from inward transformation to legal acquittal​, which clearly defies the saying, “…through knowledge shall the just be delivered,” Proverbs 11:9.

While passages like Job 22:21-22 advocate for a personal, experiential knowledge of the living God—“Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart”—Paul proposes that the wisdom given directly from investigating the scriptures cannot truly bring about righteousness, even if the scriptures clarify that such an experience leads into the intended righteousness. Instead, faith in his Christ, despite whatever mental exercises one embraces, becomes the sole means of salvation. This theological shift moves away from the Bible’s relational approach to the living God and centers on a faith-based, supernatural justification​.

3. Wisdom and the Spirit: Pauline Mysticism vs. Bible

Paul's letters, especially 1 Corinthians, present wisdom not as something attained through fear of the living God (as in Proverbs 9:10), but as a mystery revealed through the “Spirit” to those “mature” in “faith.” This “hidden wisdom” is accessible only through “divine revelation,” contrasting with the Bible’s more democratic view of wisdom as accessible to all who fear​, which is why it says in Isaiah 66:2, “...to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”

Paul’s understanding of the “indwelling Spirit” greatly diverges from the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Bible, the outpouring of the living God’s spirit means the manifestation of understanding, even like as it says in Proverbs 1:23, “...I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” Paul changes and radicalizes this by claiming that his Christ himself dwells within the believer, existing in the form of a personal indwelling rather than an abstract influence. This indwelling shifts the focus from the cultivation of the devotional character by wisdom and understanding to the mystical presence of a “Christ” within.

4. The Experience of Salvation: Internal Awakening vs. Supernatural Act

The Bible emphasizes salvation as an inward journey—a process of the devotional character becoming acquainted with the Bible’s devotional character, developing wisdom, and cultivating a renewed heart. Paul, on the other hand, frames salvation as a supernatural event enacted by “God,” independent of human effort. Salvation, according to Paul, is “not an affair of the human will,” but the result of “God’s sovereign act” through the resurrection of his Christ​.

This theological stance minimizes the role of personal spiritual development in favor of an externalized, supernatural imposition of “grace.” While Psalm 51:10 focuses on the heart’s cleansing through repentance and creation, Paul emphasizes a “new creation” brought about by “God,” bypassing the gradual inner transformation highlighted in the Bible.

A Shift from Inner Wisdom to Supernatural Redemption

Paul’s doctrine of salvation stands at the crossroads of Jewish and Hellenistic religious thought. It absorbs the transformational motifs of Greco-Roman mystery cults—death, rebirth, and mystical union—while simultaneously breaking with the concept of salvation within the Hebrew Scriptures. In Paul’s vision, salvation is an initiation into his Christ’s death and resurrection, a mystical participation in the “divine life” that surpasses genuine inward personal devotional growth and development. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Paul employs the language and structure of mystery religions to articulate a faith that is both deeply mystical and radically inclusive.

Paul’s theology represents a radical departure from the inner-focused, wisdom-based salvation found in the Bible’s philosophy. Where Psalm 51:10, Proverbs 9:10, Ecclesiastes 7:12, and Job 22:21-22 highlight the transformative power of the Bible’s wisdom, fear of the living God, and internal spiritual renewal, Paul centers salvation on a supernatural act—the resurrection of his Christ—applied to believers through faith.

This shift moves the emphasis from an internal experience of growing into the Bible’s wisdom and character to an externalized, legal declaration of righteousness, thereby altering the Bible’s philosophy of salvation as an inward journey into a supernatural act of “divine grace,” an act that, in and of itself, is nothing less than a wielded religious law, something that Paul oddly protested, and yet subtly magnified through his Christ.

 references

Angus, S. (1921). The Mystery Religions and Christianity. Review & Expositor, 18(3), 317-341.

Fraser, C. G. (1998). The Jewish and Hellenistic influences on Paul: A case study of" mysterion".

Machen, J. G. (1925). The origin of Paul's religion. Eerdmans.

Moyer, E. W. (1932). The mystery-religions and their influence upon Paul's conception of Christian belief (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University).