The Revelation of John 2

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

² I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

³ And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

⁴ Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

⁵ Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

⁶ But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

⁷ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

⁸ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

⁹ I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

¹⁰ Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

¹¹ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

¹² And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

¹³ I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

¹⁴ But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

¹⁵ So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

¹⁶ Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

¹⁷ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

¹⁸ And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;

¹⁹ I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

²⁰ Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

²¹ And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

²² Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

²³ And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

²⁴ But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

²⁵ But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

²⁶ And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

²⁷ And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

²⁸ And I will give him the morning star.

²⁹ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Historical Evolution of Christianity

In the historicist interpretation of Revelation, the messages addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor are not only meant for the local communities of the first century but also hold prophetic significance. Each church represents a distinct stage in the evolution of Christianity, reflecting doctrinal, social, and political changes throughout the history of the Church. The first four churches mentioned in Revelation 2 – Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, and Thyatira – correspond to the first four major periods of Christianity, from the early generations of believers to the Middle Ages.

Ephesus – The First Church (60 A.D. – 200 A.D.)

The Church of Ephesus symbolizes the beginnings of Christianity, the apostolic era in which the message of the Gospel remained pure and untainted by foreign philosophical or theological influences. It was a time of enthusiasm but also of confrontation with the first attempts to distort the original teachings of Christ.

Christ praises Ephesus for "not bearing with evil people" and for having "tested those who claim to be apostles but are not" (Revelation 2:2). This suggests an initial opposition to those who, under the guise of new wisdom, sought to alter the authentic message of the Kingdom. However, Ephesus is rebuked for having "left their first love" (Revelation 2:4), indicating a subtle deviation from Christ's original message.

This period is crucial in understanding the conflict that would intensify in the following centuries: the true Gospel of the Kingdom versus alternative interpretations that would gradually dominate Christianity.

Smyrna – The Second Church (200 A.D. – 400 A.D.)

Smyrna represents the persecuted church, composed of believers who refuse to compromise with the world and who suffer for the truth. This period is marked by Roman persecutions, but also by a more subtle conflict: the attempt to introduce foreign ideas into the faith.

Christ tells the Church of Smyrna: "I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich" (Revelation 2:9). This is a strong contrast to the image of a church that would later become wealthy and influential, but lose its essence. Smyrna is also warned about the "synagogue of Satan," a symbol of opposition not only from the outside but also from within Christianity, where false teachings attempt to replace the truth of the Kingdom with an institutionalized religion.

This is the period when the pure Gospel is threatened both by the power of the Roman Empire and by Greco-Roman theological thought, which would begin to radically change the understanding of Christ’s message.

Pergamum – The Third Church (400 A.D. – 800 A.D.)

The Church of Pergamum symbolizes the period when Christianity began to make major compromises. After the persecutions ended and Christianity became the official religion of the empire, the Gospel was gradually replaced by a form of politicized and syncretic faith.

Christ rebukes Pergamum for "living where Satan’s throne is" and for "holding to the teaching of Balaam" (Revelation 2:13-14), referring to the alliances between church leaders and worldly power. During this period, the influences of Greek philosophy and Neoplatonic ideas deeply infiltrated theology, gradually transforming Christianity into a hierarchical religion focused on human authority rather than on the true Kingdom of God.

The conflict between the Gospel as presented in Revelation and the new doctrines becomes clear: while Christ calls for a living and authentic faith, the institutionalized Christianity begins to impose human-made dogmas.

Thyatira – The Fourth Church (800 A.D. – 1400 A.D.)

Thyatira marks the peak of spiritual corruption when the church becomes a powerful yet profoundly compromised institution. During this period, the authentic Gospel of Christ is almost completely overshadowed by an organized religion based on hierarchy and dogmas enforced through authority.

Christ rebukes the church for "tolerating that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and leads my servants into sexual immorality" (Revelation 2:20). This symbolic reference points to how the church combined divine teachings with foreign elements, introducing doctrines that do not align with the original message of Christ.

The Middle Ages were dominated by a church that controlled the masses through fear and authority, alienating believers from a personal relationship with God. During this period, the Gospel of the Kingdom was almost lost, and any attempt to return to the truth was brutally suppressed.

Intermediate Conclusion

The first four churches of Revelation describe the transition from the initial purity of Christ's message to a faith increasingly compromised by external influences. From the apostolic zeal of Ephesus to the corruption of Thyatira, we witness a continuous struggle between the Gospel of the Kingdom and theological interpretations that deviated from the truth.

The conflict between Revelation and Pauline theology becomes increasingly apparent. While Christ calls for an authentic faith based on deeds and obedience, the dominant theology increasingly moves away from this vision, promoting an intellectualized and abstract faith. This trend will continue to shape the church in the following ages, leading to a final confrontation between the truth revealed in Revelation and all other forms of corrupt Christianity.

Thus, the evolution of Christianity is not just a story of historical changes, but a direct conflict between the authentic message of Christ and human attempts to reshape it according to their own will.

The Nicolaitans – Conquering Philosophers

The Nicolaitans are mentioned in Revelation only in Ephesus and Pergamum because these were the only philosophical centers among the seven churches mentioned. While all cities had pagan influences, only these two held a distinct intellectual status, making them key points for the spread of philosophy and Nicolaitan influence.

The name "Nicolaitans" comes from the Greek Nikolaites, derived from nikan("to conquer") and laos("people"), meaning "conquerors of the people." This name reflects their historical role: they were not just thinkers, but wielded an intellectual and spiritual influence aimed at transforming and dominating the culture of their time.

Ephesus and Pergamum – Philosophical Centers

Ephesus

Ephesus was one of the largest cultural and intellectual centers of the ancient world. The city hosted schools of philosophy where ideas related to metaphysics, ethics, and cosmology were debated. Influential philosophers such as Heraclitus, known for his theory of change and fire as the fundamental principle of existence, shaped Ephesian thought. Ephesus was thus fertile ground for Nicolaitan ideas, which sought to blend human reason with spirituality.

Moreover, Ephesus was known for its extensive commercial and political connections, which facilitated the spread of philosophical ideas. Schools of rhetoric and learning centers contributed to the circulation and popularization of new concepts, including those of the Nicolaitans, who used these structures to promote their ideology.

Pergamum

Pergamum was the second most significant philosophical center of the Hellenistic world after Alexandria. Its library, second only to the one in Alexandria, contained hundreds of thousands of manuscripts and was a crucial point of intellectual exchange. Pergamum was a bastion of knowledge where Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics were studied, making it an ideal place for philosophical debates. In this environment, the Nicolaitans developed their influence, using Greek philosophy to reshape religious concepts.

Pergamum also had a special status as the seat of an important imperial cult, and the city’s religious syncretism allowed the integration of Greek philosophy into various forms of spirituality. Here, the Nicolaitans found a prepared audience willing to adopt their teachings, influencing local elites and gradually reshaping primary Christian doctrine.

The Nicolaitans as Conquering Philosophers

The fact that the Nicolaitans are mentioned only in Ephesus and Pergamum demonstrates that they were philosophers and that their teachings were rooted in Greek philosophical thought. Jesus mentions them only in these two cities precisely because that was where they were active, knowing that their influence would eventually pervert the entire Christian doctrine, as history has shown.

Through intellectual elites and educational structures, the Nicolaitans managed to disseminate a way of thinking that, over the centuries, fundamentally transformed Christianity. Their ideas led to the development of theological concepts that altered the original message, paving the way for a synthesis between Hellenistic rationalism and Christian doctrine.

The Nicolaitans were not just an ordinary religious group but conquering philosophers who found fertile ground in Ephesus and Pergamum. Their danger lay in their intellectual influence, and their impact went beyond mere doctrinal heresies. The symbolism of the rider on the white horse reinforces the idea that the expansion of Greek philosophy was a strategic process of intellectual domination over the ancient world.

Historical evidence shows that this influence was not only powerful but also irreversible. The Greek mindset was integrated into Christian theology, changing perspectives on divinity, morality, and the structure of the Church. This phenomenon confirms that the Nicolaitans were not just participants in this transformation but its principal architects.

Paul and the Diversion of the Gospel in Ephesus

Early Christianity was marked by a fundamental tension between the clear and direct message of Jesus and subsequent attempts to "intellectualize" it. Jesus preached simply, addressing ordinary people without using complex philosophical concepts. However, the apostle Paul intervened and diverted the original message by integrating it into the Greco-Roman philosophical world. A clear example of this process is what happened in Ephesus, where Paul changed the direction of Apollos' group of disciples and transformed the simple message of repentance into a theological system based on philosophical speculation.

1. Apollos and the Authentic Foundation of the Church in Ephesus

Before Paul’s arrival, Ephesus already had a group of disciples instructed by Apollos, an eloquent Jew from Alexandria. Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24) and preached about Jesus within the framework of John's baptism. This is essential because Jesus himself affirmed that John’s baptism came "from heaven" (Matthew 21:25), representing a fundamental step for those who would accept Him.

The disciples in Ephesus were already on the right path, following the call to repentance preached by John the Baptist, just as those who followed Jesus during His earthly ministry. They were people living in harmony with the divine message, untouched by foreign philosophical concepts.

2. Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla: Diverting the Message

When Paul arrives in Ephesus, things take a radical turn. First, Aquila and Priscilla, Paul's collaborators, "explain the way of God more accurately" to Apollos (Acts 18:26). However, what initially appears to be a clarification becomes, in reality, a paradigm shift: they convert him to what Paul considered the Gospel, but which, in fact, was a philosophical version of the original message.

When Paul returns to Ephesus, he finds a group of disciples who had received only John's baptism (Acts 19:1-3). Instead of acknowledging this baptism as "from heaven," as Jesus declared, he insists that they be re-baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and receive the "Holy Spirit," leading to speaking in tongues (Acts 19:5-6). This is crucial because Jesus never made acceptance of the Gospel conditional on ecstatic experiences or re-baptism. Here we see how Paul introduces a new practice, foreign to the original message.

3. The School of Tyrannus: Philosophy Instead of Repentance

After "correcting" the Ephesian disciples, Paul establishes his preaching center at a place called "The School of Tyrannus" (Acts 19:9). The Greek term used is σχολή(scholē), designating an educational place, especially associated with philosophy or rhetoric. In the Greco-Roman world, there were no "schools" in the modern sense, only philosophical academies and rhetoric centers.

This detail is crucial: Paul did not continue his work in a synagogue or a traditional religious teaching space but in an academic setting, typical of Greek philosophy. This is clear evidence that Paul did not attempt to preserve the simple message of repentance and John’s baptism but transformed it into an intellectual system based on arguments and speculations.

4. The Ephesians Abandon Paul

Later, Paul himself complains that he was abandoned by the churches of Asia, including Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:15). This indicates that the people of Ephesus realized that the direction Paul was leading them in was not the correct one. They understood that Paul’s message was philosophical and complicated, far removed from the simple repentance preached by John and Jesus.

Then comes Jesus' message in Revelation 2:4-5, where He reproaches the Ephesians for having "left their first love" and urges them to return to what they had at the beginning. What did they have at the beginning? Not Paul's philosophy, but the repentance preached by John. Moreover, Jesus commends them for rejecting "false apostles," aligning perfectly with the fact that Paul had been abandoned.

5. Conclusion: Paul as a False Apostle

Paul did not establish the church in Ephesus—he hijacked it. He took a group of disciples who followed the simple path of repentance and John's baptism and transformed them into followers of a philosophical version of Christianity. The School of Tyrannus is clear evidence that Paul favored philosophy over authentic repentance.

Jesus' message in Revelation confirms this: true believers are those who kept their "first love"—authentic repentance—and rejected false apostles. In this context, Paul emerges as a preacher who attempted to be wiser than Jesus but was ultimately rejected by those who recognized the truth.

Thus, if we want to understand what happened in Ephesus, we must look not at what Paul built, but at what he destroyed: an authentic community based on repentance, replaced by a complicated system rooted in philosophy.

Paul - Accused of Lying and Abandoned by the Churches of Asia

The Apostle Paul is the central figure of a major controversy in early Christianity. While he presents himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, the churches in Asia rejected him, and Jesus Himself praises the church of Ephesus for its discernment in identifying false apostles. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus states: "You have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars."Throughout biblical history, the only apostle accused of lying and rejected by churches is Paul.

The 12 Authentic Apostles

The Bible mentions 12 apostles chosen directly by Jesus: Peter, Andrew, James (son of Zebedee), John, Philip, Bartholomew (Nathaniel), Thomas, Matthew (Levi), James (son of Alphaeus), Simon the Zealot, Judas Thaddeus, and Judas Iscariot. After Judas Iscariot’s death, the apostles cast lots and chose Matthias to replace him (Acts 1:26), thus maintaining the number of the 12.

Apart from these, there is no other apostle chosen by Jesus or confirmed by the other apostles. Unlike Matthias, Paul was not chosen by casting lots and was not recognized by the churches of Asia. He is the only one who was rejected and accused of lying.

Paul and the Accusations of False Apostleship

The accusations against Paul are not mere mistakes or errors of expression but concern his very identity as an apostle. If Paul had been an authentic apostle sent by Jesus, then Jesus would have defended him, not praised those who rejected him. This fact demonstrates that Paul did not receive his Gospel from Jesus but created his own teachings, which were recognized as false by the churches of Asia.

In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul declares: "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Yet at the same time, he condemns anyone who dares to preach anything other than what he calls "my gospel" (Romans 2:16, 2 Timothy 2:8).

Furthermore, in Galatians 1:8-9, Paul goes so far as to pronounce a curse on anyone who preaches a different gospel:
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" This attitude is unprecedented among the authentic apostles of Jesus, who never cursed anyone for preaching the truth. This proves that Paul did not preach in harmony with the other apostles but created his own teachings, different from those of Jesus.

If Jesus had truly given him an authentic Gospel, the churches of Asia would not have had any reason to reject him, and Ephesus would not have been praised for its discernment. Instead, the fact that all these churches abandoned him proves that his teaching did not come from Jesus but was a separate doctrine, unrecognized by the authentic Christian community.

Theological Conflicts Continue to This Day

The struggle between Paul’s teaching and that of the authentic apostles did not end with his rejection by the churches of Asia. On the contrary, this division gave rise to a theological conflict that continues to this day. Churches that adopted Paul’s theology became the majority and used their power to suppress any form of opposition. Throughout history, Christians who dared to question Paul’s "gospel" and "apostleship" were persecuted, marginalized, and even eliminated. This confrontation shaped Christianity and profoundly influenced how the message of Jesus was transmitted.

Paul and His Chameleon-like Adaptation

One of the clearest signs of Paul’s falsehood is the way he adapted to his audience. In 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, he explicitly states:
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (...) To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

This is not merely a missionary strategy but clear evidence of his lack of authenticity. Paul did not have a fixed message but adapted his discourse to his audience. With Jews, he was a Jew; with Greeks, he was a Greek; and with philosophers, he was a philosopher. The major problem is that he was indeed a philosopher, and his entire theology is heavily influenced by Hellenistic thought.

Paul - The Hidden Philosopher

Paul was not just an ordinary preacher but a man trained in the philosophical centers of the ancient world. He was born in Tarsus, a city known for its philosophical schools, and his education was not limited to Jewish teachings. He also studied in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts 22:3), an influential rabbi who was himself open to Greek philosophical influences and religious syncretism.

This dual influence – Greek philosophy from Tarsus and rabbinic teaching open to syncretism – explains why Paul was the only apostle who intertwined philosophy with the Gospel. Unlike the other apostles, who simply conveyed the teachings of Jesus, Paul reinterpreted Christ’s message through a philosophical lens, introducing concepts foreign to the original Hebrew mindset.

Paul’s Attack on Philosophy – A Diversion

Paul seems to oppose philosophy in Colossians 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." At first glance, this appears to be a clear condemnation of philosophical thought, but in reality, Paul attacks only that philosophy which contradicts his own doctrine. It is not a rejection of philosophy itself but an attack on those who challenge his own philosophical ideas promoted in what he calls "my gospel."

It is ironic that he himself introduces philosophy into apostolic theology, promoting concepts like the Logos and other Greek elements that did not exist in the message of Jesus. These influences are clearly seen in how Paul structures Christian doctrine, emphasizing abstract concepts and metaphysical interpretations that are absent from the teachings of the other apostles.

Why Was Paul Found to Be a Liar?

An essential aspect that helped the believers in Ephesus recognize the falsehood of Paul’s apostleship can be found in the words of Jesus: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many."(Matthew 24:4-5)

The word "Christ"means "Anointed One"(Greek: Christos), and those who come in the name of Jesus cannot claim to be the Christ, but only to be His messengers, that is, "apostles". Therefore, the Ephesians understood that anyone who claimed to be an apostle while introducing a different Gospel fit exactly into Jesus’ warning about those who deceive under the pretext of a divine calling. Paul, proclaiming his own independent apostleship and a different Gospel, was thus recognized as one of those trying to deceive many.

Jesus praised the churches in Asia for testing those who claimed to be apostles and finding them to be liars (Revelation 2:2). This statement is not vague—it applies precisely to Paul and his followers. The reason he was found to be a liar was not just his chameleon-like way of preaching, but also the fact that his source of inspiration was not Jesus, but Greek philosophy and religious syncretism.

The real problem with Paul is not just that he adapted to different groups, but that he was, in reality, a philosopher who transformed the message of Jesus into a theological system influenced by Greek thought. He was rejected by the churches of Asia because his Gospel was not that of Jesus but one shaped by the philosophical principles of the time. That is why Jesus praised those who rejected him: because they recognized that Paul was a false apostle, an innovator who created his own religious system under the guise of apostleship.

The Gospel of Jesus: Birth by the Spirit, Dominion, and Salvation

The Gospel presents Jesus as a Man chosen and anointed by God, to whom absolute authority over all humanity is given, according to the prophecy of Daniel 7. His unique identity as the Son of God begins at His baptism in the Jordan, when the Holy Spirit descends upon Him—not at His biological birth. This moment is not merely a symbolic ritual but His spiritual birth as the Son of God, the event that grants Him divine authority. That is why, only after His baptism, the Devil tempts Him by questioning whether He is the Son of God, and His family believes that "He has lost His mind" because His transformation was radical and visible.

Salvation according to the Gospel does not come through a "substitutionary sacrifice" but through the power that God grants to Jesus: He has the authority to forgive sins and forgave anyone in need of forgiveness, He will judge the world, and He will rule over nations. He is the Anointed King, designated to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The call to salvation is not a passive belief in His sacrifice but submission to His authority and living a life of righteousness and obedience to God.

The death of Jesus is not an act of atonement but a supreme martyrdom, by which He seals His faith and devotion to God. His resurrection is not a "defeat of sin" in the Pauline sense but a confirmation from God that He is the chosen one who will judge and lead humanity. Thus, there is no "death to sin" as an absolute inner transformation, but only forgiveness and restoration for those who are faithful to the Anointed One designated by God.

The Two Gospels of the New Testament

The New Testament contains two distinct visions of the person and mission of Jesus: the Gospel of the Son of Man and Paul’s Gospel. These are not two separate Gospels in a formal sense but rather two different perspectives that coexist in the biblical text, leaving the interpretation and choice to the reader.

1. The Gospel of the Son of Man – A Clear Vision

This Gospel presents Jesus as the Man chosen and anointed by God, who receives all authority from the Father. He is not God incarnate but a perfect man, born of the Spirit at baptism, the moment when He becomes the Son of God. This moment is crucial because Jesus does not become the Son of God through His biological birth from Mary, but through baptism, when the Holy Spirit completely fills Him and consecrates Him as the Anointed King of the world.

In this Gospel, salvation comes through obedience and repentance, not through a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus has the power to forgive sins and to judge the world, but this authority is given to Him by God and is not inherent to His being. The Kingdom of God is a concrete reality that will be established on earth, and those who follow Jesus' message will live under a new divine order.

This Gospel contains no mysteries in the sense of paradoxes or logically incomprehensible enigmas. All events and concepts can be clearly explained:

• Jesus is a man, anointed and chosen by God.

• He receives authority and dominion after His baptism.

• Salvation is obtained through obedience and righteous living.

• The Kingdom of God is a real historical event that will be established on earth.

This vision is supported by passages such as Daniel 7:13-14 ("To him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom...") and the Gospel of Mark, which begins directly with Jesus' baptism without references to a miraculous birth.

2. Paul’s Gospel – A Gospel of Mysteries and Paradoxes

Unlike the Gospel of the Son of Man, Paul’s Gospel is built on mysteries, paradoxes, and enigmas that surpass human logic. In this perspective, Jesus is not just a man chosen by God but is God incarnate, having a dual nature—completely human and completely divine at the same time. This is the first great mystery, as normally an individual cannot be 100% of two different natures simultaneously.

Another central element is the death of Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice, a concept that does not exist in the Gospel of the Son of Man. According to Paul, the sins of all humanity are atoned for through Jesus' death, and this unique sacrifice is the only way by which people can be saved. This creates a paradox: why would such a sacrifice be necessary if God can forgive anyway?

In total, Paul’s Gospel contains five fundamental mysteries:

1. The Mystery of Incarnation– Jesus is simultaneously 100% man and 100% God (Philippians 2:6-7).

2. The Mystery of the Relationship between Jesus and God– Jesus is equal to God, yet at the same time submissive to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).

3. The Mystery of Substitutionary Death– Jesus' death is a universal sacrifice for the sins of all people (Romans 5:8-9).

4. The Mystery of Death to Sin– Those who believe in Jesus are considered "dead to sin" and "alive through the Spirit," although in reality, sin remains a constant reality (Romans 6:11).

5. The Mystery of the Kingdom– The Kingdom of God is both present and future, creating a temporal contradiction (Colossians 1:13).

These mysteries require blind faith, as they cannot be logically explained. Unlike the Gospel of the Son of Man, which offers a clear understanding of matters, Paul’s Gospel demands acceptance of seemingly contradictory realities that cannot be rationally verified.

The Choice between the Two Gospels

Both Gospels are present in the text of the New Testament, but they offer fundamentally different perspectives on Jesus and salvation. Each reader must decide which one reflects the truth:

• If someone prefers a clear, logical vision based on obedience and the establishment of a real Kingdom on earth, the Gospel of the Son of Man is their choice.

• If someone accepts that salvation is a mystery based on enigmas, paradoxes, and unconditional grace, Paul’s Gospel is the path they will follow.

This fundamental difference makes the interpretation of the New Testament a matter of personal choice: will the reader follow the clear Gospel of the Son of Man or the mystical and paradoxical Gospel of Paul?

Antipas

The Faithful Witness and the Struggle Against the "Fathers"

In the message to the church in Pergamum (Revelation 2:13), Christ mentions "Antipas, my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells."In the historicist interpretation, Antipas is not merely a first-century martyr but a prophetic symbol of those who opposed the corruption of Christianity through philosophy and power structures. If we look at the name Antipas, it means "against the father"or "against the parent". This meaning is essential because it raises the question: who were called "fathers"at that time, and why would someone who opposed them be "killed"symbolically?

Who Were the "Fathers" in Roman and Greek Society?

In the ancient world, the title of fatherwas not only used for biological parents but also for those who had spiritual or intellectual authority over others. Two main categories of "fathers"dominated society:

1. Philosophers– In the Greco-Roman world, teachers and thinkers were seen as "fathers"of wisdom. A famous example is the relationship between Alexander the Great and Aristotle. Alexander considered Aristotle his "father"in terms of knowledge, reflecting the role of philosophers as mentors and spiritual leaders in antiquity. Greek philosophy was closely linked to education, politics, and, later on, Christian theology, as the Church adopted Aristotelian and Platonic concepts in formulating its doctrines.

2. Religious Clergy– Pagan priests, but especially Christian priests, who, with the institutionalization of the Church, began to be called "Fathers of the Church". Beginning in the 4th century, bishops and religious leaders gained immense authority, and those who opposed the official doctrine were considered heretics.

Arius – Antipas, the One Who Opposed the "Fathers"

If we apply this idea to Christian history, Antipas can be interpreted as a symbolic figure representing Ariusand those who opposed the adoption of Greek philosophy by the Church. Arius challenged the Nicene dogma of "homoousios"(the Son being of the same essence as the Father), a doctrine strongly influenced by Platonic thinking about divine nature and essences. In other words, Arius stood against the "fathers"of philosophical theology who interpreted Christianity through intellectual frameworks foreign to the Gospel.

At the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), bishops—who had become the Fathers of the Church—condemned Arius and exiled him, marking the victory of Greek philosophy over a simpler theology based solely on Scripture. This was, in fact, the symbolic death of Antipas. Arius was persecuted and marginalized, and his ideas were deemed heretical, although many of his contemporaries recognized his erudition and simplicity in understanding Christ.

Antipas and the Corruption of the Church through Philosophy

After the victory of Nicene dogma, Christianity began to change radically. The clergy became increasingly authoritarian, and bishops, especially those from Rome and Constantinople, consolidated their power. This transition led to the rise of Greek philosophical influence within the Church and the formation of increasingly sophisticated theology, but also increasingly distanced from the simplicity of apostolic faith.

Thus, Antipas (Arius)was not just a man who lost a theological dispute but a prophetic symbol of those who tried to preserve the purity of Christianity, only to be suppressed by the philosophical and religious "fathers"of the new ecclesiastical structure. This change was not merely a doctrinal struggle but the beginning of a new era in which Christianity became more of a political and philosophical institution than a simple faith based on the teachings of Christ.

Arius vs. Athanasius: The Conflict between Philosophy and Scripture

The dispute between Arius and Athanasiuswas not just a theological debate but a fundamental conflict over the authority of Scripture versus the authority of Greek philosophy in defining Jesus. Arius did not just contest a doctrine but the entire methodology by which Athanasius and others attempted to define the nature of the Son.

Athanasius, supported by a tradition that had already integrated Greek philosophical concepts such as ousia(essence) and homoousios(of the same essence), viewed Christian faith through the lens of Greek metaphysics. For him, Jesus had to be "of the same essence"as the Father for salvation to be possible—an argument based not on Scripture but on the philosophical logic of participation in divinity.

Arius, on the other hand, rejected this philosophical approach and insisted that Jesus be defined solely based on Scripture. He saw in the attempt to formulate ontological dogmas a contamination of the authentic message of the Gospel. In his view, Jesus is the Son of Godin the biblical sense—an anointed man, chosen and sent by God—not a divine being of the same essence as the Father.

Textual Evidence: What Does Jesus Say About Himself?

If Athanasius were right, we would expect to find clear statements in Scripture where Jesus declares Himself to be God or to have the same divine essence as the Father. But in John 10:32-39, where Jesus is accused by the Jews of "making Himself God", His response is the exact opposite of what Athanasius would want to hear:

• Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6("I said, 'You are gods'"), which refers to human judges or leaders who have been given divine authority. Through this, Jesus clarifies that the title "Son of God"does not imply a divine essence equal to the Father but a status as a chosen man endowed with divine authority.

• He does not say "I am God"but rather explains that He has been sanctified and sent by the Father(John 10:36). If He had intended to affirm an ontological unity, this would have been the ideal moment. Instead, He argues from Scripture that humans can be called "gods"without implying divine essence.

• "I and the Father are one"(John 10:30) cannot be interpreted ontologically because, in John 17:21-23, Jesus extends this unity to the disciples, saying that they too must be "one"with Him and the Father. If this meant an identity of divine essence, then the disciples would also be Gods, which is absurd. Therefore, Jesus is speaking of a unity of purpose and action, not of essence.

Arius vs. Athanasius: A Fundamental Theological Conflict

The conflict between Arius and Athanasius is not just a dogmatic debate but a confrontation between two ways of understanding Christianity:

• Ariusremains faithful to Scripture, defining Jesus according to the sacred texts, without the influence of foreign philosophical categories. For him, Jesus is a chosen and anointed man of God, having a unique authority but without being of the same essence as the Father.

• Athanasiusintroduces Greek philosophy into theology, asserting that Jesus must be "homoousios"with the Father for the doctrine of salvation to work. This position is built on metaphysical premises that are not present in the biblical text.

Therefore, Jesus Himself, through His response in John 10, supports Arius' position rather than Athanasius’. He does not define Himself through philosophical categories of divine essence but through His relationship with the Father as a chosen man, sent and endowed with divine authority. Athanasius lost the biblical ground and took refuge in Greek philosophy, while Arius remained faithful to Scripture.

Philo of Alexandria and the Influence of Greek Philosophy

The Christianity we know today is not merely a continuation of the Jewish tradition but the result of a synthesis between Judaism and Greek philosophy. This transformation was made possible through key figures who reinterpreted the concept of the Messiah, especially Paul and, later, the theologians who developed the Gospel of John and the Nicene doctrine. However, the source of this reinterpretation is not divine revelation, as official Christianity claims, but Hellenistic thought—particularly the concept of the Logospromoted by Philo of Alexandria. The Book of Revelation, however, openly contradicts this direction, indicating that what has been promoted under the name of the Gospel of Christ is not, in fact, the true Gospel.

Philo of Alexandria and the Idea of the Logos – Premise for Paul and John

Philo of Alexandria(c. 20 B.C. – c. 50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher influenced by Platonism and Stoicism, developed a crucial concept for the evolution of Christianity: the Logos.

For Philo, the Logos was:

• The "Firstborn Son" of God– A divine emanation that acts as an intermediary between God and the world.

• The Perfect Image of God– A "shadow"of God that mirrors divine perfection.

• The High Priest and Mediator– An entity that bridges the gap between God and humanity.

These ideas did not exist in traditional Judaism but were adopted and reinterpreted by Hellenistic Christianity. The Gospel of John begins with the famous phrase: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) This clearly shows that the author of this Gospel was directly influenced by Philo’s thought, not by authentic revelation.

Paul and the Creation of a Philosophical Christ

If Philo built the bridge between Judaism and Greek philosophy, Paul was the one who crossed it. Unlike the apostles who knew Jesus as the Messiah, Paul transformed Him into a philosophical Logos, a universal figure accessible to the Greco-Roman world.

• Christ as the "Image of God"– Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."This formulation is almost identical to Philo’s description of the Logos.

• Christ as the "New Adam"– Paul introduces the concept of a "heavenly man"replacing the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-49), similar to Philo's Anthropos Noetos.

• Christ as Mediator– Just as Philo saw the Logos as the bridge between God and the world, Paul asserts that "there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"(1 Timothy 2:5).

Thus, Paul merely borrowed Philo’s ideas, combining them with elements from Jewish tradition to construct a new version of Christ—one compatible with Greek thought. This is, in reality, "Paul’s Gospel"—a gospel that does not come from revelation but from the synthesis between Judaism and Philo’s philosophy.

Nicaea: The Victory of Philosophy Over Apostolic Tradition

This philosophical reinterpretation of Christ did not stop with Paul. It was carried further in the Gospel of Johnand ultimately formalized at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), where bishops influenced by Platonism established the doctrine of homoousios("of the same essence with the Father"). This was not a teaching of Jesus or the apostles but a theological elaboration based on Greek metaphysical categories.

Practically, Nicaea marked the moment when Christianity officially ceased to be a simple faith based on revelation and became a sophisticated philosophical doctrine, constructed on the ideas of Philo and Greek philosophers.

Revelation – A Rejection of Philosophical Theology

But if the Gospel of John and Nicene theology are just extensions of Greek philosophy, what about the Book of Revelation? Here we see a completely different perspective on Christ and faith.

• Revelation Presents a Warrior Christ, Not a Philosophical Logos– Instead of a Christ who is an atemporal metaphysical principle, Revelation 19:11-16 portrays Jesus as a divine warrior who comes to judge the world.

• Revelation Condemns False Teachings– In the message to Pergamum (Revelation 2:13-15), Christ praises Antipas, "my faithful witness", who opposed pagan influence. If we view Antipas as a symbolic figure of Arius(who fought against the influence of Greek philosophy in Christianity), Revelation seems to condemn exactly what Nicaea promoted.

• The Beast and False Religion– Revelation 13 describes a beast imposing a false religion on the world. If we see Nicene Christianity as a philosophical distortion of true faith, Revelation directly criticizes this phenomenon.

Therefore, Revelation is not just a book about the end of the world but a response to the distortion of Christianity by philosophy. The Gospel of John (in its canonical form), Paul, and Nicaea created a Hellenized Christ, but Revelation presents the true Christ, the one who condemns this corruption and calls believers back to the authentic faith.

A False Gospel vs. The True Faith

If we follow the logical thread, we see that what is attributed to John in the Gospel cannot be reconciled with the Book of Revelation, which contains a completely different message. Most likely, the Gospel about the Logoswas written by philosophers who adopted Philo’s thought and transformed Christianity into a philosophical religion, different from the original message.

In this context, Paul becomes the first and most important promoter of this Hellenized version of Christianity, and Nicaea marks the complete victory of this interpretation over apostolic tradition. However, Revelation remains as a witness to the fact that this change was not an authentic revelation but a philosophical adaptation that diverted Christianity from its origins.

Revelation vs. the Philosophical Theology of Official Christianity

From the early centuries of Christianity, the Book of Revelationhas been a controversial book. Unlike the Pauline writings and the Gospel attributed to John, Revelation presents a militant Christ, who judges the world and condemns the corruption of faith.

This message directly contrasts with the philosophical theology developed by Paul and by Christian theologians influenced by Greek philosophy. In this context, the official Church has always had an ambiguous relationship with Revelation, questioning its authenticity, marginalizing it, or reinterpreting it to make it compatible with dominant dogmas.

The Early Centuries: A Suspect and Marginalized Book

In the early centuries of Christianity, Revelation was not uniformly accepted into the biblical canon. Some Church Fathers, such as Dionysius of Alexandria(3rd century), questioned its authenticity, arguing that the style and content differ from other writings attributed to John. This objection was not just philological but also theological: Revelation contains a radical apocalyptic message that clearly opposes the philosophical synthesis promoted by contemporary Christian theologians.

In contrast to Paul, who preached a cosmic Christ, an abstract Logoscompatible with Greek philosophy, Revelation presents a warrior Christ, condemning the compromises made by the Church. The messages to the seven churches (Revelation 2-3) are full of warnings about the apostasy that had infiltrated Christian communities. Furthermore, in Revelation 2:6 and 2:15, the "deeds of the Nicolaitans"are directly condemned—a philosophical group promoting syncretism with Greek thought and compromises with Roman authorities. This was precisely the direction that Christian theologians influenced by philosophy wanted to follow.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches: Reinterpreting or Marginalizing Revelation

Although Revelation was officially included in the biblical canon at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), it was never promoted as a central book of official Christian doctrine.

• Catholicism - The Catholic Churchhas interpreted Revelation allegorically, avoiding a literal reading that could be dangerous to its authority. The concept of a Christ who returns to judge the world and destroy corrupt systemscould be seen as a threat to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, Revelation was used mainly for mystical visions, and its reading was limited to the high clergy.
• Orthodoxy - In Orthodox tradition, Revelation had minimal influence on theology and liturgy. Unlike the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, which are frequently read in services, Revelation has never been included in official liturgical readings. This suggests that the Orthodox Church preferred to keep it in the shadows, avoiding interpretations that might conflict with patristic tradition.

Protestantism: A Gradual Exclusion of Revelation

The Protestant Reformationinitially rediscovered Revelation as an important prophetic book, especially through movements that saw the Catholic Church as the "beast" from Revelation 13. Reformers like Martin Lutherand John Calvin, however, had an ambiguous relationship with this book. Luther, for example, stated that Revelation had "no apostolic or prophetic character"and initially suggested it should be excluded from the canon.

In modern Protestant theology, Revelation has increasingly been ignored or reinterpreted in a symbolic key. Liberal Protestantism, which emphasizes a humanist, pacifist, and philosophical Christianity, cannot accept a warrior Christwho condemns corrupt churches and demands a radical separation from worldly systems. For this reason, many Protestant denominations have reduced the importance of Revelation in their doctrine, preferring to focus on Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels.

Why Is Revelation So Uncomfortable?

Revelation remains a book that flagrantly contradicts philosophical and institutionalized Christianity. Some of the reasons it has been marginalized throughout history include:

• Contradiction with Pauline Theology– Revelation does not speak of a philosophical Christor a metaphysical Logos, but of a militant Christ, who calls believers to remain separate from the corruption of the world. This opposes Paul's theology, which created a bridge between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture.

• Direct Criticism of Church Corruption– The messages to the seven churches denounce compromise with political power and spiritual degradation, which was a problem for the official Church, increasingly becoming a political institution.

• Incompatibility with Philosophical Christianity– Revelation is a prophetic book, based on visions and a cosmic conflict between good and evil, not on philosophical speculations about divine nature. This makes it uncomfortable for theologians who have tried to make Christianity compatible with Hellenistic reasoning.

Revelation – A "Dangerous" Book for Official Christianity

The history of challenging Revelation demonstrates that this book never fully aligned with the dominant direction of institutionalized Christianity. Catholicism kept it in the shadows, Orthodoxy avoided it in liturgy, and modern Protestantism reduced its importance. The reason is simple: the message of Revelation directly conflicts with the philosophical synthesis carried out by Paul and the theologians who followed him.

If Revelation is authentic, then official Christianity, based on Pauline theology and Nicene dogmas, must be reconsidered. This explains why Revelation has been so controversial and why it remains, to this day, one of the least promoted books of the Bibleby institutionalized Christianity.

How Philosophy Conquered Judaism and Christianity

Greek philosophy was not just an independent system of thought but an intellectual force that profoundly influenced both Judaism and Christianity. Through the process of cultural and religious syncretism, Greek philosophical ideas gradually infiltrated Jewish theology and then Christianity, transforming them from within. One of the most important centers of this synthesis was Alexandria, a city that became the meeting point of Jewish tradition with Hellenistic Platonism and Stoicism.

After the conquests of Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.), Greek culture began to dominate the Middle East, including Palestine. Jews living outside Jerusalem, especially in the Hellenistic diaspora, were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. In Alexandria, home to the largest Jewish diaspora community, this influence was so powerful that it led to the creation of a new type of Judaism—Hellenistic Judaism.

Key Moments of Greek Influence on Judaism

1. The Translation of the Septuagint (c. 250 B.C.) A crucial moment in the influence of Greek philosophy on Judaism was the translation of the Torah into Greek. This version of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Septuagint, used Greek concepts to render Hebrew ideas, subtly changing the meanings of certain terms. For example, the Hebrew word for "wisdom" (chokhmah)was associated with Logos—a central concept in Greek philosophy.

2. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. – 50 A.D.) The clearest evidence of the philosophical conquest of Judaism is the work of Philo, a Jewish thinker from Alexandria who tried to reconcile Judaism with Platonism. Philo reinterpreted the Bible through the lens of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas, introducing the concept of Logos, an intermediary entity between God and the world, which he considered the "firstborn of God". This idea paved the way for the Gospel of Johnand the development of Christian dogma.

3. Sadducees vs. Pharisees: The Impact of Philosophy on Religious Thought. During the Second Temple period (515 B.C. – 70 A.D.), Judaism split into several groups, and philosophy played a significant role in this division:

   • Sadducees: The aristocratic priestly class rejected the idea of an afterlife and angels, likely influenced by Hellenistic skepticism and materialism.

   • Pharisees: On the other hand, they adopted many concepts from Persian dualism and Greek philosophy, including the belief in an immortal soul.

By the first century A.D., Greek philosophy had already conquered Judaism, transforming it from a religion based exclusively on revelation into a system of thought that incorporated Hellenistic ideas about the soul, the afterlife, and the divine nature.

Philosophy and Christianity: From Paul to the Council of Nicaea

Christianity did not escape this influence but was even more profoundly transformed under the impact of Greek philosophy. This process began with Paul, continued with the Gospel of John, and was formalized at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), where the fundamental dogmas of Christianity were established in Greek metaphysical terms.

1. Paul – The Apostle of Greek Philosophy.

Unlike Jesus, who preached a simple message directly addressed to the Jewish people, Paul reinterpreted Christianityin a way accessible to the Greco-Roman world. He transformed the teachings of Christ into a theological systembased on philosophical concepts:

• Christ as the "Image of God" (Colossians 1:15)– A concept almost identical to Philo’s Logos.

• Christ as the "New Adam" (Romans 5:12-21)– A principle similar to Anthropos Noetos, the archetypal manin Platonic philosophy.

• Salvation by Faith, Not by Works– An idea more aligned with Platonismthan traditional Judaism, which emphasized concrete deeds.

2. The Gospel of John – The Definitive Victory of Philosophy

The Gospel attributed to Johnbegins with the statement that "In the beginning was the Logos"(John 1:1). This idea does not originate from Judaism but from the thought of Philo and Plato. Instead of presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, this Gospel describes Him as a metaphysical principle, a cosmic entitysimilar to Nous (Divine Reason)in Greek philosophy.

3. The Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) – The Final Victory of Philosophy Over Revelation

At Nicaea, Christian bishops, under the influence of Emperor Constantine, formalized the doctrine of the Trinityand the nature of Christusing Greek concepts:

• Homoousios ("of the same substance")– A Greek metaphysical termthat did not exist in early Judaism or Christianity.

• Debate About the Essence of Christ– Inspired by Aristotelian philosophical categories, not by the Hebrew Scripture.

From this point forward, Christianity was no longer just a religion of revelationbut a sophisticated philosophical systemstructured on

Greek concepts.

Classification of Philosophical Centers

Influence on Christianity:

1. Alexandria (Egypt) – "The Cradle of Christian Theology"
   

   Alexandria was one of the greatest cultural centers of the ancient world. Located in Egypt but founded by the Greeks of Alexander the Great, the city became a meeting point of three worlds: Judaism, Greek philosophy, and later, Christianity. It was here that a form of Christian thought emerged which sought to explain faith using rational concepts borrowed from Greek philosophy. This blending of ideas is called a synthesis between theology and philosophy.

   Among the most influential Greek philosophers was Plato, who taught that our visible world is merely an imperfect copy of a perfect and unchanging “world of ideas”. Later came Plotinus, who developed these concepts into a system called Neoplatonism. He believed that all reality flows from a single Supreme Being, called “the One”, from whom everything emanates in stages: first divine thought, then the universal soul, and finally the visible world. This model was later adopted by some Christian theologians to explain how a perfect and invisible God could act within our world.

   Alexandria became the birthplace of the first major Christian theological school, where faith was placed in dialogue with philosophy. Clement of Alexandria was one of the first to argue that reason and faith are not in conflict, but can support each other. Origen, his student, was a highly influential thinker who introduced the idea of symbolic (allegorical) interpretation of the Bible, and used the Greek concept of the Logos (the Word) to describe Christ as a mediator between God and the world.

   The ideas developed in Alexandria had a profound impact on the formation of Christian doctrine. A clear example is the Gospel of John, which begins with the phrase: “In the beginning was the Word (Logos)...”—borrowing the exact term used by Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who had reinterpreted the Hebrew Bible through the lens of Greek philosophy.

   Furthermore, Neoplatonic thought was adopted in later centuries by key Christian theologians, especially Augustine, who used it to explain how God—who is invisible and eternal—can nevertheless be known by human beings.

   Alexandria was also the place where the first major doctrinal disputes in Christianity emerged.
   Athanasius of Alexandria was one of the greatest defenders of the belief that Jesus Christ is of the same nature as God the Father. At the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), he played a central role in formulating the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
   In contrast, another theologian from the same city, Arius, claimed that the Son was a created being, inferior to the Father. This idea, known as Arianism, was rejected by the Church as heresy, but it sparked major controversies in the following centuries.

2. Athens (Greece) – "Classical Influence on Christianity"
   Reason for Influence: Platonism and Aristotelianism became foundational for theological reflection.
   The concept of the "Logos" from Stoic philosophy and Heraclitus' thought was reinterpreted in the Gospel of John ("In the beginning was the Word – the Logos"). Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine, were influenced by Platonism.
   Connections with Christianity: Christianity adopted many Greek philosophical concepts (e.g., the body-soul dualism, essence, and substance).

3. Rome (Italy) – "Christianity Becomes the Official Religion"
   Reason for Influence: Rome was the center where Christianity became the state religion under Constantine the Great.
   Stoic philosophy and Roman legal thought influenced Christian moral theology. The seat of the Catholic Church and the Pope was established here.
   Connections with Christianity: Tertullian, one of the first Latin theologians, used Roman thought to develop doctrinal concepts.
   Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the most important early Christian theologian, lived during the Roman Empire and was profoundly influenced by Roman thought and Neoplatonism.

4. Tarsus (Cilicia) – "The City of Paul"
   Reason for Influence: The hometown of the Apostle Paul, educated in a Hellenistic environment, used Greek philosophical concepts in his epistles. Paul employed Stoic rhetoric and philosophy to communicate the Gospel to the Gentiles.
   Expressions like "the old man" and "the new man" in Pauline writings are inspired by Hellenistic philosophy.
   Connections with Christianity: Paul was formed in both Stoic and Pharisaic traditions, enabling him to lay the foundations of Christian theology in a language accessible to the Greco-Roman world.

5. Ephesus (Asia Minor) – "The Center of Early Christianity"
   Reason for Influence: Ephesus was an important center of apostolic Christianity, associated with the Apostle John and Mary, the mother of Jesus. It was the site of numerous theological debates, including those that led to the Council of Ephesus (431), where the dogma of the Virgin Mary as "Theotokos" (Mother of God) was established.
   Connections with Christianity: The concepts of the Logos and light in the Gospel of John have roots in Greek philosophy and were developed in Ephesus.

6. Pergamum (Asia Minor) – "A Bridge Between Philosophy and Religion"
   Reason for Influence: It was an important center of education and religion in the Hellenistic world.
   Some Gnostic concepts that influenced early Christianity were developed in the region of Pergamum.
   Connections with Christianity: The Book of Revelation mentions Pergamum as a place of confrontation between Christians and paganism (Revelation 2:12-17).

7. Miletus (Greece) – "Science and Philosophy Before Christianity"
   Reason for Influence: The pre-Socratic philosophers from Miletus laid the foundations of rational thinking.
   Although it did not directly influence Christianity, it was an essential step in the development of a methodology of thought that was later adopted by Christian theologians.

8. Rhodes (Greece) – "Influence on Christian Rhetoric"
   Reason for Influence: Rhodes was a center of rhetoric, and many early Christian theologians used rhetorical techniques developed here.
   Connections with Christianity: Christian sermons and apologetics were influenced by classical rhetoric studied in Rhodes.

9. Syracuse (Sicily) – "The Link Between Platonism and Christianity"
   Reason for Influence: Visited by Plato and a place where his ideas about the ideal state were experimented with.
   Plato’s thought about the world of ideas was embraced by Neoplatonists and later influenced Christian theology.

10. Delos (Greece) – "The Spread of Philosophical Ideas"
    Reason for Influence: It was an important transit point for philosophical ideas in the Hellenistic world, indirectly influencing early Christian thought.

Influence on Judaism:

1. Alexandria (Egypt) – The Greatest Impact on Judaism
   Reason: Alexandria was the main center of interaction between Hellenistic thought and Judaism.
   Here, Hellenistic Judaism developed, combining Greek philosophy with Jewish traditions.
   Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) was a crucial thinker who reinterpreted the Torah using Platonic and Stoic concepts, creating a system of thought that later influenced Christian theology.
   The Septuagint, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was completed in Alexandria, facilitating the spread of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world.
   An enormous Jewish community existed here (over 100,000 Jews during the Hellenistic period), which maintained continuous contact with Greek philosophy.

2. Athens (Greece) – The Formation of a Philosophical Framework for Medieval Judaism
   Reason: Greek philosophical thought developed in Athens indirectly influenced Judaism through the writings of Aristotle and Plato.
   Aristotle and Plato deeply influenced medieval Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides (1138-1204), who used Aristotelianism to rationalize Jewish faith in the Guide for the Perplexed.
   Jews of the diaspora, especially those in the Hellenistic and Roman world, were directly exposed to Stoic and Platonic thought.
   Paul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) held a philosophical debate at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), demonstrating the philosophical influence on the religion of the time.

3. Tarsus (Cilicia, Asia Minor) – The Crossroads between Judaism and Stoic Philosophy
   Reason: Tarsus was a center of Stoicism, and Stoic philosophy had a strong impact on some Jewish and Christian thinkers.
   The Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus and was educated in both Jewish tradition and Hellenistic philosophy. Stoicism influenced many of his ideas, including the concept of a universal moral law.
   Jewish communities in Tarsus were exposed to both Stoic and Epicurean thought, leading to significant theological debates.

4. Rome (Italy) – The Synthesis between Roman Law and Jewish Ethics
   Reason: Rome became the center where Judaism and Christianity directly interacted with the philosophical and political structures of the ancient world.
   Roman Stoicism (through Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) deeply influenced both Jewish and Christian ethics.
   Roman diaspora Jews faced the challenge of integrating into Roman society, leading to the development of new forms of theological and juridical thought.
   Roman moral philosophy later influenced the interpretation of Jewish laws and halachic principles in the Talmud.

5. Pergamum (Asia Minor) – A Secondary but Influential Center
   Reason: The Library of Pergamum was an important repository of philosophical knowledge, and Stoicism played a significant role there.
   Although it did not have a direct influence on Judaism, the Stoic philosophy developed in Pergamum contributed to the formation of a rational ethics that some Hellenized Jews adopted.
   Pergamum was also a center of the Roman imperial cult, which led to conflicts between Jews and Roman authorities.

6. Ephesus (Asia Minor) – Indirect Interactions
   Reason: Ephesus was a cosmopolitan city where various religious and philosophical currents converged.
   A Jewish community existed in Ephesus, and Hellenistic philosophy influenced some interpretations of Jewish faith.
   It was an important center of early Christianity, and the philosophical thought from here influenced early Christian theology and, indirectly, Jewish interpretations of that time.

7. Miletus (Greece) – Contribution to Rationalist Thought
   Reason: Milesian philosophy was among the first to attempt to explain reality rationally, without resorting to mythology.
   This early rationalism indirectly influenced Hellenized Jews and later religious thought.
   Although it did not have a major impact on traditional Judaism, it influenced how some Jewish thinkers began to view the natural world and cosmic order.

8. Rhodes (Greece) – Political Philosophy and Ethics
   Reason: Rhodes was a center of political and moral thought, indirectly influencing Jewish thinkers during the Hellenistic period.
   Stoic and Epicurean philosophers from Rhodes contributed to the development of a universal ethics, but the influence on Judaism was limited.

9. Syracuse (Sicily) – Sporadic Contacts
   Reason: Although Plato interacted with the rulers of Syracuse, his influence on Judaism was more indirect, through general Hellenistic philosophy.
   It was not a major center of influence on Jews, but Platonic thought reached Jewish thinkers through Alexandria.

10. Delos (Greece) – Minor Impact on Judaism
    Reason: Although it was a philosophical and religious center, Delos did not have a direct impact on Jewish thought.
    Some Stoic and Epicurean ideas reached the Jews, but without significant influence.

This classification shows that the impact of philosophy on Judaism was profound and contributed to the development of currents such as Hellenistic Judaism, rabbinic ethics, and medieval religious philosophy.

The Legacy of Ancient Greece: Philosophy, Not Religion

Although Ancient Greece profoundly influenced global culture, what truly spread was not its religion but its philosophy. Greek religion, based on a pantheon of anthropomorphic gods, was never a globally adopted system by other civilizations. Instead, Greek philosophy shaped Western thought and had a crucial impact on the development of Christianity, becoming the intellectual foundation of the European world.

Greek Religion: A Superficial and Limited Influence

Greek gods were neither imposed nor massively adopted outside the Hellenic world. In regions conquered by Greeks or Romans, Greek religion spread only through syncretism — Greek gods were associated with local deities without replacing existing beliefs. Zeus was identified with Amon-Ra in Egypt, Aphrodite with Astarte in Phoenicia, and Heracles was equated with Gilgamesh in Mesopotamia. Even during the Roman period, the Greek pantheon was merely reinterpreted (Zeus → Jupiter, Athena → Minerva) but did not lead to a religious conversion. In other words, Greek religion did not survive as a standalone spiritual system and did not create a global legacy.

Greek Philosophy: The True Legacy and Its Influence on Christianity

Unlike religion, Greek philosophy had a vast spread and a lasting impact, being adopted by multiple civilizations and integrated into completely different systems of thought. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle not only influenced Roman education but also shaped major religious and intellectual currents, including Christianity.

Church Fathers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas utilized Aristotelian and Platonic thought to structure Christian theology. Platonism strongly influenced the idea of a transcendent God and an immortal soul, while Aristotelian logic was used to define fundamental dogmatic concepts. Medieval Christianity was built on this philosophical foundation, and European universities took up and transmitted Greek thought throughout the world.

Greece Changed the World Through Ideas, Not Gods

Greek religion did not survive as an independent spiritual system, but only through syncretism and reinterpretation. In contrast, Greek philosophy became the backbone of Western thought and decisively influenced Christianity. The true legacy of Ancient Greece does not lie in myths about gods but in the ideas that shaped the modern world.

Christianity Before and After 313 AD

It is often claimed that before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christians were a marginalized, persecuted group hiding in catacombs, and that after this moment, Christianity suddenly became an intellectual and organized force, with erudite bishops ready to participate in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, this transition seems far too abrupt, raising the question: Was Christianity really as persecuted and marginalized as it is said to be, or was there a more gradual and free development?

Although persecutions against Christians did occur, they were neither continuous nor uniform throughout the Roman Empire. The first persecutions (under Nero, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian) were severe but episodic and local. Between these episodes, Christians enjoyed long periods of tolerance, during which their communities organized and gained influence. For example, Emperor Gallienus issued an edict of tolerance in 260 AD, granting Christians nearly 50 years of relative freedom before the last major persecution under Diocletian (303-311 AD).

Furthermore, Christianity was not an obscure sect but a growing movement with strong centers in cities like Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage. Christians were not just simple laborers or people hiding in catacombs but also educated individuals, some holding important social positions. Tertullian, a Christian apologist from the 2nd century, mentioned that “you find us everywhere, in the Senate, in public forums, in the army.” This indicates that, although Christianity was not yet the official religion, its followers were present and active in public life.

Erudite Bishops and Christian Learning Centers

If the history of Christianity were merely a story of persecuted and hidden people, it would be difficult to explain how, immediately after 313 AD, the Church already had highly educated leaders capable of engaging in complex philosophical and theological debates. In fact, these bishops existed long before the Edict of Milan, having been trained in Christian schools that had been operating for over a century.

For instance, Alexandria hosted a renowned catechetical school as early as the 2nd century, where not only theology but also Greek philosophy was studied. Great Christian thinkers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius were products of this intellectual tradition. Even Arius, the theologian who sparked controversies at the Council of Nicaea, had been educated in philosophy. These facts suggest that Christianity did not suddenly emerge as an intellectual movement after 313 AD but developed gradually and in a relatively free environment.

Christianity – A More "Free" Religion Than Commonly Believed?

If Christianity had been merely a persecuted religion, how can we explain that, just 12 years after the Edict of Milan, the Church already had hundreds of bishops organized in a clear structure? One possible explanation is that, although persecutions existed, they were not severe enough to prevent the development of Christian communities. In fact, during many periods, Christianity developed relatively freely, and this evolution was less dramatic than is often portrayed.

Conclusion: Christianity was not just a religion of hidden and persecuted people but a movement that gradually spread, enjoyed moments of tolerance, and developed a solid network of educated leaders. The image of a Church abruptly transitioning from clandestinity to power is, most likely, a romanticized exaggeration of history, aimed at emphasizing the heroism of early Christians.

In reality, the transition of Christianity into a dominant religion was a gradual and well-prepared process.