Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What does the Bible say about salvation?
Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of God. The phrase “led by the Spirit” implies an actual “existential experience” (cf. Mt. 4.1), not mere belief (i.e. an idea presumed, but not known):
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14).
Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: https://biblehub.com/romans/8-9.htm
Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3.3 that you can not even see the kingdom of God, let alone be possessed by it, unless you are born again: https://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm
That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:
“You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.22-24 NRSV).
And, of course, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3.18) and truly believe “that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9), especially in the midst of this existential crisis!
*****
All these verses seem to indicate that the requirements for salvation involve considerable risk. Therefore, we must undergo some kind of personal existential experience (or a Dark night of the soul) in order for a transformation to take place. It is only in the midst of this mysterium tremendum, or existential dread, that salvation can take place. Thus, Philippians 2.12 poignantly says, “So work with fear and trembling to discover what it really means to be saved” (CEV): https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-12.htm
Ezekiel 36.26 drives home this spiritual idea of death and resurrection: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” (cf. John 12.24)!
——-
We must first die to our ego before we can reach out for God in faith
The language of the New Testament thus implies that we have to go out of ourselves in order to find God, as Thomas Merton used to say. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:13 suggests that Paul (and by implication each and every apostle) had lost his identity to gain Christ’s (cf. Gal. 2.20):
εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ ·
Translation: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God” (BSB): https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-13.htm
So the question arises: Why is a *Mad-Mind* mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:13, and what exactly is Paul trying to teach us about the process or the goal of Salvation?
Astoundingly, we find the exact same theme reiterated in Mark 3.21 where Jesus himself is said to be “out of his mind” (which may be an allusion to the biblical narrative known as the “Temptation of Christ” in which after being baptized Jesus was led by the Spirit into the Judaean Desert to be tempted by Satan): https://biblehub.com/mark/3-21.htm
The soteriological point of that existential experience is that Jesus must lose his identity so as to enter into the divine union with God. I’m by no means suggesting “Adoptionism,” the notion that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. No! Not at all! All I’m saying is that Jesus becomes one of us by taking on human nature (and all the suffering that it entails) so that he, too, like us, is confined to the same spiritual process and requirement of transcending the “self.” As Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “to have faith is precisely to lose one’s mind so as to win God” (The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening)!
Similarly, John of the Cross, the celebrated 16th century mystic, says that during “the night of sense” a spirit of dizziness overtakes the spiritual faculties of an individual. This energy overwhelms the mind and causes it to lose its identity. That’s probably what Isaiah 19.14 is all about: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/19-14.htm
Do you recall Acts 2.15 in which Peter had to explain to the crowd that “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, “ but rather filled with the Holy Spirit?
A contemplative exegesis of Psalm 107.27-30 suggests this mystical journey through the Dark night of the soul:
“they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits' end. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they had quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”
This is reminiscent of the path of the mania of love (or the madness sent from the gods) by which we arrive at divine knowledge, as exemplified in Plato’s works: Phaedrus and Symposium. Evagrios the Solitary (aka Evagrios Pontikos), a mystical monk from Pontus (ca. 345-399 ce), says something similar about the prayer of stillness, “which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom” (The Philokalia: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware. Vol. 1. [London: Faber, 1983], p. 62).
*****
The Beatitudes must be understood in the same exact context. They’re not a political manifesto that calls for social reform, nor are they about the materially poor or the physically hungry. Matthew 5.3 reads: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that Matthew doesn’t say that they are poor in the sense that they lack sufficient money, but rather that they’re “poor in spirit,” as are those who enter the dark night of the soul! Similarly, the text unambiguously says: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5.6), not for food and drink! It would appear then that the Beatitudes are a guide to inner transformation or regeneration, what it means to be “born from above” (3.3) in the Johannine gospel. Only those who are poor in spirit (not in money), who have emptied themselves and have become as nothing can be blessed, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart, peaceful, and loving! Why? Because only those can be “born from above” and “be called children of God” (Mt. 5.9) and receive “the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5.10). Only those are worthy of salvation! No one else. That’s the point!
——-
How then is the Dark night of the soul (which makes us poor in spirit) depicted in Scripture?
One illustration might come from Isaiah 6.5:
“Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”
Elsewhere, Isaiah 50.10 reads:
“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the Lord and relies upon his God?”
*****
It’s quite clear from Exodus 20.21 that we can only approach God in darkness:
“Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.”
——-
So if this is in fact the cost of salvation, how do we obtain it?
Well, first we have to “estimate the cost”:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14.28).
If you reply to this question in the affirmative, then the next question is a practical one, namely, how do we proceed?
Answer: Not through discursive thinking but rather through meditation. That’s because God can only be found in silence. Thought is a distraction. One form of Western contemplation that goes back to the desert fathers of Egypt is what is known as *Centering Prayer.* This is a popular Christian meditation that places a strong emphasis on interior silence. In a very advanced stage it leads to inner transformation and union with Christ! In other words, it leads to authentic salvation! And the litmus test of that experience is that you fall madly in love with Jesus Christ!
*****
Allegorically speaking, Matthew 6.6 alludes to this prayer of stillness when it says:
“But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
The Hebrew Bible also says: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46.10; 62.5)!
——-
Conclusion
Salvation is not an act of the will or the intellect. Rather, it’s a transformation of the mind: a rebirth! This, then, is the noblest path to salvation, the symbolic road to Emmaus that leads to resurrection, regeneration, and new life! But regeneration and rebirth from above (Jn 3.3-6) require much suffering (Heb. 12.6), pain (Acts 14.22), fear (Phil. 2.12), as well as deep and profound changes to the personality (Acts 2.1-4, 15; 9.20-22). That’s why in 2 Corinthians 12.9 God doesn’t say “my power is made perfect in weakness,” but rather “my power is accomplished in illness.” Most, if not all, Bible versions translate the Greek word ἀσθενείᾳ as “weakness.” But ἀσθενείᾳ really means “illness.” In other words, God’s power is manifested and accomplished in us when we become ill: that is, mentally ill! This, more accurate, translation should really change our understanding of soteriology & inform us about the process of salvation itself❗️
——-
-
tabernacleheart liked this · 3 years ago
More Posts from Eli-kittim
Goodreads Contest Winner! #award_winning_book
——-
*The Little Book of Revelation* was a winner in a Double Decker Books contest on Goodreads, a few years back. As a result, Double Decker Books and five other blogs promoted this book for several weeks. They included a book description, an author bio, editorial reviews, and buying links.
——-
Here are some of the links:
——-
InkSpell Reviews - https://inkspellreviews.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/
——-
Spilling Words - https://spillingwordskck.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/
——-
Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?”: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim
——-
Unfortunately, my version does not have numbered pages, nevertheless the quotes are taken directly from his book, word for word!
——-
“Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that ‘whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist’ “ (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] -Wiki).
——-
1 Bart Ehrman is not only dead wrong but also disingenuous. He writes: “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.” That is completely bogus! It’s an idea that was held as early as the second century CE, and it was known as Docetism. This was the notion that Jesus did not have a physical body: that he did not come in the flesh!
——-
2 Ehrman’s defense of Jesus’ existence is based on presuppositions and circular thinking. He presupposes that certain literary characters are *obviously* historical figures who must have known Jesus. But this is arguing in a circle because he doesn’t prove their historical existence beyond the literary narrative. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that these are fictional characters that are employed in works of *historical fiction* as, for example, when we are told that Paul the Pharisee is working for the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple who’s a Sadducee, which seems like a total fabrication since Pharisees and Sadducees were bitter rivals.
——-
3 Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek, and most scholars assume that their sources were also in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And most of them, if not all of them, are writing from outside Palestine. By contrast, the presuppositions Ehrman is making do not square well with the available evidence. He’s arguing that Jesus was an Aramaic peasant from the backwaters of Galilee who had 12 Aramaic disciples who were also peasants. He also contends that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his death, and these oral traditions were, according to Ehrman, obviously in Aramaic.
——-
4 But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how does the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death?
——-
5 Furthermore, who are these sophisticated “Greeks” who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? If the Aramaic community did not exist, neither did their Aramaic character! That’s the point.
——-
6 Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! All of a sudden, Paul’s literary identity becomes suspect. Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic but from Greek sources!
——-
7 What is more, independent attestation does not necessarily prove the historicity of the story, only its popularity. For example, if Dan Brown writes a piercing novel that captures the popular imagination, just because other writers copy the story and begin to give it their own unique expression doesn’t mean that the story in and of itself is based on historical fact. The same principle should hold true with the New Testament gospels that were widely copied by noncanonical works, and which were not in themselves historically-reliable accounts to begin with.
——-
8 All other mentions, from the second to the fourth centuries, seem irrelevant not only because of their lack of proximity to the purported events (being based neither on eyewitnesses nor firsthand accounts), but also because of inaccurate information. For example, consider Eusebius’ criticism of Papias, who claimed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (an assertion that has been dismissed by scholars). Or how about Papias’ so-called “sources of knowledge about Jesus” in which he mentions some of the latter’s important disciples in order to impress his audience (a claim that seems highly unlikely because the original apostles would not have been around by then). These tales, of course, play right into Eusebius’ playbook of creating fictional accounts that lead back to the so-called “original” apostles and to the alleged historical Jesus. However, we’re simply reading Papias through Eusebius’ lens. Let’s not forget that Eusebius himself had created so many fables and legends about the martyrs and apostles, and had been criticised as historically unreliable and biased, not to mention that he was too-far removed from the purported events, writing in the 4th century of the Common Era.
It’s unfortunate that Ehrman has to resort to such types of “evidence” to try to defend Jesus’ historicity. It would be quite gullible for any scholar to simply accept Eusebius’ account of Papias at face value.
According to the Jesus Seminar, which comprised a large group of approximately 50 critical biblical scholars, we don’t really know what Jesus said. Why would someone from one century later (like Papias) know what Jesus said? Then why doesn’t he also tell us what Jesus looked like? Or what language he spoke? Why didn’t the companions of the apostles not disclose this information to him?
——-
9 Then Ehrman quotes a devotional homily written by Ignatius of Antioch, which is probably inspired by the gospels and therefore has no historical value whatsoever, and concludes: “Ignatius, then, provides us yet with another independent witness to the life of Jesus.”
——-
10 Ehrman aims to prove the historical Jesus by referencing 1 Clement. But how does 1 Clement prove the historicity of Jesus? How can a letter from Rome, composed more than 60 years after Jesus’ purported death, demonstrate Jesus’ actual existence? Once again, we have a devotional piece based possibly on some type of “Scripture.” But in the absence of hard evidence and eyewitness testimony, 1 Clement is useless as evidence for the historical Jesus. Yet Ehrman writes:
“Here again we have an independent witness not just to the life of Jesus as a historical figure but to some of his teachings and deeds. Like all sources that mention Jesus from outside the New Testament, the author of 1 Clement had no doubt about his real existence and no reason to defend it.”
With all due respect, that’s a lame statement and there’s no excuse for a scholar of such caliber to be making these types of blunders.
——-
11 Ehrman then employs a speech from the Book of Acts:
“Men of Israel, hear these Words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God through miracles and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you know, this one was handed over through the hand of the lawless by the appointed will and foreknowledge of God, and you nailed him up and killed him; but God raised him by loosing the birth pangs of death” (2:22–24).
Question: according to this passage, how was Jesus handed over to them for crucifixion? Answer: “by the appointed will and foreknowledge (προγνώσει) of God.” In other words, the passage seems to indicate that it’s a prophecy that hasn’t happened yet.
Besides, we don’t even know if these speeches in Acts are made-up stories or if they coincide with actual reality, especially since 2 Tim. 2.17-18 argues that the resurrection hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, 2 Thess. 2.1-3 argues that Jesus hasn’t come yet.
——-
12 Dr. Ehrman then quotes from 1 Peter:
“For you were called to this end, because Christ suffered for you, leaving an example for you that you might follow in his steps, who did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth, who when reviled did not revile in return, while suffering uttered no threat, but trusted the one who judges righteously, who bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that dying to sin we might live to righteousness, for by his wounds we were healed” (2:21–24).
And yet if you read 1 Peter 1.20 in the original Greek there is absolutely no way that Jesus could have existed in Antiquity:
“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).
Similarly, 1 Jn 2.28 places the “revelation” of Christ in eschatological categories:
“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he is revealed [φανερωθῇ] we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his coming.”
By the way, to be “revealed” means for the first time; it’s a first-time disclosure (for further details see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs
That’s why, according to Lk 17.30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed:
“it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.”
——-
13 Then Ehrman quotes 2 Peter:
“For not by following sophistic myths have we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of the majesty of that one. For when we received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was brought to him by the magnificent glory, ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,’ we heard this voice that was brought from heaven to him, for we were on the holy mountain” (1:16–18).
What Ehrman fails to tell you is that the following verse, 2 Pet. 1.19, indicates that these were not historical events but rather experiences of visions and auditions that pointed to a future-eschatological prophecy:
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
Then Ehrman goes on to say that “Even the book of Revelation, with all its bizarre imagery and fantastic apocalyptic views, understands that Jesus was a real historical figure. For this author he was one who ‘lived’ and who ‘died’ (1:18).” Yet Ehrman fails to mention that in the Book of Revelation Jesus is said to be born in the end-times, as a contemporary of the final empire on earth which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (Rev. 12.1-5). Moreover, the testimony to Jesus in the Book of Revelation is said to be prophetic, not historical! Compare Rev. 19.10d:
“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (NRSV).
——-
14 Ehrman then quotes from the Book of Hebrews:
“Jesus appeared in ‘these last days’ (1:2).”
But that is an incorrect interpretation. The Greek implies that Jesus’ appearance takes place ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (in the last days), not in Antiquity.
More explicit and quite unambiguous is Hebrews 9.26b:
“he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Studies in Greek reveal that the phrase “at the end of the age” always refers to the future-eschatological time of the end (cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Once again, all these verses are indicating a prophecy, not a historical event from the past. In particular, Hebrews 9.26b explicitly states that Jesus will die for the redemption of sins “at the end of the age,” or “in the end of the world” (KJV)!
——-
15 At this point of the discussion, Dr. Ehrman sets out to demonstrate Paul’s testimony to Jesus:
“The reality is that, convenient or not, Paul speaks about Jesus, assumes that he really lived, that he was a Jewish teacher, and that he died by crucifixion. The following are the major things that Paul says about the life of Jesus. First, Paul indicates unequivocally that Jesus really was born, as a human, and that in his human existence he was a Jew. This he states in Galatians 4:4: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his son, born from a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law….”
The problem is that Ehrman doesn’t understand Greek, nor is he a trained exegete, so he misses the point entirely!
In fact, according to Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10, Jesus will be incarnated in “the fullness of time”, or at the end of the age! The Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time) means when time reached its fullness or completion. And Eph. 1.9-10 clearly demonstrates that it refers to the end-times and the final consummation!
Then Ehrman goes on to talk about the brothers and sisters of the Lord in order to show that Jesus was a real historical person who was surrounded by siblings. However, this proves nothing, not only because these may simply be literary stories that meet the authors’ objectives but also because it can be shown that these are not actual biological blood-relatives of Jesus (see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611675702018883584/was-james-the-brother-of-jesus-given-that
——-
16 After this, Ehrman mentions the resurrection and tries to show that “after Jesus was raised on the third day, ‘he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:5).” But what Ehrman doesn’t tell you is that these were visions of a prophecy that would take place at the end of the age! In Acts 10.40-41 we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Nor does Ehrman tell you that Paul uses the word “eschaton,” which is a reference to the “last days,” as if he were talking about a prophecy. At any rate, Paul says ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων which could be translated “last then of all” or “at the end of all” “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:8). But the way Paul explains it, his use of the word καμοί (also to me) connotes “in the same way or manner,” which lends credence to the idea that Christ had appeared to him as he had to others: that is to say, by way of visions (cf. Gal. 1.15-16; Acts 9.3-5).
——-
17 Ehrman concludes:
“Finally, Paul is quite emphatic throughout his writings that Jesus was crucified. He never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans, but he may have had no need to do so.”
But again, as we will see, there are 2 things to consider, here. First, Paul is not referring to a historical event but to a tradition (to a prophecy) that was handed down to him and which he in turn delivered on to us (the readers/believers). Second, a close reading reveals that Christ didn’t die according to the historical record but rather “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is a crucial point. Jesus did not die a historical death, according to past history; rather he died κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, according to the *prophetic writings* that were handed down to Paul:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3-4).
And it is for this reason that Paul “never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans,” precisely because they’re irrelevant to the *prophetic writings*!
——-
18 Finally, it doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul (or anyone else) reiterates because they’re irrelevant in proving Jesus’ historicity. Why? Because Paul claims that his gospel is not of human origin: “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1.12). The point is that all these sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation and not from a historical Jesus!
——-
Conclusion
Ehrman should know better. There were quite a few early-Christian, Gnostic sects that held to a Docetic belief, namely that Jesus did not exist in physical form. This idea was certainly not invented in the 18th century.
——-
Ehrman also misinterprets certain clearly fictional characters as if they were historical figures, and therefore confuses historical fiction with biography (cf. Acts 9.1-2). Here’s a case in point. Besides the fact that the High priest of the Jerusalem Temple was a Sadducee, who wouldn’t be normally working with a Pharisee, he had absolutely no jurisdiction in Damascus. So what’s Paul doing there persecuting Christians? This is odd because the Christians were hardly a threat compared to the Romans at that point in time. So what’s Paul doing chasing them all the way to Syria? Nothing in the story seems historically accurate or probable. In fact, all the elements of this story spell *fiction,* not fact!
——-
And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.
——-
Moreover, who are these “Greeks” who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It sounds more like a conspiracy of sorts.
——-
And if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied under Gamaliel, what is he doing quoting from the Greek Old Testament? Why are his epistles not in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic sources are they based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Septuagint? Or to record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
——-
Finally, the quite obvious interpolations in the works of Josephus and Tacitus are conceded by many Biblical scholars. Many works were actually collaborations rather than corroborations. For example, Pliny the Younger corresponded with Tacitus, demonstrating that their accounts cannot be deemed as independent attestations. And the various non-canonical offshoots can not be used as evidence to prove historicity but rather how *popular* a story was. The various legendary elements were seemingly fused with historical figures and geographical locations to give the writings a sense of verisimilitude, as any good fictional story should do. Dan Brown is a master novelist who always adds such historical elements to his stories. Similarly, it would be stretching credulity to take these clearly fictional and non-canonical stories——whose authorship, production, and dissemination is itself dubious——and turn them into historiographical facts.
——-
And I hardly fit the mould of those mythicists to whom Ehrman’s criticism is directed:
“Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by ‘myth’ and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence” (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] - Wiki).
First, I am not a mythicist; I’m an ahistoricist. That is to say, I do not believe that the story of Jesus is a *myth.* I believe it is a *prophecy* (cf. Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 19.10d)!
In other words, I don’t believe that the story of Jesus is a “mythological” motif, based on preexisting pagan myths, or that he never existed and never will. Rather, I believe that the New Testament evidence supports the notion that the Jesus-story is based on “revelations” (Gal. 1.11-12) and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19).
Second, I am not “really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.” On the contrary, I have a high Christology and hold to a high view of Scripture. So, I don’t have an axe to grind. I actually believe in Christ, and I also believe that the Bible is the word of God. I’m just able to look at all the facts dispassionately, without any biases or presuppositions, and follow the facts wherever they may lead.
——-
All in all, I find Ehrman’s defence rather weak, and his arguments quite ineffective. In fact, the lack of archeological and interdisciplinary evidence for the existence of Jesus, coupled with the lack of eyewitness reports and firsthand accounts, seems to point in the opposite direction than Ehrman would have us believe. Not to mention that he seems to be unfamiliar with Koine Greek, ultimately mistranslating and misinterpreting the text!
——-
I’ll close with the words of a world-class Bible scholar and highly respected textual critic. Kurt Aland——who’s a world-renowned textual scholar, having founded and directed the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, and who was one of the chief editors of the Nestle-Aland - Novum Testamentum Graece (the critical edition of the New Testament)——went so far as to question the historicity of Jesus:
“If the . . . epistles were really written by the apostles whose names they bear, and by people who were closest to Jesus . . . then the real question arises . . . was there really a Jesus?” “Can Jesus really have lived if the writings of his closest companions are filled with so little of his reality . . . so little in them of the reality of the historical Jesus . . .” “When we observe this——assuming that the writings about which we are speaking really come from their alleged authors——it almost then appears as if Jesus were a mere PHANTOM. . .“
(“A History of Christianity,” Vol 1, by Kurt Aland, p. 106 - emphasis added).
The Heresy of Modalistic Monarchianism is Alive and Well
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What is Modalistic Monarchianism?
Modalistic Monarchianism (aka *Oneness Theology* or Modalism) is a late 2nd and 3rd century theological doctrine that maintains the deity of Christ while emphasising the *oneness* of God. In contrast to Trinitarianism, which depicts the Godhead as three distinct persons coexisting in one being, modalistic monarchianism defines God as a single person. This theological position is related to “patripassianism” and “Sabellianism,” which hold similar views. It has been considered a doctrinal heresy since the early period of the Christian Church.
The term “Modalistic Monarchianism” means that God is not three but *one* person who operates under various “manifestations” or “modes,” such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to this theological position, the complete Godhead dwells in Jesus insofar as his incarnation is concerned. This view therefore ascribes the actions of the *Father* and the *Son* to various *modes*, such as the differences that exist between God’s “transcendence” (which is completely independent of the material universe, beyond being and nonbeing) and God’s incarnation or immanence (i.e. his manifestation in the physical world). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is not viewed as a distinct entity but rather as a mode of operation of the spirit of God.
It seems as if the Modalistic Monarchians were trying to reconcile the trinitarian concept of the New Testament (NT) with the monotheistic Shema creed in the Torah, which states that “God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). Modalistic Monarchians accept the inspiration of the Old Testament and therefore believe that Jesus is the manifestation of Yahweh on earth. But they do not worship the Father or the Holy Spirit; only Jesus Christ.
Three modern adherents of this view are Oneness Pentecostalism (aka Jesus Only movement or Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism), the World Mission Society Church of God (the relatively new South Korean religious movement), and T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House Church (a non-denominational American megachurch).
——-
Is Jesus really God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?
Given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be titles of the one God, not depictions of distinct persons, *Oneness Pentecostals*, for example, maintain that they fulfil Christ’s commandment in Mt. 28.19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by doing so *only* in the name of Jesus. In their defence, they cite Acts 4.12 in which Jesus is the *only* name given in the NT “by which we must be saved.” Acts 4.11-12 reads:
This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by
you, the builders; it has become the
cornerstone. There is salvation in no one
else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we
must be saved.’
However, just because “there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved” does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not exist! That directly contradicts the grammatical “point of view” of the first person, second person, and third person *personal pronouns* in the NT text.
For example, Jesus is NOT the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit not in the first person but in the *3rd person*. He calls the Holy Spirit ἐκεῖνος——meaning “He” (Jn. 16.13-14)——as another person that is totally DISTINCT from himself. Jesus says:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he
will guide you into all the truth” (John
16.13).
Obviously Jesus is not talking about himself but about a separate entity that is called the “Holy Spirit.”
Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father in the *3rd person* as a separate and distinct person from himself. Jesus says:
For I did not speak on my own, but the
Father who sent me commanded me to say
all that I have spoken (John 12.49).
Obviously Jesus is NOT the Father, otherwise this modalistic theology would have us believe that Jesus sent himself, commands himself, prays to himself, and talks to himself, while baldly lying to his disciples about an imaginary father (whom he calls “Abba” [Mark 14.36]) who doesn’t really exist. According to this view, Jesus is psychotic or worse. In other words, Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar. So, Modalistic Monarchianism directly contradicts and distorts the NT authors' original language and intended meanings. Therefore, Oneness Theology is completely bogus and misinformed!
1 Jn. 2.22 condemns modalism as an aberration:
This is the antichrist, the one who denies
the Father and the Son.
The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
——-
Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.
——-
That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).
——-
The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):
In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:
“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).
According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:
“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”
(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).
——-
It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!
——-
Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
——-
And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!
——-
That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!
——-
Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:
“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).
——-
Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations
John 7.52:
“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).
——-
Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!
——-
And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!
——-
Conclusion
Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!
——-
Eli Kittim — Public Figure — Independent Scholar— Author
thelittlebookofrevelation.com
http://thelittlebookofrevelation.com