The Qurans Alternative Christianity

The Quran’s Alternative Christianity

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Christianity’s Influence on the Quran

Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.

——-

A Christian Revolt

Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.

——-

The Apocryphal Reformation

After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!

Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!

——-

The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion

No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.

——-

The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran

As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.

However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!

——-

Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions

To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.

——-

Is Human Sacrifice Forbidden in the Hebrew Bible?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Child Sacrifice Versus Messianic Sacrifice

Child sacrifice to other gods (e.g. offering “offspring to Molech” Lev. 20.2; cf. Deut. 12.31; 18.10) is certainly forbidden in the Torah. But the *Messianic sacrifice* or “Sin offering” (Lev. 4; 17.11; Heb. 9.14, 22) is not a Child sacrifice to other gods. On the contrary, the sacrifice of the Anointed One is PRAISED in the Tanakh (e.g. Isa. 53.3-10; Zech. 12.10; Dan. 9.26). The two types of sacrifices are not equivalent.

In reference to the suffering servant, Isaiah says, “upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed” (53.5). Isaiah’s atonement language culminates in an explicit proposition: “you [God] make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). If human sacrifice is always——under all circumstances——forbidden in the Torah, then Isaiah’s God is a completely different God, alien to the Torah, because Isaiah unequivocally and categorically states that Yahweh himself makes the righteous servant’s *human sacrifice* “an offering for sin.”

The Binding of Isaac is a similar biblical narrative in which Yahweh commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice (Gen. 22.2). But just prior to the sacrifice that Abraham was about to engage in, he said to his son, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22.8). So, God will provide His own Lamb. Who, then, could “the Lamb of God” be? (cf. Jn. 1.29; 1.36; Rev. 5.6; 6.9; 7.17; 12.11; 14.4, 10; 15.3; 19.9; 21.23; 22.1, 3)!

——-

Only a Blood Sacrifice Can Atone for Human Sin

The sacred *human-sacrifice* by a God-man as a *once-for-all-atonement* for man’s sin (Heb. 9.26) is not to be confused with the profane and repetitive ritual of Child sacrifice to false gods. In Deut. 18.10, Child sacrifice is abhorrent and forbidden due to its association with foreign gods, idolatry, sorcery, and divination, which are detestable to God (cf. 2 Kings 21.6). However, in a sacred context, God doesn’t necessarily rule out human sacrifice as an atonement for sin:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I

have given it to you for making atonement

for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the

blood that makes atonement (Lev. 17.11).

So, it’s clear that only a blood sacrifice can atone for man’s sins (Heb. 9.22). Nothing else!

Thus, Christ’s *Leviticus-17.11-sacrifice* on the cross——offering himself for the sins of the people——does not violate the prohibition against the detestable Child sacrifices to other gods. The former represents a sacred atonement; the latter, idolatry. Moreover, one finite human being cannot possibly atone for every sin that has ever been committed throughout human history. Hence the necessity for God Himself to atone for the sins of humankind. This Substitutionary atonement is hinted at when the Deity tells Abraham not to kill his own son because God himself will provide for that. This is part of the reason why God has to become a Man and live among us (Jn 1.14). God already foretold his incarnation in the Torah, which, unfortunately, was misinterpreted by the Jews. Regardless, God clearly said: “I will walk among you” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Isa. 9.6; Mic. 5.2; Dan. 7.13-14)! The only possible way he can actually walk among us is in human form. The other reason for God’s incarnation is to transform human existence and the physical world through his glorious resurrection (Dan. 12.1-2; cf. Phil. 3.21; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 1 Cor. 15.42-58). But, in order to be resurrected, he would have to die first. No other sacrifice would suffice!

——-

Do People Die for their Own Sins or Can Another Person Die in their Stead?

The well-known Jer. 31.30 reference——that “all shall die for their own sins”——is alluding to mere mortals who obviously cannot die for one another. But a “divine” sacrifice, by a God-man, on their behalf, to whom the animal sacrifices were presumably pointing, is not precluded by the text. If no one else can die for human sins, except the person who committed them, then why the need for animal sacrifices in the first place, which became our substitutes in atoning for man's sins?

And what does Isa. 53.5 mean when it says that the suffering servant . . .

was wounded for our transgressions; he

was crushed for our iniquities; upon him

was the chastisement that brought us

peace, and with his stripes we are healed?

If no one else can pay for another’s sins, then *how* is it possible that he was wounded (mə·ḥō·lāl מְחֹלָ֣ל) for our iniquities and our sins? And how can we possibly be *healed* by his punishment? Obviously, Isaiah’s account cannot be disputed on theological grounds since his explicit statement that the suffering servant “was bruised for our sins” is regarded as canonical. Isaiah, then, makes a declaration that seems akin to an article of religious faith: “The punishment [or penalty] of our peace was upon him” (53.5). In other words, he was paying our debt so that we can be forgiven and live in peace, without shame or guilt. And Yahweh has laid on him all of our sins (Isa. 53.6).

He was (נִגְזַר֙) cut off (מֵאֶ֣רֶץ) from the land (חַיִּ֔ים) of the living (מִפֶּ֥שַׁע) for the transgressions (עַמִּ֖י) of my people (Isa. 53.8). This means that he literally DIED **FOR** the SINS of Yahweh’s people at some point in human history! It’s repeated once again in Isa. 53.12, namely, that he bore the sins of many, and for the transgressors (וְלַפֹּשְׁעִ֖ים) he made intercession (יַפְגִּֽיעַ׃). Isaiah 53.11 explicitly declares that He shall justify (יַצְדִּ֥יק) many (לָֽרַבִּ֑ים) for their sins (וַעֲוֺנֹתָ֖ם).

It has all the makings of a credal formulation. For a better understanding, it is advisable that we read the Old Testament in Hebrew, not in English!

——-

Did Paul Reinvent the Torah?

Most Jews think that the Torah is about Works, not Grace, and that Paul reinvented this new Christian-theology of Grace and superimposed it on the Torah. But Paul did not invent anything. He is not reinterpreting the Torah. He is giving us the correct interpretation that was always there. It was the Jews that misinterpreted their scriptures. We therefore need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah). The importance of this study is to show that man cannot save himself by works but only by the Grace of God (Rom. 11.6), based on the merits of the *messianic sacrifice* (or Sin Offering) that we’ve been discussing at some length (Heb. 9.14; 1 Pet. 2.24)!

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23 NASB) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 (NRSV) is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.

In a comparable manner, Ezek. 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?

As you can see, even the Torah referred to a circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. The Mosaic Law, according to the prophets, was to be written supernaturally in people’s hearts through the Holy Spirit of regeneration, not through self-striving and personal works (cf. Eph. 2.8-9).

——-

The Revelation of the Suffering Servant’s Atonement for Sin

The Book of Isaiah (53.1) begins with a prophetic declaration:

‎וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־ מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃

Translation:

and the arm of Yahweh to whom has been

revealed.

In other words, this is a *revelation* from Yahweh which is given to the prophet! In this philological exegesis, it is indisputable that Isaiah is prophesying about a messianic figure (see my article, “Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634210448637624320/isaiah-53-why-gods-suffering-servant-is-not).

Eli of Kittim

Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel

By Eli Kittim ——- The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. I

Therefore, Isaiah declares what has been revealed to him by Yahweh. In reference to the suffering servant, he says,

upon him was the punishment that made us

whole, and by his bruises we are healed

(53.5 NRSV).

As if speaking to Yahweh, he would later state: “you make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). Read Isaiah 53.3-10 carefully. The context is about a human sacrifice for sin, which all the animal sacrifices (including that of Isaac) were presumably pointing to. They were types foreshadowing the antitype, that is, the ultimate *sin offering* (cf. Lev. 4; Eph. 1.7; Heb. 9.22; 1 Pet. 1.19)! According to Heb. 10.3-4, the animal sacrifices fell short of atoning for man's sins:

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder

of sins, because it is impossible for the

blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Speaking on this problem, Isaiah prophesied of a servant who would die on behalf of the people, offering his life to atone for their sins!

——-

Are there Two Messiahs or One Messiah in the Hebrew Bible?

Within Judaism itself there was always the idea of dual messiahs, which is the notion that there are either two messiahs or *one messiah* assuming the role of two. Later Judaism certainly talks of two messiahs — the sons of Joseph and David, one of whom (Messiah ben Joseph) will certainly die! According to mainstream Judaism, there are two Messiahs: one is a high priest, the other is an anointed king of the Davidic line. This is what Zech. 4.14 (cf. Rev. 11.4) is referring to when it says:

These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.

However, in the New Testament, these 2 Messiahs are morphed into one priestly/kingly figure: Jesus the Son of God (cf. Heb. 4.14 and Mt. 2.1–2) who “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2.2).

——-

The Human Sacrifice of the Anointed is Praised in the Hebrew Bible

We find the exact same theme in Isa. 53.3-10 as we do in Zechariah 12.10 (NIV), which reads:

And I will pour out on the house of David

and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of

grace and supplication. They will look on

me, the one they have pierced, and they will

mourn for him as one mourns for an only

child, and grieve bitterly for him as one

grieves for a firstborn son.

That’s because they will come to realize that it was an important figure that was pierced, namely the foretold messiah! This is atonement language. Even Daniel 9.26 (ISV), in the context of the 70-weeks prophecy, employs the atonement language of salvation to describe the Messianic Sacrifice:

Then after the 62 weeks, the anointed one

will be cut down (but not for himself).

In other words, this messianic figure dies for others (not for himself)! What about Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah? Why is that story told? According to Rane Willerslev, a Danish academic anthropologist, “ ‘to sacrifice’ translates in religious terms as ‘to make sacred’ “ (God on trial: Human sacrifice, trickery and faith. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 [2013], p. 140). Thus, in order to make men holy, a sacrifice must be offered. This sacrifice to make them sacred must be of the highest order, and reminiscent of the “lamb without … blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the specifications of the Mosaic Law! In other words, only a pure, holy, and infinitely divine sacrifice is acceptable to God. Man cannot atone for his sins through the blood of animals. That’s the point! That’s why the temple was destroyed. Because the petty sacrifices of animals were no longer needed (Hos. 6.6). Nor can man atone for his own sins. Only God can atone for man. The gravity of the sacrifice implies that it takes something more than human endeavour to offer oneself in place of all sinners so as to bear the curse of human sin (Gal. 3.13). Hence why the human sacrifice of the Anointed is praised and exalted in the Hebrew Bible. And if that is so, how much more should it be praised and exalted in the Christian Bible? Moses prophesied of the messiah in the Torah: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut. 18:15-19). And Jesus attests to the truth of this statement by claiming that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46). See my article “What did Moses Mean when he Said that God will Raise Up a Prophet Like Me?” https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/171117128142/what-did-moses-mean-when-he-said-that-god-will

As far as Jewish objections to Christ’s divinity are concerned, see my article “The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611381184411336704/the-two-powers-of-the-godhead-were-part-of-judaism

Eli of Kittim

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus ——- Metatron and Jesus The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”

——-

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

The New Testament: Book by Book

Matthew.

Place Written: Antioch?

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.

Mark.

Place Written: Rome?

Written in 70 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.

Luke.

Place Written: Antioch.

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.

John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written in 90-95 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.

Acts.

Place Written: Rome.

Written in 85-90 CE.

Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.

Romans.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written 60-64 CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.

1 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.

2 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.

Galatians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.

Ephesians.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.

Philippians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.

Colossians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.

1 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: 49-50 CE.

Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.

2 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: ca 70s CE?

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.

1 Timothy.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

2 Timothy.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.

Titus.

Place Written: Macedonia?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

Philemon.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.

Hebrews.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.

James.

Place Written: unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”

1 Peter.

Place Written: Babylon/Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.

2 Peter.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: ca. 120 CE.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.

1 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.

2 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.

3 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.

Jude.

Place Written: Unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.

Revelation.

Place Written: Patmos Island.

Written 90-95 CE.

Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.

Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)

——-

Conclusion

Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”

What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!

To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!

——-

MANY PEOPLE OFTEN ASK, WHY IS JESUS THE ONLY WAY?

The answer is excerpted from Eli Kittim’s book, “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days,” pp. 246-247:

“Of all the famous teachers throughout history——Moses, Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad——no one has ever made any claims of being divine. All these men admit to being either founders of a particular way of ‘being in the world’ or messengers of God. Only Christ makes mention of his preexisting divinity, which echoes the theophany of God’s name in Exodus 3.14: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’ (John 8.58). Moreover, Jesus says, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me’ (John 14.6). In the Revelation to John, Christ emphatically says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, . . . who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’! (Rev. 1.8, cf. 1.1). In the final analysis, either Christ is who he claims to be, or he is the greatest hypocrite the world has ever known. You decide.”

——-

That is the question we all have to grapple with in this life, and, in all probability, the one which we will ultimately be judged by . . .

——-

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

A Call For a *New Reformation*

A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way:

“If your doctrine damages other Biblical

doctrines, you’ve gotta change your

doctrine” (see “Galatians 5:1-12 sermon by

Dr. Bob Utley”; YouTube video).

Not necessarily. Maybe the previous Biblical doctrines need to change in light of new discoveries. Bible scholarship is still evolving like every other discipline. No one can say to Einstein: “if your theory damages previous theories, you’ve gotta change your theory.” What if the previous theories are wrong? Are we to view them as infallible?

What did the Reformers mean by sola scriptura? They meant that the Bible alone provides the “constitutive tenets of the Christian faith.” In other words, the basic tenets of the faith (e.g. credal formulations) are NOT to be found in papal decrees or councils but in the Bible alone! And they went to great lengths to show how both the church and its councils had made many mistakes.

If I can similarly demonstrate that the constitutive tenets of the Christian faith are wrong, and that the Bible contradicts modern Christianity, as the reformers did, then I, too, must call for a *new reformation*! Those hard core adherents of historical Christianity will of course excoriate me as a peddler of godless heresies without honestly investigating my multiple lines of evidence.

——-

1. The New Testament is an Ancient Eastern Text Employing the Literary Conventions of its Time

The New Testament doesn’t use 21st century propositional language but rather Eastern hyperbolic language, parables, poetry, paradox, and the like. Today, any story about a person is immediately seen as a biography. But in those days it could have been a poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call, “theology.” The gospel writers adopted many of the literary conventions of the ancient writings and created what would be analogous to Greek productions (see Dennis MacDonald’s seminal work, “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark”). We often miss the genre of the gospels by looking at it with modern western lenses.

——-

2. The Gospel Genre Is Not Biographical

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological documents that demonstrate the presence of “intertextuality” (i.e. a heavy literary dependence on the Old Testament [OT]). If we don’t understand a particular genre out of which a unique discourse is operating from, then we will inevitably misinterpret the text. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological or apocalyptic in nature. It is precisely this quasi-biographical literary form that gives the “novel” some verisimilitude. How can we be sure? Let’s look at the New Testament (NT) letters. The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

——-

3. NT Scholars Demonstrate that the Gospels Are Not Historical

During his in-depth dialogue with Mike Licona on the historical reliability of the NT (2016), Bart Ehrman stated that “the NT gospels are historically unreliable accounts of Jesus.” In his book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” NT scholar Michael Licona has actually de-historicized parts of the gospel (i.e. Mt. 27.51-53), showing, for example, that the resurrection of the saints after Jesus’ crucifixion is indicative of a non-literal, apocalyptic genre rather than of an actual historical event. Licona suggests that the appearance of angels at Jesus’ tomb after the resurrection is legendary. He considers parts of the gospels to be “poetic language or legend,” especially in regard to the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27.51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15.5-7; Mt. 28.2-7; Lk 24.4-7; Jn 20.11-13). NT scholar, James Crossley agrees that the purported events of Mt. 27.52-53 didn’t happen. Licona is, in some sense, de-mythologizing the Bible in the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann. This infiltration of legend in Matthew extends to all the other gospels as well. According to the book called “The Jesus Crisis” by Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, two NT scholars, the sermon on the mount didn’t happen. The commissioning of the 12 did not happen. The parables of Matthew 13 and 14 didn’t happen. According to this book, it’s all made up. The magi? Fiction. The genealogy? Fiction! Robert H. Gundry, a professor of NT studies and koine Greek, has also said that Matthew 1-3 (the infancy narratives) were historical fiction (Midrash). Similarly, NT scholar Robert M. Price argues that all the Gospel stories of Jesus are a kind of midrash on the OT, and therefore completely fictional. Thomas L. Brodie, a Dominican priest, author, and academic, has similarly emphasised that most of the gospel thematic material is borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. These scholarly views have profound implications for so-called “historical Christianity,” its systematic theology, and its doctrines. Moreover, British NT scholar, James Dunn thought that the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen. He thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! What is more, Ludermann, Crossan, Ehrman, Bultmann all think that the resurrection is based on visions. So does Luke! No one saw Jesus during or after the so-called resurrection. The women saw a “vision” (Lk 24.23–24) just as the eyewitnesses did who were said to be “chosen beforehand” in Acts 10.40–41. Similarly, Paul only knows of the divine Christ (Gal. 1.11–12). With regard to the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, where more than 500 people supposedly saw Christ, Paul suggests that they all saw him just as he did. He declares: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared ALSO to me” (1 Cor. 15.8 emphasis added). In other words, in saying “also to me; Gk. κἀμοί), Paul suggests that Christ appeared to others in the same way or manner that he appeared to him (that is to say, by way of “visions”)!

——-

4. A Few Examples of Legendary Elements in the Gospels

A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. From the point of view of form criticism, it is well-known among biblical scholars that The Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish") in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Another example demonstrates the legendary nature of the Trial of Jesus. Everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings.

Six trials occur between Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion:

Jewish Trials

1. Before Annas

2. Before Caiaphas

3. Before the Sanhedrin

Roman Trials

4. Before Pilate

5. Before Herod

6. Before Pilate

Every single detail of each and every trial is not only illegal, but utterly ridiculous to be considered as a historical “fact.”

Illegalities ...

a) Binding a prisoner before he was condemned was illegal.

b) It was also illegal for Judges to participate in the arrest of the accused.

c) It was also illegal to have legal proceedings, legal transactions, or conduct a trial at night. It’s preposterous to have a trial going on in the middle of the night.

d) According to the law, although an acquittal may be pronounced on the same day, any other verdict required a majority of two and must come on a subsequent day. This law was also violated.

e) Moreover, no prisoner could be convicted on his own evidence. However, following Jesus’ reply under oath, a guilty verdict was pronounced!

f) Furthermore, it was the duty of a judge to make sure that the interest of the accused was fully protected.

g) The use of violence during the trial was completely unopposed by the judges (e.g. they slapped Jesus around). That was not just illegal; that kind of thing just didn’t happen.

h) The judges supposedly sought false witnesses against Jesus. Also illegal.

i) In a Jewish court room the accused was to be assumed innocent until proved guilty by two or more witnesses. This was certainly violated here as well.

j) No witness was ever called by the defense (except Jesus’ self incrimination testimony). Not just illegal; unheard of.

k) The Court lacked the civil authority to condemn a man to death.

l) It was also illegal to conduct a session of the court on a feast day (it was Passover).

m) Finally, the sentence is passed in the palace of the high priest, but Jewish law demanded that it be pronounced in the temple, in the hall of hewn stone. They didn’t do that either.

n) Also, the high priest is said to rend his garment (that was against the law). He was never permitted to tear his official robe (Lev. 21:10). For example, without his priestly robe he couldn’t have put Christ under oath in the first place.

Thus, all these illegalities according to Jewish law are not only quite unimaginable but utterly unrealistic to have happened in history.

——-

5. Bart Ehrman Says That Paul Tells Us Nothing About the Historical Jesus

One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the renowned textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

“Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.”

——-

6. The External Evidence Does Not Support the Historicity of Jesus

A) There are no eyewitnesses.

B) The gospel writers are not eyewitnesses.

C) The epistolary authors are not eyewitnesses.

D) Paul hasn’t seen Jesus in the flesh.

E) As a matter of fact, no one has ever seen or heard Jesus (there are no firsthand accounts)!

F) Contemporaries of Jesus seemingly didn’t see him either; otherwise they’d have written at least a single word about him. For example, Philo of Alexandria is unaware of Jesus’ existence.

G) Later generations didn’t see him either because not even a passing reference to Jesus is ever written by a secular author in the span of approximately 65y.

H) The very first mention of Jesus by a secular source comes at the close of the first century (93-94 CE). Here’s the scholarly verdict on Josephus’ text: “Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum in its present form” - wiki

I) Even Kurt Åland——the founder of the Institute for NT textual Research, who was also a textual critic and one of the principal editors of the modern critical NT——questioned whether Jesus existed! In his own words: “it almost then appears as if Jesus were a mere PHANTOM . . . “ (emphasis added)! Bertrand Russell, a British polymath, didn’t think Christ existed either. He said: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all” (“Why I am not a Christian”).

J) Interestingly enough, even though scholars usually reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, they nevertheless support the historicity of Jesus, which seems to be a case of special pleading. In his article, “Beware of Consensus Theology,” Dr. Stephen R. Lewis correctly writes:

there have been so many things society has held

as true when in fact they are merely a consensus.

. . . We must beware of our own “consensus

theology.” . . . We must beware of allowing the

theology of anyone—Augustine, Martin Luther,

John Calvin, or whomever—to take precedence

over the teachings of Scripture.

——-

7. First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (1 Pet. 1.10-11 NIV).

Exegesis

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the NT, since there’s no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the OT. That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

“It was revealed to them that they were not

serving themselves but you, when they

spoke of the things that have now been told

you by those who have preached the gospel

to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.”

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by “the Spirit of Christ” (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity’s sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance—-or prophesied, if you will—-according to this apocalyptic NT passage!

_______________________________________

Here’s Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the NT. In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was “the gospel concerning his Son” “which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there’s no reference to “the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God … concerning his Son” in the OT:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be

an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel

concerning his Son” (Rom. 1.1-3 NRSV).

Moreover, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

——-

8. Conclusion: NT History is Written in Advance

The all-pervading scriptural theme——that Christ’s gospel, crucifixion, and resurrection is either promised, known, or witnessed *beforehand* by the foreknowledge of God——should be the guiding principle for NT interpretation. First, we read that “the gospel concerning his [God’s] Son” is “promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο; Rom. 1.2). Second, the text reveals that Jesus was foreknown to be crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (προγνώσει; Acts 2.22-23). Third, this theme is reiterated in Acts 10.40-41 in which we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is *only* visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the knowledge of Christ’s coming was communicated beforehand to the preselected witnesses through the agency of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16.13; 2 Pet. 1.17-19 ff.). It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfilment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance:

“I am God . . . declaring the end from the

beginning and from ancient times things

not yet done (Isa. 46.9-10).

Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a future event? (See my article “WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A REVELATION?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs).

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

——-

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Author & Psychologist Eli Kittim

——-

Christian Psychotherapy

I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method of Psychotherapy is not based on organized religion or on any particular denomination. The Christian psychological approach that I am introducing is not related to any religious doctrines, dogmas, or practices. Rather, it is based on my personal understanding of the teachings of the Bible in conjunction with modern psychology and existential experience! As a trained psychologist, I see an intimate connection between sin and neurosis!

——-

What is sin, anyway?

In Biblical terms, “sin” is an action that transgresses the divine moral law and is thought to be highly reprehensible, bringing about guilt and/or shame upon the individual who commits it through the conscience (i.e. superego).

In humanistic terms, that is precisely what a clinical “neurosis” consists of, namely, conscious or unconscious feelings of guilt and/or shame that are displayed in one’s personality as symbolic symptoms, such as anxieties, phobias, compulsions, and the like. Although the term “neurosis” has been dropped since 1980 by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III), it is nevertheless prevalent in the clinical psychotherapeutic literature (e.g. it is still used in the ICD-10 Chapter V F40–48).

The point is, there seems to be a clinical connection between neurosis and sin. Some notable psychoanalysts, such as Moshe HaLevi Spero, have published academic works about this connection (see his article “Sin as Neurosis” in the “Journal of Religion and Health” Vol. 17, No. 4 [Oct. 1978], pp. 274-287).

——-

What is the Difference Between Christian and Clinical Psychotherapy?

Whereas modern psychotherapy’s goal is to make you feel less guilty about your neurosis, Biblical Christianity tries to eradicate the source of your guilt through *forgiveness*. These are two radically different approaches. One is largely devoid of any ethical considerations and basically encourages you to continue practicing your sins (as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others), while trying to persuade you not to feel so damn guilty about them. After all, this is the 21st century. People are free to do as they wish. A psychoanalyst once said to a patient——who suddenly revealed a secret perversion during a psychodynamic therapy session——“welcome to the club.”

The other approach acknowledges that something is morally wrong and says, no matter what you do, the guilt and shame will not go away unless you’re *forgiven*. Modern psychotherapy does not offer a “cure,” only a better coping mechanism based on a better understanding of your symptoms. In other words, it offers a bandaid, at best. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, offers a “cure” based on an *inner transformation* of the mind. It may entail more risks and a far deeper understanding, but it almost always guarantees a personality change. All you have to do is to reinvent yourself. You have to become a new creature: a new creation. One day you’re this person; the next day you’re a completely different person. That’s exactly what happened to Paul in the New Testament. One day he was persecuting Christians. The next he loved and protected them. The Second letter to the Corinthians 5.17 (NIV) reads:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new

creation has come: The old has gone, the

new is here!

The Christian process of transformation is not unlike the Buddhist or the Hindu. In fact, it is almost identical to them in the sense of self-realization and self-transcendence, the only difference is that at the center of undifferentiated consciousness is the divine Christ. The Johannine Jesus makes it absolutely clear that you cannot even see the kingdom of God unless you are born again (3.3):

Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one

can see the kingdom of God unless they are

born again.’

That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians 4.22-24 (NRSV) 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.

So, from this perspective, you don’t need to see a psychiatrist once a week. What you need is a personality change. In other words, you don’t need a slap on the wrist; you need forgiveness!

——-

Christian Psychotherapy Not Only Cures but Also Offers Salvation

Besides this psychotherapeutic advantage that the Bible offers, in which deep satisfaction and contentment can be attained, it also furnishes some insights into unconscious motivation and human behavior. For example, it goes beyond the personal unconscious and informs us about the influences of the so-called “collective unconscious” on our psyche, as the work of Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, has shown.

Of course, the weltanschauung of transcendental philosophy is significant here because, in the Biblical context, transcendence refers to the metaphysical aspects of nature, which are beyond all physical laws. These parapsychological phenomena can be exhibited in various “religious experiences” of the type that William James studied, which are typically manifested in contemplation, prayer, séance, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, meditation, or paranormal “visions” and existential experiences. In short, there seems to be a link between physical and metaphysical phenomena that are played out in the psychological sphere of the individual and in the realm of the mind.

To this end, the Bible has a lot to say on the topic of how we diagnose and therefore treat certain ailments. For example, should we treat all mental health issues as matters that pertain to sin or should we consult modern psychology? According to the Bible, if anxieties, fears, depressions, and phobias are the roots of mental disturbances, then *love* necessarily cures them. First John 4.18 (NIV) says:

There is no fear in love. But perfect love

drives out fear, because fear has to do with

punishment. The one who fears is not made

perfect in love.

——-

Conclusion

The panacea for all nonbiological mental disorders is *love.* The Beatles were spot-on: “All You Need Is Love.” Second Timothy 1.7 (KJV) reads:

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;

but of power, and of love, and of a sound

mind.

Thus, from a psychotherapeutic perspective, it is precisely this *love* and *forgiveness* that equips a person to break the chains of neurosis, addiction, and fear by restoring their mind back to health!

(To read this article in Greek, click the following link: https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/652363021202669568/%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%88%CF%85%CF%87%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%82

Tumblr

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

άρθρο του ψυχολόγου - συγγραφέα, Ελι Κιτίμ ——- Χριστιανική Ψυχοθεραπεία Θα πρέπει να πλαισιώσω τη συζήτηση λέγοντας εξαρχής ότι ο ορισμ

——-