Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine

Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine

“I’ll Be Back”

By Author Eli Kittim

End-Time Visions of the Messiah’s Robotic Enhancements

What if Jesus paid a steeper price for our salvation? What if Christ is “revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)? What if his sacrifice “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) is more costly than previously assumed?

In his vision, the prophet Ezekiel saw certain heavenly creatures who “were of human form” (1.5 NRSV). Notice what he says about their legs (1.7):

Their legs were straight, and the soles of

their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot;

and they sparkled like burnished bronze.

As you read further, you will come to realize that this imagery runs throughout the entire Bible. Remarkably, Ezekiel’s description sounds very much like modern bionic prosthetics, which redefine and enhance human amputees. Let’s not forget that the heavenly figures whom Ezekiel had seen were supposedly human. Two other interesting clues were that “their legs were straight” (unlike human legs that bend) and that “their feet were like . . . burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth].” This is a running theme throughout the Bible whose imagery is associated with the end-time Messiah! Similarly, in Revelation 1.13-15, John describes his vision of Christ as follows:

I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with

a long robe and with a golden sash across

his chest. His head and his hair were white

as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were

like a flame of fire, his feet were like

burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace,

and his voice was like the sound of many

waters.

Notice the imagery pertaining to Christ’s “feet [which] were like burnished bronze [Gk. χαλκολιβάνῳ].” By comparison, in Daniel 10.1 we are told that “In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel.” Remember that, in the Bible, Cyrus represents the Messiah (see Isa. 45.1). Daniel sees a vision of the end times, described by a glorious man who looks awfully similar to John’s “Son of Man” (Dan. 10.5-6):

I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen,

with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his

waist. His body was like beryl, his face like

lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his

arms and legs like the gleam of burnished

bronze, and the sound of his words like the

roar of a multitude.

Daniel gives us additional information by saying that “his arms and legs [were] like the gleam of burnished [Hb. קָלָ֑ל qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֣שֶׁת nechosheth].” In other words, it wasn’t just his legs, but his arms as well were seemingly made of burnished bronze! It sounds like a combat soldier who had lost all his limbs and was wearing a metallic or robotic prosthesis. And Daniel employs the exact same Hebrew words for “burnished bronze” that are used in Ezekiel’s vision. Furthermore, in Revelation 2.18, Christ himself identifies with this biblical image, demonstrating categorically and unequivocally that it refers to him and him alone. Christ says:

And to the angel of the church in Thyatira

write: These are the words of the Son of

God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and

whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Chalkolibanon: The Messiah’s Feet Were Like Burnished Bronze

καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ

https://biblehub.com/greek/5474.htm

The Greek word chalkolibanon is translated as “burnished bronze” and refers to “a fine metal,” such as “fine copper, bronze or brass,” similar to what the Hebrew term for bronze (i.e. nechosheth) represents.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5178.htm

These images that are therefore uniquely related to Jesus strongly suggest that they’re part of his human makeup and physical appearance. Why else would the Bible contain these metallic images? All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg. An article from the Australian Academy of Science expounds on this type of modern technology:

What’s different about the new generation

of prosthetic limbs is their union with bionic

technology, and the way they combine

fields of study as diverse as electronics,

biotechnology, hydraulics, computing,

medicine, nanotechnology and prosthetics.

Technically, the field is known as

biomechatronics, an applied

interdisciplinary science that works to

integrate mechanical elements and devices

with biological organisms such as human

muscles, bones, and the nervous systems. 

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/bionic-limbs

Curious

Bionic limbs

Advances in human bionics may require us to rethink our concepts of what it is to be human.

Incidentally, a wide variety of materials are used to create artificial limbs, including aluminium bronze and titanium bronze alloys, which are shiny metals. Copper, iron, silver, and gold have also been used in the past. Surprisingly, these are the exact metallic descriptions that we find in the aforesaid passages of the Bible (cf. Dan. 2.32-33: “head of . . . gold . . . arms of silver . . . thighs of bronze. . . legs of iron . . . feet partly of iron and partly of clay [human]”).

Robotics for Human Augmentation in the Visions of Daniel

Dual fulfillment is an important principle of Biblical interpretation. It’s associated with the concept of messianic typology in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to the notion that there are certain prophecies in the Bible that may have both an immediate and a long-term fulfilment. The gigantic statue of a man made of four metals, in the Book of Daniel, is such a prophecy, that might be a clue to the endtimes Christ. It has a short-term fulfillment in terms of the succeeding world-empires that will arise and rule on earth. However, Daniel 2.44 suggests that the prophecy also refers to the end of days (a long-term fulfillment) when God will set up his kingdom once for all! Daniel 2.31-33 (NRSV) explains Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as follows:

You were looking, O king, and lo! there was

a great statue. This statue was huge, its

brilliance extraordinary; it was standing

before you, and its appearance was

frightening. The head of that statue was of

fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its

middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron,

its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

Let’s not forget that Daniel addresses the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar as if he’s the the king of kings, the Messiah (2.37-38):

You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the

God of heaven has given the kingdom, the

power, the might, and the glory, into whose

hand he has given human beings, wherever

they live, the wild animals of the field, and

the birds of the air, and whom he has

established as ruler over them all—you are

the head of gold.

There are messianic overtones, here, that go far beyond the historical context of the passage and suggest a future fulfillment. The dream features a towering statue of a man (Daniel 2.32-33):

The head of that statue was of fine gold, its

chest and arms of silver, its middle and

thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet

partly of iron and partly of clay.

Once again, we get the feeling this is more of a machine than a man. Notice that the legs were made of iron and bronze. What if Daniel 4.13-15 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah? (cf. 2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13):

I continued looking, in the visions of my

head as I lay in bed, and there was a holy

watcher, coming down from heaven. He

cried aloud and said: ‘Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches, strip off its

foliage and scatter its fruit. Let the animals

flee from beneath it and the birds from its

branches. But leave its stump and roots in

the ground, with a band of iron and bronze,

in the tender grass of the field. Let him be

bathed with the dew of heaven, and let his

lot be with the animals of the field in the

grass of the earth.’

Conclusion

There’s a running narrative throughout the Old and New Testaments that includes thematic parallels and verbal agreements between the visions of various prophets. The terminology has not only been surprisingly consistent from prophet to prophet, but its meaning has also been uniform from one language to another. For example, both Ezekiel and Daniel use identical Hebrew terms to describe what appears to be a Messianic figure, whose feet were “like burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth]” (Ezek. 1.7; cf. Dan. 10.6)! Astoundingly, the exact same meaning (i.e. χαλκολίβανον; burnished bronze) as applied to the Hebrew Old Testament is employed in the Greek New Testament (Rev. 1.15; 2.18) to convey a similar idea. This suggests that the Biblical books are inspired and in dialogue with one another.

Accordingly, the arms and legs of the purported Messiah do not appear to be human. Rather, they appear to be robotic metals for human augmentation, what we today would call modern bionic prosthetics in redefining and enhancing human amputees. The consistent thematic material (i.e. the canonical context) in the visions of the prophets, especially those of Daniel, is exegetically significant and cannot be simply explained away. What if Daniel 4.14 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah to cut off “his arms and legs”? (cf. Dan. 10.6):

Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches.

Given that the “tree image” in Dan. 4.10-12 is of paramount importance and immersed in messianic metaphors (cf. Jn 15.5; Rev. 22.2), it could certainly represent the Anointed one. All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg or Bionic Man! The same shiny metals that are referenced in the Bible are the exact same alloys used in prosthetic limbs and modern robotics for human augmentation (i.e. human-enhancement technologies). A close reading of these end-time visions suggests that the Son of Man is part man part machine. This is called “transhumanism,” the merger of humanity with artificial intelligence. This would imply that Christ’s suffering on Judgment day is far more intense than previously thought, which also reflects the profound depth of his love for us!

The Psychology of Atheism & Agnosticism

By Author Eli Kittim

Atheism is the position that there’s no God. According to Bart Ehrman, a renowned Bible scholar, atheism is a *belief system.* It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence or empirical knowledge. It’s as much a belief as Theism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. According to the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnostic in 1869:

It simply means that a man shall not say he

knows or believes that which he has no

scientific grounds for professing to know or

believe.

In other words, whereas explicit atheism refers to “the absence of theistic belief,” agnosticism refers to an *absence* of knowledge. In the former case, an individual refuses to believe in the existence of God. In the latter, the person doesn’t know whether or not God exists. In either case, the person refuses to acknowledge or accept the existence of God, let alone God’s revelation (aka the Bible).

The common thread among atheists and agnostics is their *continual denial* of any evidence for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological or ontological arguments). I’m particularly interested in the psychological *causes* (rather than the philosophical arguments) of militant atheism, which denote a defiant and persistent rejection of God. To present a valid argument against God’s existence is one thing. But the need to reject God’s existence at all costs is quite another. So, what is the prime motivating factor underlying this psychological repudiation?

Answer: 2 Corinthians 4.4 (NLT):

Satan, who is the god of this world, has

blinded the minds of those who don’t

believe. They are unable to see the glorious

light of the Good News. They don’t

understand this message about the glory of

Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

——-

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-

Can We Discard Trinitarianism by Rejecting Hypostasis?: A Critical Review of Frank Nelte’s Article “The Facts About 'Hypostasis' “

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim

——-

Does the Worldwide Church of God Have the Corner on the Market?

The article under discussion that’s still relevant today was written a while back by Frank W Nelte of the Worldwide Church of God——a religious organization, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong——which some have referred to as a cult: https://franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=192

Armstongism refers to the teachings of

Herbert W. Armstrong, which became the

teaching of the Worldwide Church of God.

These teachings were often at odds with

traditional Christian beliefs and at times

were explicitly in contradiction to the Bible.

The most well-known of Armstrong’s

teachings is that of Anglo-Israelism.

(Gotquestions)

Always question the systematic theology behind the articles you read. For example, T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist, is a self-professed modalist (he believes that there aren’t 3 persons in the Trinity but rather 1, operating in 3 modes). So, we must be cautious of subscribing to theologies that are not grounded in cogent arguments. Many offshoots of The Worldwide Church of God also hold to tenuous and spurious doctrines, such as that of David C. Pack, which promotes Binitarianism (one deity in two persons), and the notion that the Holy Spirit is not a Person.

——-

Frank Nelte is trying to discredit Trinitarianism by showing that the language used to support it comes from outside the Bible and is based on Greek philosophy. He hopes to zero in on a defeater of the belief that the Greek term ὑπόστασις (hupostasis) is a reference to God’s essence or substance: https://biblehub.com/greek/5287.htm

Does Hypostasis Mean Title Deed?

Nelte starts off by trying to change the definition of the term hypostasis by introducing various questionable reference works, such as the “HELPS Word Studies for Greek/Hebrew.” But caution is advised because Bible dictionaries, especially those not accepted by credible scholars, tend to make theological assumptions concerning the denotative definition of words. Accordingly, Nelte declares:

the word ‘hypostasis’ meant ‘TITLE DEED’!

That’s incorrect. That explanation is based on theological “interpretations,” not on the classical meaning of the word per se, as I will show you anon. This assumption can be found in The “HELPS Word-studies” reference work, which reads:

5287 hypóstasis (from 5259 /hypó, ‘under’

and 2476 /hístēmi, ‘to stand’) – properly,

(to possess) standing under a

guaranteed agreement (‘title-deed’);

(figuratively) ‘title’ to a promise or property,

i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is,

‘under a legal-standing’) – entitling

someone to what is guaranteed under the

particular agreement. For the believer,

5287/hypóstasis (‘title of possession’) is the

Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He

inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed

we are only entitled to what God grants

faith for (Ro 14:23).

But the primary meaning of the word “hypostasis” does not mean title deed. According to the scholarly reference work of H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901) p. 1639, the Greek term ὑπόστασις (Hypostasis) means “substantial nature, substance.” It defines “hypostasis” as follows:

the real nature of a thing, as underlying and

supporting its outward form and properties,

and so = [equal to] ουσία or η υποκειμένη

ύλη, essence.

This categorically refutes Nelte’s argument completely. The only thing Nelte is willing to concede is that hypostasis refers to some sort of support. He writes:

Hupostasis refers to something we can

stand upon;

Well, yes. But actually, stand under. It’s similar to the English term “understand.” The definition from the “Online Etymology Dictionary” is as follows:

Old English understandan ‘to comprehend,

grasp the idea of, receive from a word or

words or from a sign the idea it is intended

to convey; to view in a certain way,’

probably literally ‘stand in the midst of,’

from under + standan ‘to stand’.

According to the aforesaid meaning, to “stand under” connotes a deeper understanding or comprehension. Similarly, hypostasis means to stand under (see Strong 5287 hypóstasis [from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand"]). In other words, just as the word “understand” departs from its denotative meaning and implies comprehension, so does “hypostasis,” whose connotative meaning pertains to an underlying foundation. We cannot simply bypass the latter’s historical-grammatical meaning that dates back to Ancient Greek philosophy and which is described as the underlying substance of fundamental reality. By contrast, Nelte writes:

Put in very plain terms (perhaps somewhat

oversimplified) they teach that

HYPOSTASIS refers to the SUBSTANCE

(from Hebrews 11:1) that the Godhead

consists of. Supposedly God the Father and

Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one

HUPOSTASIS, etc.. Now this interpretation

of the word ‘hupostasis’ is not in any way

supported by the five times that Paul used

this word in two different epistles in the New

Testament. Paul really meant exactly what

Webster's Dictionary understands the

English word HYPOSTASIS to mean. We

should remember that the word

‘SUBSTANCE’ (with its present meaning in

the English language) in Hebrews 11:1 is

really a mistranslation. Hypostasis simply

means: to stand under or upon, to support,

etc. It has nothing to do with ‘substance’.

As stated earlier, according to Liddell & Scott, the term hypostasis means foundation, “essence,” or “substance.” In other words, the term hypostasis can be defined as some sort of underlying support or foundation upon which something else stands or exists. So, it can certainly refer to the essence or substance of the Godhead. This interpretation of hypostasis is clearly supported in the New Testament. In Hebrews 1.3 the Greek text says ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. This means that Christ is the apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα) or “radiance” of God’s glory and character, namely, the exact representation of God’s hypostasis. What could that possibly mean? It could only mean that Christ is the exact imprint or image of God’s essence or character or substance. It is true that hypostasis doesn’t denotatively (literally) mean substance. But it does appear to suggest it connotatively!

That’s why at the outset of an argument one must always try to see where the author is going with it. That will reveal their intention and motivation, whether it is pure and genuine or whether they have an axe to grind. In this case, Nelte is trying desperately to prove that the Trinity is false. So, he attempts to manipulate the language in order to prove his point. But true scholarship follows the evidence wherever it may lead. The minute you try to manipulate the evidence, you have turned it into a confirmation bias and a private interpretation.

Is a Borrowed Concept Necessarily False?

Nelte outlines his basic criticism of the Trinity by suggesting that because many of its theological concepts are grounded in Platonic philosophy——especially “the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the nature of God”——they must therefore be inappropriate or inapplicable, at best, and erroneous or fallacious, at worst. But is this a valid argument? He writes:

It should be quite clear to anyone who takes

the time to study into this, that the religious

views of the Catholic Church, as expounded

by the Catholic ‘church fathers’ and as

discussed at the various Councils of the

Catholic Church (Nicea, Constantinople,

etc.) are STEEPED IN THE IDEAS OF PLATO!

And the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the

nature of God are central to that whole

scheme of things.

It is true that Christianity borrowed a great deal from Platonic philosophy. But philosophical and linguistic inheritance is only one aspect of New Testament theology; divine revelation is another. There are other metaphysical considerations that need to be addressed. For example, Nelte argues that since the term hypostasis is borrowed from Plato, the 3 hypostases applied to the Christian godhead must be erroneous. And the notion that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd hypostasis must equally be false. But this is a fallacious argument. All historical, cultural, and scientific endeavors have borrowed profusely from their predecessors. It’s part of the evolution of language and culture. It’s part of who we are: Standing on the shoulders of giants! All knowledge is derived from previous predecessors.

The Old Testament Flood of Noah account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia. What is more, the Hebrew name of God in the Old Testament is “El.” But this name was also borrowed from the Levant. Historically, El was a pagan deity and the supreme god of a Canaanite pantheon of gods, analogous to to the Greek god Zeus. But just because the name El was borrowed from this religious and cultural milieu (paganism) doesn’t mean that the corresponding values of the two deities are equivalent. In other words, it doesn’t follow that the Hebrew God is a false, pagan, Canaanite god. Precisely because the culture was familiar with this god, the God of the Bible chose to associate himself with this cultural icon in order to make the transition of faith smoother and far more acceptable. It’s similar to missionary work. If you’re trying to convert aborigines to Christ, you’ll try to explain certain concepts according to the existing terminology of the culture at hand. If you deviate and introduce completely foreign concepts, your theology will create cognitive dissonance with the native and local spiritual religions. Many of the New Testament narratives about Jesus are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, but they don’t have equal value in both Testaments.

So, the attempt to judge the truth value of a concept based solely on its linguistic and philosophical antecedents is not a sound argument. Besides, historical-grammatical studies alone cannot answer metaphysical questions, as, say, the existence of God and his attributes. So, it seems to me that this is a fallacious argument, namely, the attempt to invalidate certain concepts or to explain them away simply because of previously borrowed religious, philosophical, and linguistic antecedents. That type of argumentation would invalidate science itself. Current science is very different from that of the renaissance. Yet the language of modern science is borrowed directly from Greek and Latin texts. In fact, the entire scientific project has borrowed extensively from the philosophical and linguistic heritage of its predecessors. Does that invalidate its current status? I think not!

Conclusion

Frank W. Nelte tenaciously maintains his objection to the classical interpretation of “hypostasis” throughout the paper. He writes:

The truth is that the word ‘hypostasis’ has

NOTHING to do with ‘substance’ or with

‘ousia.’

Au contraire, as the scholarly work of Liddell & Scott demonstrates, “hypostasis” has everything to do with “substance” and “ousia.” For example, in Hebrews 1.3, the New International Version translates the Greek term ὑποστάσεως (hupostasis) as “the exact representation of … [God’s] being.” The New Living Translation expresses it as “the very character of God.” The English Standard Version renders it as “the exact imprint of his nature.” The Berean Literal Bible translates it as “the exact expression of His substance,” while the New American Standard Bible explicates it as “the exact representation of His nature.” What are all these translations of the word “hypostasis” getting at? Answer: they’re depicting God’s very “being,” “nature,” and “substance.” All these credible translations are talking about the very essence or substance of God. Therefore it is not inappropriate to refer to God’s innermost nature as his hypostasis. This view is supported by the New Testament! Hebrews 1.3 reads:

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα

τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ ⸃

καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ⸃

ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν

ὑψηλοῖς.

——-

Is Jesus a Jew?

By Author Eli Kittim

The term “Jew” means one of two things: either a “Jew” by religion, irrespective of one’s race, or a “Jew” by race, irrespective of one’s religion. The only category that can properly address Jesus’ *ancestry* is the second one, namely, a Jew by race, irrespective of one’s religion!

The term “Jew” is an abbreviation of the term “Judah” (Ioudaios” in Greek), and it implies a *descendant* from the tribe of *Judah.* There were only 2 tribes in the kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking,  represent the term “Jews.” Therefore, anyone who is from a different race/region cannot be technically called a “Jew.” Case in point: Jesus is a *Galilean* (Mk 1:9; Mt. 3:13; 4:15-17; 21:11), not a Judaean! It is well known amongst Biblical scholars and archaeologists that Galilee was heavily influenced by Greek culture. The scholar & Oxford classicist G.A. Williamson states that Galilee “was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He says that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”. John’s gospel 7:41-43 confirms that Christ is from Galilee of the Gentiles, which infuriates the Jews because Jesus defies Jewish messianic expectations. John 7:52 describes the Jews’ rejection of a Gentile Messiah, when saying, “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt 4:15-16)!

The gospel genealogies prove nothing with respect to Jesus’ ethnicity. According to Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, the genealogies of Matthew & Luke are contradictory and don’t give us any historical evidence. Not to mention that both are explicitly based on Joseph, who is NOT Jesus’ biological father. As Mike Licona asserts, these genealogies are compositionally more theological than historical. Bottom line, we cannot rely on them to give us the historical pedigree of Jesus.

Thus, according to the internal & external evidence, Jesus is not a Jew; he’s a **Gentile**!

——-

What language would Jesus have spoken?

According to Bart Ehrman, studies show that only 3% of the population was literate in the land of Israel in the first century c.e. One would have to be a highly literate scholar to understand Hebrew, the language of the Scriptures. Most Bible scholars assume that the common language of the people was Aramaic. Thus, they conclude that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic.

That may have been the case in Palestine centuries earlier, but, largely due to the influences of the Hasmonaeans and the Herods, it appears as if Aramaic had entered a period of decline during the time of Jesus. The notion that Jesus spoke Aramaic has recently been challenged by Greek New Testament linguists (see Stanley E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?”, Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 [1993] 199-235 https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf Bart Ehrman himself admits that he’s not sure if Paul (Jesus’ contemporary) knew Aramaic. And there’s no archaeological evidence to support Aramaic as the dominant language in first century Palestine, especially in Galilee. The Herodian coinage is inscribed exclusively in Greek, not Aramaic. Currency is a good indicator of the language of a nation. African currencies are in African languages. Similarly, the currencies of the UK & the US are in English, and so on and so forth. In other words, you cannot have a currency in one language and a verbal communication in another (e.g. a national currency inscribed in Greek within an Aramaic speaking community is a contradiction in terms).

https://href.li/?https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf

What is more, only 12% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Aramaic! Remember that the community at Qumran fled the metropolitan areas that had become more or less Hellenized. So, the Essenes represent only a tiny fraction of the population that kept the traditions alive, including the Aramaic works. Moreover, the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic, signifying the widespread use of Greek in first century Palestine. There is important literary evidence to substantiate this view. For example, the historian Flavius Josephus wrote in Greek, which is also the language of the Septuagint!

The internal evidence supports this view. For example, the literary Jesus supposedly speaks Aramaic "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani?" and no one seems to understand him. They thought he was calling Elijah. If Aramaic was the everyday language of the people they would’ve understood what Jesus meant.

Which languages did Pilate write on the inscription above the cross? Was Aramaic one of them? No! In what language did Jesus converse with Pilate? How many languages did Pilate know? Greek and Latin. So was the conversation between them in Aramaic? Most definitely not! And, according to Bart Ehrman, there is no indication that they used an interpreter. Thus, the *literary narratives* of the New Testament also suggest that Jesus would have spoken Greek!

——-

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 ορισμός μου για τη χριστιανική μέθοδο ψυχοθεραπείας δεν βασίζεται στην οργανωμένη θρησκεία ή σε κάποια συγκεκριμένη χριστιανική εκκλησία. Η «χριστιανική» ψυχολογική προσέγγιση που εισάγω δεν σχετίζεται με θρησκευτικά δόγματα ή θρησκευτικές πρακτικές. Αντίθετα, βασίζεται στην προσωπική μου κατανόηση των συλλογικών βιβλικών διδασκαλιών σε συνδυασμό με τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία και την υπαρξιακή εμπειρία! Ως εκπαιδευμένος ψυχολόγος, βλέπω μια στενή σχέση μεταξύ αμαρτίας και ψυχολογικής νεύρωσης!

——-

Τι σημαινει αμαρτία;

Σύμφωνα με τους Βιβλικούς όρους, η «αμαρτία» είναι μια πράξη που παραβιάζει τον θεϊκό ηθικό νόμο και θεωρείται εξαιρετικά κατακριτέα, προκαλώντας ενοχή ή/και ντροπή για το άτομο που την διαπράττει μέσω της συνείδησης (δηλ. Superego). Χρησιμοποιώντας κοσμικούς όρους, αυτό ακριβώς αποτελείται από μια κλινική «νεύρωση», δηλαδή, συνειδητά ή ασυνείδητα συναισθήματα ενοχής ή/και ντροπής που εμφανίζονται στην προσωπικότητα ως συμβολικά συμπτώματα, όπως ανησυχίες, φοβίες, καταναγκασμοί, και τα παρόμοια. Αν και ο όρος «νεύρωση» έχει απορριφθεί από το 1980 από το Διαγνωστικό και Στατιστικό Εγχειρίδιο Ψυχικών Διαταραχών (DSM III), είναι ωστόσο διαδεδομένος στην κλινική ψυχοθεραπευτική βιβλιογραφία (π.χ. χρησιμοποιείται ακόμα στο ICD-10 Κεφάλαιο V F40–48).

Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι υπάρχει κλινική σύνδεση μεταξύ της νεύρωσης και της αμαρτίας. Ορισμένοι αξιοσημείωτοι ψυχαναλυτές, όπως ο Moshe HaLevi Spero, έχουν δημοσιεύσει ακαδημαϊκά έργα σχετικά με αυτήν τη σύνδεση (δείτε το άρθρο του «Sin as Neurosis» στο «Journal of Religion and Health» Τόμος 17, Αρ. 4 [Οκτ. 1978], σελ. 274-287).

——-

Ποια είναι η διαφορά μεταξύ χριστιανικής και κλινικής ψυχοθεραπείας;

Ενώ ο στόχος της σύγχρονης ψυχοθεραπείας είναι να σας κάνει να αισθάνεστε λιγότερο ένοχοι για τη νεύρωσή σας, ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός προσπαθεί να εξαλείψει εντελώς την πηγή της ενοχής σας μέσω της *συγχώρεσης.* Αυτές είναι δύο ριζικά διαφορετικές προσεγγίσεις. H σύγχρονη ψυχολογία στερείται σε μεγάλο βαθμό από ηθικά ζητήματα και βασικά σας ενθαρρύνει να συνεχίσετε να ασκείτε τις αμαρτίες σας (αρκεί να μην πληγώνετε τον εαυτό σας ή τους άλλους), ενώ προσπαθεί να σας πείσει να μην αισθάνεστε τόσο καταδικασμένοι για αυτές. Ζούμε στον 21ο αιώνα. Οι άνθρωποι είναι ελεύθεροι να κάνουν όπως θέλουν. Για παράδειγμα, ένας ψυχαναλυτής είπε κάποτε σε έναν ασθενή — ο οποίος ξαφνικά αποκάλυψε τη σεξουαλική του διαστροφή κατά τη διάρκεια μιας ψυχοδυναμικής θεραπείας — «καλώς ήλθατε στο κλαμπ.»

Η άλλη προσέγγιση (δηλαδή της Βίβλου) αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι είναι ηθικά λανθασμένο στην ψυχή, και υποστηρίζει ότι, ανεξάρτητα από τις προσπάθειές σας, η ενοχή και η ντροπή δεν θα εξαφανιστούν εντελώς εάν δεν *συγχωρεθείτε.* Η σύγχρονη ψυχοθεραπεία δεν προσφέρει «θεραπεία» αλλά μόνο έναν καλύτερο μηχανισμό αντιμετώπισης που βασίζεται στην καλύτερη κατανόηση των συμπτωμάτων σας. Με άλλα λόγια, στην καλύτερη περίπτωση προσφέρει ένα χάνζαπλαστ.

Ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός, από την άλλη πλευρά, προσφέρει μια «θεραπεία» που βασίζεται σε έναν «εσωτερικό μετασχηματισμό» του νου. Μπορεί να συνεπάγεται περισσότερους κινδύνους και πολύ βαθύτερη κατανόηση, αλλά σχεδόν πάντα εγγυάται μια αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, πρέπει να γίνεις ένα νέο πλάσμα: μια νέα δημιουργία. Πρέπει να ξαναγεννηθείς. Μια μέρα είσαι αυτό το άτομο. Την επόμενη μέρα είσαι ένα εντελώς διαφορετικό άτομο. Αυτό ακριβώς συνέβη στον Παύλο (στην Νέα Διαθήκη). Μια μέρα διώκει τους Χριστιανούς. Την επόμενη τους αγαπά και τους προστατεύει. Στην Β΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους (5.17 Νεοελληνικη), ο Παύλος εξηγεί αυτήν την αλλαγή ως εξής:

Όταν κάποιος ανήκει στο Χριστό είναι μια

καινούρια δημιουργία. Τα παλιά πέρασαν·

όλα έχουν γίνει καινούρια.

Η χριστιανική διαδικασία του μετασχηματισμού δεν είναι διαφορετική από εκείνες που σχετίζονται με τον βουδισμό ή τον Ινδουισμό. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι σχεδόν παρόμοια με αυτές όσον αφορά την αυτοπραγμάτωση και την υπερβατικότητα, η μόνη διαφορά είναι ότι στο κέντρο της αδιαφοροποίητης συνείδησης είναι ο θεϊκός Χριστός. Ο Ιησούς εξηγεί τον λόγο για τον οποίο υποτιμούμε τις διδασκαλίες του (Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγέλιον 3.3):

Απήντησε ο Ιησούς και είπε· ‘σε

διαβεβαιώνω, ότι εάν δεν γεννηθή κανείς από

τον ουρανόν, δεν ημπορεί να Ίδη και να

απολαύση την βασιλείαν του Θεού.’

Για αυτό η Επιστολή προς Εφεσίους (4.22-24) μας δίνει εντολή να απομακρύνουμε τον «παλιό εαυτό» μας και να φορέσουμε μια νέα ταυτότητα, που λέει ο λόγος, δηλαδή τον «νέο εαυτό» που δημιουργείται σύμφωνα με την εικόνα του Θεού:

έχετε πράγματι διδαχθή να αποβάλετε

και πετάξετε από επάνω σας τον παλαιόν

άνθρωπον της αμαρτίας όπως αυτός είχε

υπάρξει και εκδηλωθή εις την

προηγουμένην ειδωλολατρικήν ζωήν και

συμπεριφοράν σας. Αυτός ο παλαιός

άνθρωπος, εξ αιτίας των αμαρτιών και των

παθών του, φθείρεται συνεχώς και

προχωρεί στον όλεθρον από τας επιθυμίας,

που ανάπτει η απατηλή αμαρτία. Εχετε

ακόμη διδαχθή να ανανεώνεσθε συνεχώς με

τα υγιή πνευματικά φρονήματα του νου σας

και να ενδυθήτε τον νέον άνθρωπον, ο

οποίος ανεδημιουργήθη και αναγεννήθη

σύμφωνα με το θέλημα του Θεού.

Έτσι, από αυτήν την άποψη, δεν χρειάζεται να επισκέπτεστε έναν ψυχίατρο μία φορά την εβδομάδα. Αυτό που χρειάζεστε είναι μια ριζική αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, δεν χρειάζεστε ομιλίες. Χρειάζεστε συγχώρεση!

——-

Η χριστιανική ψυχοθεραπεία όχι μόνο θεραπεύει αλλά προσφέρει και σωτηρία

Εκτός από αυτό το ψυχοθεραπευτικό πλεονέκτημα που προσφέρει η Βίβλος, στο οποίο μπορεί να επιτευχθεί βαθιά εσωτερική ικανοποίηση, παρέχει επίσης κάποιες ιδέες για το ασυνείδητο κίνητρο και την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Για παράδειγμα, υπερβαίνει το προσωπικό ασυνείδητο και μας ενημερώνει για τις επιρροές του λεγόμενου «συλλογικού ασυνείδητου» στην ψυχή μας, όπως έχει δείξει το έργο του Ελβετού ψυχίατρου, Καρλ Γκούσταβ Γιουνγκ.

Φυσικά, το θέμα της υπερβατικής φιλοσοφίας είναι σημαντικό επειδή, στο Βιβλικό πλαίσιο, η υπέρβαση αναφέρεται στις μεταφυσικές πτυχές της φύσης, οι οποίες είναι πέρα ​​από όλους τους φυσικούς νόμους. Αυτά τα παραψυχολογικά φαινόμενα μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν σε διάφορες «θρησκευτικές εμπειρίες» του τύπου που μελετά ο ψυχολόγος Γουίλιαμ Τζέιμς, οι οποίες συνήθως εκδηλώνονται στην προσευχή, στην υπερηαισθητική αντίληψη, στη διόραση, στον διαλογισμό ή στα παραφυσικά «οράματα» και στις υπαρξιακές εμπειρίες. Εν ολίγοις, φαίνεται να υπάρχει σύνδεση μεταξύ φυσικών και μεταφυσικών φαινομένων που παίζονται στον ψυχολογικό τομέα του ατόμου και στον τομέα του νου.

Για το σκοπό αυτό, η Βίβλος έχει πολλά να πει σχετικά με το πώς διαγιγνώσκουμε και ως εκ τούτου αντιμετωπίζουμε ορισμένες ασθένειες. Πρέπει παραδείγματος χάρη να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλα τα ζητήματα ψυχικής υγείας ως θέματα που σχετίζονται με την αμαρτία; ή πρέπει να συμβουλευτούμε τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία; Σύμφωνα με τη Βίβλο, εάν οι ανησυχίες, οι φόβοι, οι καταθλίψεις και οι φοβίες είναι οι ρίζες των ψυχικών διαταραχών, τότε μόνο η *αγάπη* τις θεραπεύει απαραίτητα. Η Α΄ Επιστολή Ιωάννη (4.18) τονίζει το ίδιο σημείο:

Η τέλεια αγάπη εξαλείφει τον φόβο· επειδή,

ο φόβος έχει να κάνει με τιμωρία· και

εκείνος που φοβάται δεν έχει ακόμα

τελειοποιηθεί στην αγάπη.

——-

συμπέρασμα

Η πανάκεια για όλες τις μη βιολογικές ψυχικές διαταραχές είναι η *αγάπη.* Οι Μπητλς είχαν δίκιο όταν είπαν: «Το μόνο που χρειάζεστε είναι η αγάπη». Η B' Επιστολή προς Τιμόθεο (1.7) συμφωνεί με τα προαναφερθέντα:

Το Πνεύμα που μας έδωσε ο Θεός, δεν είναι

πνεύμα δειλίας αλλά πνεύμα δύναμης κι

αγάπης και σωφροσύνης.

Έτσι, από ψυχοθεραπευτική σκοπιά, η *αγάπη* και η *συγχώρεση* εξοπλίζουν ένα άτομο για να σπάσει τις αλυσίδες της νεύρωσης, του εθισμού και του φόβου, αποκαθιστώντας το μυαλό του στην υγεία!

(To read this article in English, click the following link: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/635864715577393152/is-sin-the-cause-of-mental-illness).

Eli of Kittim

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Eli Kittim ——- Christian Psychotherapy I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method

——-