Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels
The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!
Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”
But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!
By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!
More Posts from Eli-kittim
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Feigned madness
Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:
a persistent false … belief … that is
maintained despite indisputable evidence to
the contrary.
——- Merriam-Webster dictionary
It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:
‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in
popular culture to describe the assumption
of a mental disorder for the purposes of
evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.
——- Wikipedia
It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:
Denial … is a psychological defense
mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced
with a fact that is too uncomfortable to
accept and rejects it instead, insisting that
it is not true despite what may be
overwhelming evidence.
——- Wikipedia
It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:
The theory of denial was first researched
seriously by Anna Freud. She classified
denial as a mechanism of the immature
mind because it conflicts with the ability to
learn from and cope with reality.
——- Wikipedia
Seeking Truth
But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?
What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’
——- John 14.6 (NASB)
So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).
What is Truth?
When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:
you will know the truth, and the truth will set
you free.
——- John 8.32
First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”
Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:
Everyone who is of the truth listens to My
voice.
——- John 18.37
Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”
That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).
We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:
Are you willing to follow the *truth*
regardless of where it might lead?
——-
Hi, what is the difference between the Elect and those who have the Seal of God? Or are they the same? Thanks!
They are the same!
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. 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 by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s 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? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. 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 fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
Is Christ asking us to hate ourselves?
By Clinical Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
What is the goal of rebirth?
As a clinical psychologist, I will take a minute to explain the basic differences between our “true self” (that lies buried underneath all the cultural conditioning that we have undergone) and the “persona” or the mask that we wear to perform different tasks throughout our busy day. Carl Jung stressed that if there is no conscious assimilation of unconscious contents, then we will inevitably fail to integrate our lives and achieve wholeness. That’s because those who repress their feelings of guilt and shame, and lock them up inside a dark room within their unconscious, are essentially splitting off their personality into two compartments: the conscious and the unconscious mind. Jung warns that if people don’t get in touch with their unconscious life, but only identify with their persona, they’re bound to suffer psychological turmoil. In biblical terms, some people are so detached from themselves that they’re not even aware that they’re sinners (1 Jn 1:10).
From a scriptural perspective, we’re all sinners, with a propensity for evil. The ego that has been created throughout an individual’s history is part of what the Bible calls the “carnal”(sarkikos) or “fleshly” self (1 Cor. 3.1-3). This is the unregenerate self that is always self-seeking, self-serving, and self-absorbed. And it has all the evil inclinations that the Bible speaks of. This is not the “true self” which is created in the image of God (imago dei). This is the “false self” in the image of Adam, the first sinner. That’s precisely why we need a savior to liberate us from this “false self” system so that we can, once again, become like the pre-fall Adam. The only way to achieve this goal is through a conscious assimilation of unconscious contents, and then, in the process of reliving our past traumas and fears, we will be cured (Phil. 2:12). During this cathartic and therapeutic process, we ask Christ to forgive us and to take our load off our shoulders.
If you do that, an awesome miracle will occur and your whole life will change in an instant: “your grief will turn to joy” (Jn 16:30)! And you will experience moments of intense love: “a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over” (Luke 6:38). You will also experience your “true self,” as if Christ himself had become your new identity (Gal. 2:20). And you will, for the first time, love yourself! You will also love others and fall madly in love with Christ. Your gratitude will become your prayer of thanksgiving. So, that’s the born-again experience in a nutshell!
Loving yourself doesn’t go against Christ’s teaching
Having laid the groundwork for understanding the two different types of self, I want to now explain which behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are healthy and appropriate to Christians, and which ones are unhealthy, inappropriate, and unchristian. The attitude of genuinely caring for oneself, accepting oneself (despite one’s shortcomings), and trusting oneself is essential not only for healthy psychological functioning but also for the Christian life. It is conducive to caring for others, accepting others, and trusting others. By contrast, hating oneself is obviously an abnormal state of affairs where one dislikes himself, sabotages himself, hurts himself, and, in some cases, even kills himself. As an illustration, the mass shootings in the US are cases in which the hate one has for one’s self is now extended to others. Bottom line, hating yourself is not a healthy attitude under any circumstances. It can also lead to various disorders (e.g. eating disorders and depression). This self-hate is often unconscious so that we don’t even realize that we dislike ourselves. Because it’s repressed in the unconscious, it’s often projected onto others, and we end up hating people without even knowing why. After all, if we don’t love ourselves at all, and we don’t even know what love is, how can we possibly attempt to love others, let alone God? How can we possibly love others if we hate ourselves? That’s precisely why self-hatred is not healthy at all, and should never be encouraged, whether in our psychological world or in our spiritual world. In fact, loving yourself (in the right way) is actually the goal of Christianity! Christianity is in the business of making lovers, not haters. A pianist practices his piano everyday. A guitarist practices his guitar everyday. A Christian ought to practice *love* everyday. Love is our goal and our most precious treasure in life. If we have love, we don’t need anything else.
1 John 4:8 writes:
He who does not love does not know God;
for God is love.
If it’s ok for God to love us, then why is it wrong for us to love ourselves? When God instructs us not to “love the world or the things in the world” (1 Jn 2:15), that’s a warning against loving our instinctual nature, that is, our desires, lusts, and passions, what Freud called the “id.” But loving the “carnal self” and loving the “genuine self” are two completely different things. We all need to be loved, to be cared for, to feel protected, and to feel worthy, rather than unworthy, unlovable, and unimportant. That’s precisely what God does during the regeneration process. He showers us with love and makes us feel special, worthy, important, and treats us like kings and queens. If you haven’t felt like that, you haven’t been reborn. Love is our currency, our lifeblood! 1 John 3:14 declares:
He who does not love abides in death.
1 John 4:16 summarizes Christian Theology thusly:
God is love, and he who abides in love
abides in God, and God abides in him.
Even the Old Testament urges us to “love the sojourner” (Deut. 10:19) and to “love the LORD your God” (Deut. 11:1). Romans 13:10 sums up love as the fulfillment of the law:
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love is the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:36-40)! That’s precisely why “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). Therefore, there’s a big difference between “selfish love” and “genuine love” (2 Cor. 6:6; 8:8). God only looks at our heart because that’s where love comes from. Galatians 5:14 commands people to “love your neighbor as yourself." But how can you love your neighbor if you hate yourself? Paul doesn’t say “hate your neighbor as yourself.” Rather, he explains that love is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22):
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.
Thus, Paul urges us to cultivate love, to prune and water it daily so that it might grow. In Phil. 1:9, he writes:
it is my prayer that your love may abound
more and more, with knowledge and all
discernment.
Later, in Phil. 2:2, he exhorts his followers to stir up the gift that is in them:
complete my joy by being of the same mind,
having the same love.
In 1 Tim. 1:5, Paul reminds us that our mission is to awaken love from the bottom of our hearts:
the aim of our charge is love that
issues from a pure heart and a good
conscience and sincere faith.
Is Christ asking us to hate ourselves?
Many people misunderstand the Bible. When Christ uses hyperbole and says “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, … such a person cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26), he doesn’t mean that we should hate our parents. He means that we should love them less than Christ (which is the 1st commandment)! The same goes for the “self.” We must love ourselves less than Christ. And we must also seek to transform and transcend our “carnal self” that is selfish, greedy, lustful, angry, envious, etc. Jesus is not saying that it’s good to hate the inner you, or to hate who you truly are. In fact, loving yourself (i.e. forgiving yourself and accepting yourself) is a prerequisite condition for loving others. How can you possibly love others if you hate yourself? Luke 9:23 is teaching us how to prepare the soil of our heart for the harvest of love. Just as when we avoid consuming unhealthy foods, we should also avoid certain unhealthy or toxic behavioral patterns. Jesus is not teaching you to hate yourself or to be suicidal. He is not saying that loving yourself is a heresy. On the contrary, Jesus teaches that we should stop feeding the “false self” who loves the things of the world, namely, lust, money, sex, power, competition, greed, envy, etc. And although it may sound counterintuitive, we actually gain control over our addictions through genuine self-love (2 Tim. 1:7):
God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a
spirit of power and love and self-control.
In Luke 14:25-27, Jesus is not preaching hate. He’s not saying “Hate your neighbors as yourself.” Or “Hate your family and yourself.” No. It’s not a hate-speech. The point he is trying to make is that we must make Christ our first priority. He must take first place in our life. In other words, he must be our greatest love, and we must love him more than our family and friends, and even more than life itself. So what he’s actually saying is that he who loves me less than family and friends cannot be my disciple because he loves others more than me (idols). That’s the point. Jesus is not preaching hate.
In John 12:25, Jesus is saying the exact same thing. He who loves his self more than Christ will eventually lose it. Conversely, he who loves his life less than Christ will find it (i.e. he will find his “true self” and life-eternal). Jesus doesn’t imply that you should hate yourself, your family and children. Jesus is not psychotic.
In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Paul uses the term φίλαυτος (philautos), which means “selfish” or “self-loving” (i.e. narcissistic), and then lists all the traits associated with this selfish love (vv. 2-4):
lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful,
arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to
parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving,
irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without
self-control, brutal, haters of good,
treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of
pleasure, rather than lovers of God.
Notice that all these characteristics refer to some character flaw that is based on selfish desires or pleasures. This is not the same as loving your “true-self” humbly and genuinely. Loving who you really are in Christ is actually necessary for spiritual growth. It is the purpose of our very existence and the goal of all our struggles. To be transformed into Christ means being transformed into love. In fact, during rebirth, a great love starts to flow within us, and we begin to love ourselves as we really are. We also fall madly in love with Jesus. So no one should be preaching hate. Christianity is all about love.
“Lovers of self” refers to those people for whom everything revolves around them, thereby showing a callous disregard for others. By contrast, loving yourself in a genuine, pure, and humble way, accepting and forgiving yourself for past mistakes, is actually a very healthy and godly endeavor. Loving who you really are is not the same as being selfish, nor does it mean that you love yourself more than God.
James 3:13-16 talks of jealousy and selfish ambition, not of forgiving and accepting *yourself* in Christ’s love. For example, James 3:14-15 uses the word ἐριθεία (eritheia), which means seeking rivalries, disputes, having ambition, etc. It could be construed as a form of self-seeking but it is not, strictly speaking, talking about the self. It is this type of quarreling that is demonic, not a genuine love for yourself. In other words, whenever these feuds arise, there is anarchy and evil. James 3:14-15 writes:
if you have bitter jealousy and selfish
ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant
and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is
not that which comes down from above, but
is earthly, natural, demonic.
Conversely, loving yourself in a genuine way is not demonic, but actually the goal of Christianity!
Conclusion
Love is our goal, our aim, and our modus operandi! Instead of practicing the commandments, which are just rigid behavioral patterns, we should be cultivating love in our hearts. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13:1-5:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of
angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong
or a clanging cymbal. And if I have
prophetic powers, and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have
all faith, so as to remove mountains, but
have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all
I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,
but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is
patient and kind; love is not jealous or
boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love
does not insist on its own way; it is not
irritable or resentful.
Elsewhere, he says (1 Cor. 13:13):
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but
the greatest of these is love.
1 Cor. 14:1 doesn’t say “make hate your aim.” Rather, it says “Make love your aim.” In Col. 3:14, Paul equates our new identity with love, and urges us to fully immerse ourselves in it:
And above all these put on love, which
binds everything together in perfect
harmony.
We are to seek love in every situation, at every moment! Loving ourselves is the prerequisite for loving others. Love is our goal, not our enemy. The goal is to love ourselves in Christ. Meaning that when we receive Christ’s new identity, we begin to love ourselves for the very first time, and we also stop hating ourselves for the very first time. Christ’s love is genuine and pure. It’s part of the fruit of the spirit. This love we must pursue. This is who we are in the image of God. For how can we possibly love others if we hate ourselves?
![The Little Book Of Revelation [Amazon]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/de943ac344007867ba4842538a5f289e/d9667d55c981a004-58/s500x750/35c3b0df992c1d6a54d4e6b59cd4edf73956c899.jpg)
⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation [Amazon] ⭐️
(By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim) 📚📖
———————————————
Amazon Books 🎓
⭐️ 🌍 Winner of 2015 Religion & Spirituality Double Decker Books Awards on Goodreads 🪐 ⚡️
———————————————
Eli Kittim - Het kleine boek Openbaring: De eerste komst van Jezus aan het einde der dagen
Eli Kittim - Küçük Vahiy Kitabı: Günlerin Sonunda İsa'nın İlk Gelişi
Eli Kittim - Den Lille Åbenbaringsbog: Jesu første komme ved dages ende
Eli Kittim - Den lilla Uppenbarelseboken: Jesu första ankomst vid dagens slut
Eli Kittim - Den lille Åpenbaringsboken: Jesu første komme ved slutten av dagene
Eli Kittim - Pieni Ilmestyskirja: Jeesuksen ensimmäinen tuleminen päivien lopussa
———————————————