Hi, What Is The Difference Between The Elect And Those Who Have The Seal Of God? Or Are They The Same?

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!

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) ⭐️

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

🇬🇷 🇺🇸 📚

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!

A Study in Textual Criticism: Who’s Copying Who in First Timothy 5:18 & Luke 10:7

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

First Corinthians 9:9 is the first New Testament verse to quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The Septuagint version reads:

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads

out the corn.

Remember that 1 Corinthians was written around 53–54 ce. by Paul.

First Corinthians 9:9 (SBLGNT) reads as follows:

ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται · Οὐ

κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν

μέλει τῷ θεῷ.

Translation (NASB):

For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘You

shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.’

God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

Then, 1 Cor. 9:10 gives us the “interpretation”:

ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ

ἐγράφη, ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ⸃ ὁ ἀροτριῶν

ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ

μετέχειν.

Translation:

Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes,

it was written for our sake, because the

plowman ought to plow in hope, and the

thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the

crops.

Interestingly enough, 1 Cor. 9:9 must be copying an alternative version of the Septuagint because it uses the word κημώσεις instead of the Septuagint’s φιμώσεις. Both words mean “to muzzle.”

Then, the unknown author of 1 Timothy——who composed the letter around the end of the first century——seems to be quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, rather than from 1 Cor. 9:9. First Timothy 5:18 is actually quoting the Greek Septuagint verbatim but switching the word order around:

First Timothy 5:18 says:

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή · Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ

φιμώσεις, καί · Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ

αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT

MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,’

and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’

But notice that the quotation from 1 Tim. 5:18 is backwards:

Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις.

Compare Deut. 25:4 (LXX):

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

Perhaps 1 Tim. 5:18 is involved in a mop-up job to clean up the verse that 1 Cor. 9:9 kind of changed a little bit.

Anyway, 1 Tim. 5:18 also adds the “interpretation”:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

The laborer is worthy of his wages.

Luke 10:7 reads:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke omits the “saying” from Deut. 25:4 and simply states the “interpretation,” which is found in 1 Cor. 9:10. But, surprisingly, Luke seems to be quoting from Exod. 22:15 (LXX):

ἐὰν δὲ μισθωτὸς ᾖ, ἔσται αὐτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ

μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

but if it be a hired thing, there shall be [a

compensation] to him instead of his hire.

So it’s unclear whether Luke 10:7 is copying 1 Cor. 9:9-10, or an entirely different context from Exod. 22:15 (LXX). Remember that the saying “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing” was first quoted in the NT by 1 Cor. 9:9, which then added the “interpretation” (NASB):

the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in

the crops.

But the Greek text of Luke seems to be copying from elsewhere when it says: “the laborer is deserving of his wages” (Lk 10:7). Let’s not forget that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in the 50s, prior to Luke’s gospel, which was written c. 80-85 ce.

Neither 1 Tim. 5:18 nor Lk 10:7 seem to be copying directly from 1 Cor. 9:9-10, even though the “saying” that we are studying (from Deut. 25:4) was first quoted and interpreted in 1 Corinthians back in the 50s. Rather, it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting Luke almost verbatim. The unknown author of 1 Tim. 5:18 simply omits the word γὰρ. Notice the 3 versions side by side (SBLGNT):

First Corinthians 9:10:

καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.

First Timothy 5:18:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 10:7:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

To sum up, 1 Cor. 9:9 was the first to quote Deut. 25:4, probably using an alternative Septuagint reading from the pluriform textual tradition. And it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is sanitizing 1 Cor. 9:9-10 by quoting the LXX verbatim, but simply altering the word order. Interestingly enough, 1 Tim. 5:18 uses Luke’s interpretation nearly verbatim, and doesn’t quote Paul from 1 Cor. 9:9-10. If Paul had written 1 Tim., we would have expected him to quote himself (from 1 Cor. 9:9). First Timothy 5:18 may also be sanitizing Luke, who might be copying a wrong verse, thus tying Luke to Paul. The connection between 1 Cor. 9:9-10 & Luke 10:7 only becomes apparent in 1 Tim. 5:18’s editorial work which harmonizes the two! So the copying sequence runs from Deuteronomy to 1 Corinthians to Luke to 1 Timothy. Given that 1 Timothy was written after Luke, it’s fair to assume that it is copying Luke. But this is not Paul. It’s an unknown author. The point of all these verses is that the followers of Christ, who labor for the kingdom, should know that they will be handsomely rewarded for their toil!

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

By Eli Kittim 🎓

When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argument that everyone already knew the story and so Paul didn’t have to write anything about it. But after thinking about this explanation for some time, I didn’t find it convincing. A key problem besetting the assumed pre-Pauline tradition is that it is a) based entirely on the gospel literature, which came much later, and b) it hasn’t been verified because there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. Plus, the stories that we’re all familiar with (from the gospels) were not written until a few decades after Paul’s writings. So the life of Jesus was not written before, but after, Paul. Given that Paul’s knowledge of the story of Jesus is based entirely on “a revelation,” and that Paul himself admits that he didn’t receive it from man, nor was he taught it (Gal 1:11-12), it’s reasonable to assume that no one else knew the story prior to Paul’s writings, at least from a literary standpoint. After all, Paul was the first to write about it!

There are a lot of presuppositions that are implied by the oral Pre-Pauline-tradition hypothesis that most people aren’t aware of. Many people also presuppose that the gospels are historical, even though that has not been verified either. On the contrary, the fact that they were anonymously written, 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.”

What is more, because the gospel texts are found at the beginning of the New Testament, people often presuppose that the gospels were the first Christian writings, and so they completely misunderstand the New Testament literary chronology. This presupposition leads to many other false assumptions that are very misleading and totally unrelated to the actual chronological development of the New Testament writings.

They have it all backwards❗️

What is more, because of the hypothetical Q source (for which there’s no evidence), even scholars often talk as if the gospels preceded the epistles, and so given that everyone already knew about the story, Paul didn’t have to mention all the details…

But wait just a second… ⛔️

The full-fledged story we usually refer to actually starts around 70 AD with Mark, and ends at the end of the first century with John. But surprise surprise, Paul is writing much much earlier than that. Paul’s letters are the FIRST Christian writings, which are written over two decades earlier (49-50 AD)! Paul’s writings are actually the EARLIEST Christian writings. So, presumably, no one knew the story yet, at least from a literary perspective. It was Paul’s task to tell the reader all about it.

But Paul failed to mention the pertinent information regarding the details of Jesus’ life, even though it is assumed that he was in a position to know this information. If Paul was expected to have all the pertinent information regarding the Jesus-story, and intending to write a complete account of these events, and if the details of the Jesus-story were important enough to deserve to be mentioned, then why didn’t Paul talk about any of them? Astoundingly, Paul didn’t mention any of the legendary elements that we find in the later embellishments of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In Paul’s letters, there’s no nativity, no virgin birth, no shepherds, no star of Bethlehem, no magi, no census, no Elizabeth, no Zechariah, no John the Baptist, no flight to Egypt, no slaughter of the innocents, nothing about

“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.” —Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman

This doesn’t mean that Paul is writing letters to people who already knew about the story.

It means that such a story didn’t exist. It was added later!

Conclusion

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, such as Greece and Rome? None of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.

In fact, 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! 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 “Greek” authors who copied the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. So where is the Aramaic tradition?