Josephus - Tumblr Posts
(Click on the link below to read the post)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWc46fQAogn/
Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?
—————
That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.
—————
If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).
A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:
“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).
Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.
—————
Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!
—————
Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:
“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).
—————
Was James the Brother of Jesus?
Eli Kittim (Author)
——-
Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.
This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”
In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.
——-
The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.
——-
Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.
——-
Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.
——-
According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.
Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are
Here are the proofs:
Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.
We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).
In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.
Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).
Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.
In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.
——-
External Evidence
Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.
Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.
Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.
——-
Summary
Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.
——-
God is Called by a Gentile Name
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
This paper is partially excerpted from a section by the same name in chapter 6 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” In hindsight, we all know that the Biblical God is said to enlighten the world through progressive revelations (e.g. from the Old Testament [OT] to the New Testament [NT]). This fundamentally implies that the *meaning* of the name of God (YHWH) was originally incomprehensible until the arrival of the NT.
——-
The Greek NT: A Clue to the Meaning of the Divine Name
——-
Why was the NT written in Greek? Why are there more epistles written to Greek communities than any other? Why are most NT books written in Greece? Why do the NT authors quote predominantly from the Greek OT? Why doesn’t Jesus *reveal* the divine “I AM” as the aleph and the Tav in the language of the Hebrews?
Is it because the name of God has something to do with the Greek NT? Surprisingly, the answer is yes!
——-
YHWH: I AM THAT I AM
——-
God did not fully reveal himself to Moses (Exod. 3.14) except as “I Am that I Am.” The full revelation came later with Jesus. This expression is conventionally rendered as “Yahweh,” which is construed as “Lord.” But since there’s nothing akin to the letter “w” in the Hebrew alphabet, the variant “Yahveh”——pronounced as yah-va——may be furnished instead. Among the orthodox sects of the Judaic tradition, the religious adherents are strictly forbidden from vocalizing or even pronouncing the divine name. Even the Tetragrammaton “YHVH” is not allowed to be uttered. Hebrew was originally a consonantal language. Vowels and cantillation marks were added to the Bible by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries ce. Therefore, to call God Yahweh is a rough approximation. We don’t really know the actual name or what it signifies. But through Biblical and linguistic studies we can propose a scholarly theory.
——-
The Divine “I AM” Is Revealed in the NT as “ALPHA & OMEGA”
——-
Since the Divine “name” (i.e. the divine “I AM”) was ultimately revealed in the NT through the first and last letters of the Greek writing system (“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” Rev. 22.13), then it must therefore be known by a Gentile name. The Alpha and the Omega constitute “the beginning and the end” of the Greek alphabet. In other words, the Demiurge (Heb. 1.2) explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks. No wonder why the NT was written in Greek and not in Hebrew. That’s precisely why we are told “how God First concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name” (Acts 15.14):
“And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, . . . ‘THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME’ “ (Acts 15.15-17).
What a groundbreaking statement that is! This quote affords crystal clear evidence that the Deity’s name is not derived from Hebraic but rather Gentile sources. The Tanach (Hebrew Bible) states an identical motif:
“All the Gentiles. . . are called by My name” (Amos 9.12).
God explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” (Rev. 1.8), and immediately thereafter this *Greek-theme* carries forward into the next verse in which John the Revelator is on *Greek* soil, “on the island called Patmos BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1.9 emphasis added). Hence why the NT is written in *Greek,* to reflect the Greek Jesus (Ιησούς). By the way, God is never called Yahweh in the NT: he’s called Lord (kurios). Similarly, Jesus is never called Yehoshua or Yeshua, as the Christian Hebrew Roots movement would have us believe!
——-
The Semantic Implications of Yahva: Phonetic and Grammatical Considerations
——-
If my theory is correct, we must find indications of a Greek linguistic element within the original name of God (i.e. “Yahva”) as it was previously disclosed to Moses. Indeed we do! In the Hebrew language, the term “Yavan” represents the Greeks (Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). So, it’s not difficult to see how the phonetic and grammatical mystery of God’s name——Yahveh, pronounced as Yah-va——can clearly be solved by attributing its derivation to the Hebrew term “Ya-van,” which refers to the Greeks. Upon further inspection, the Hebrew names for both God and Greece (Yahva/Yavan) are virtually indistinguishable from one another, both grammatically and phonetically! Hence why it may have been kept as a secret and untranslatable under the consonantal name of God (“YV”), which, with the addition of vowels, not only points to “YaVan,” the Hebrew name for Greece, but also anticipates the arrival of the Greek NT!
There’s further evidence for a connection between the Greek & Hebrew names of God. In a few rare Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton is actually translated as “IAO” (aka Greek Trigrammaton). That is to say, the divine name Yahva is rendered into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see e.g. Lev. 4.27 of Septuagint [LXX] manuscript 4Q120). This fragment is derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found at Qumran, and dated to the 1st century bce. Interestingly enough, the name IAO seemingly represents the Ancient Greeks (aka IAONIANS), the earliest literary records of whom are found in Homer (Gk. Ἰάονες; iāones) and also in the work of Hesiod (Gk. Ἰάων; iāōn). Nearly all Bible scholars concur that the Hebrew name Yavan represents the Iaonians; that is, Yavan is Ion (Ionia i.e. “Greece”). Further independent attestations come from the Patristic writings on the Tetragrammaton. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) & B.D. Eerdmans: Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) refers to the name of God by writing Ἰαῶ (Iao); Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Valentinians use Ἰαῶ (Iao); Origen of Alexandria (d. c. 254) employs Ἰαώ (Iao). Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – c. 458) writes Ἰαώ (Iao); he also reports that the Samaritans say Ἰαβέ or Ἰαβαί (both pronounced at that time */ja'vε/). Hence the secret name of God in both the Septuagint & the Hebrew Bible seemingly represents Greece!
——-
Conclusion: The NT Ascribes the Name of God to Greek Sources
——-
The final revelation of the name of God is made known in the NT (Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ), and it clearly points to Greek sources. In hindsight, we can trace this Greek name back to the Divine “I am” in Exodus 3.14, as I have shown.
——-
How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Canonical Context
This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.
Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.
——-
Theology
Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.
——-
Exegesis
The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.
——-
The Analogy of Scripture
One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16
NRSV).
As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.
So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.
And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.
——-
Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles
In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:
. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the
events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird
to people, but just read all of his letters.,
Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,
casting out a demon, doing any other
miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other
leaders, teaching the multitudes, even
speaking a parable, being baptized, being
transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being
arrested, put on trial, found guilty of
blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate
on charges of calling himself the King of the
Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a
very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us
about.
Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?
First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).
Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.
Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”
Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!
Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?
In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!
Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.
In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.
——-
Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.
By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?
For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, 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* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!
So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).
In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!
What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to that person the
plagues described in this book; if anyone
takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away that
person’s share in the tree of life and in the
holy city, which are described in this book
(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).
Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!
Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.
——-
Visions of the Resurrection
There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:
The resurrection itself is not an event of
past history. All that historical criticism can
establish is that the first disciples came to
believe the resurrection (Rudolph
Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and
Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A
Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner
Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:
S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).
When the evangelists spoke about the
resurrection of Jesus, they told stories
about apparitions or visions (John Dominic
Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoir’ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly “I have
seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,
‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John
Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,
100).
It is undisputable that some of the followers
of Jesus came to think that he had been
raised from the dead, and that something
had to have happened to make them think
so. Our earliest records are consistent on
this point, and I think they provide us with
the historically reliable information in one
key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection was based on visionary
experiences. I should stress it was visions,
and nothing else, that led to the first
disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart
D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:
It almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
——-
Exegetical Application
I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.
So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.
My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!
——-
Conclusion
To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .
One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”
So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!
Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.
That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:
What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future
event?
Channeled Angelic Wisdom of the Jewels of Truth Series and Favorite Quotes of the Month of September
Hello All,
I always have the bad habit of waiting until the tail end of the month to make a channeled angelic entry here to Atrayo's Oracle. Since I'm also a PC gamer I'm also tied into enjoying the retail release of Amazon's Game Studio of New World come this Sept. 28th. I'll be gaming with my online gamer community of 17 years now that I've been a member of online. They're called "The Older Gamers" one has to be over the age of 25 yrs old to become a member. I'll be the guild leader for the US/EU branch on an East Coast North American server. (shameless gamer plug)
Tonight's trio of Jewels of Truth statements is channeled angelic wisdom, metaphysics, and mysticism. On the topics of a Multi-Dimensional Soul where I channel a historical figure named Josephus the old. Next, there is To Be the I Am which dispels one of the pet peeves I hear often in New Age circles. Where innocently someone remarks we're born into this reality just to learn and grow like this realm is an elementary school for souls. I roll my eyes when I hear this due to my cultivated relationship as an angelic channeler via claircognizance. (claircognizance is the psychic ability to channel knowledge and wisdom beyond one's lifetime.)
Lastly, the final topic is a zinger on two counts! It's titled the Younger Dominions of God. Where not unlike the metaphysical author of Neal Donald Walsch of "Conversations with God" a famous book series. I also channel this statement from God him/her/itself, which I've done on past occasions. This topic blew my mind when it flashed before my mind's eye as an inspiration. Basically, our Creation and the afterlife of heaven and hell are the godly early forms of the Supreme God of all gods Absolute. Meaning these are the terrible two's, tween years, and teenage raging hormone years on a human equalivent scale of God itself.
The Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of Macro Supreme Realities dimensionally speaking. These realms of ours of the endless Infinite hells, Creation (ie our Meta-Universe), and the Majestic Heavens are the stratification of the evolutionary growth of God in a meta sense if compared to maturation. These realms astral or otherwise are the goldilocks years of God(dess) akin to a nursery for all souls, angelic kind, including elder angels. As the lesser deities of countless faiths or dead religions as mythologies to us in our modernity.
Before I go too deep on the topic allow me to just write down the channeling from the Creator him/her/itself.
Also, a shout out to Tessa Luna Lluvia my original online mentor as an expert psychic-medium. She's kindly listed my books of the Jewels of Truth Series on her website. (bottom 8th row of the book listings)
As always no matter if these topics seem too fringe for your imaginations and spiritual belief systems. Allow them to just kindly expand your horizons of the immense grandeur of God Everlasting. Amen.
Multi-Dimensional Souls
3081) Here are the many fields of splendor possible within the grasp of the human condition by far. Nay beyond humanity itself can this spectrum of countless possibilities co-exist to exemplify all lifeforms in unison as Children of a Living God(dess). What I "Josephus the Old" will explain is that the godly soul of all spiritual beings when incarnated experiences a buffer of contrasts when alive on Earth.
For example, when a person commits wrongdoing as grotesque evils. That reincarnated soul as an individual entity has siphoned poorly from the evils metaphysically from the godless Hells, hereto unknown to humanity. Again another primitive example is a godly pious person of righteousness does good in the world without seeking high praises of whatnots. That individual spiritual entity of God has channeled the God Blessed Heavens robustly and directly upon this Earth. Whether this happens unwittingly or not.
The final example is whether a person is neutral and allows good or evil to flourish without personal involvement regardless of what occurs. Such a soul enters into a form of Limbo upon the world swayed easily without guile or reservation as a direct cause and effect. Akin to a sub-set of Karma upon the earth reality sphere of governing elements metaphysically.
The trio of the fates as conundrums of paradoxical fits and starts are prevailing winds of the afterlife set upon all mortal kind be it human or otherwise as creatures. With direct inputs and outputs upon the world and the meta-universes be they cosmic or of a metaphysical unholy/neutral/holy matrix of experiences as existential realities go.
To this end do not allow the oversimplification of these crude examples to paint only a black, gray, and white picture as a canvas of these meta-realities. There is a relativistic spectrum of contrasts akin to manifold kaleidoscopes of endless pigments of possibilities. As configurations of good, neutrality, and evil encompass universally as archetypes of behavior in all lesser Universes combined!
We have exhausted our range or scope of expressions without first mentioning as all souls are in the One Supreme Loving Image and Likeness of God. Denotes all Souls as a united continuum are multifaceted dimensionally as metaphysical entities before being people with physical bodies with an aura upon your current age or eon of your Earth.
As God(dess) is everything as Omni-Present denotes your souls in God are also everywhere God is forever. No matter you as the lesser children of God realize this in your global religions or not. It makes your magicks work as expressions of divinity constantly. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo. (Channeled Source Entity of Josephus the Old.)
To Be the I Am:
3083) Many in New Age spiritual circles inquire from fellow advanced participants and elders what is Life? Most respond with confidence that it is a school for young souls to evolve and grow further. This canned response is only partially true, however, it is incomplete in its scope of a response generically.
Life and Death as contrasting phenomena are far richer than such a one-dimensional interpretation of our spiritual unified reality with God(dess), and the Heavenly Host Infinitely meets at large always and forever. There are actually seven dimensions of spiritual being, if not more overall as archetypes of a universal basis of our united divinity with God(dess).
For Instance, the aforementioned scope of Life as a school is true but as one dimension so as to learn and grow as eternal souls having a human experience. Next in no particular order of grace of any of these roles is to Love like God(dess) and the Angels. Unconditionally in moderation so as to avoid fanaticism or zealotry as obsessive traits of passion and/or of true love.
Next comes to be of Service in moderation not necessarily as a selfless saint or angel that lives to extremes. However, to cultivate humanity or divinity on Earth with mutual compassion and empathy for those in need or of want. To serve in a volunteer capacity versus being employed in commercial industries denotes a deeper form of caring.
To be just as civilized and law-abiding or hospitable in the world. Followed closely with having a noble personality of character as benevolent in the human-divine holy nature like God and the Angels in the endless Heavens.
Next is to create or destroy like God in the universe. If destroy is too strong a negative connotation then let it be to uproot, erase, or recycle like God at the human micro-scale of being alive. As God(dess) is the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of macro realities en masse by Infinite scales and over the corridor of eternities.
The last two dimensional roles go hand in hand as fellowship or socialization with positive impacts of compassionate norms be it caring for one another as God has cared for each of us. Lastly to worship Inclusively like God(dess) as an unceasing with positive moderation with mutual respect and adoration to positive foreign beliefs and other cultural traditions of God in our shared world. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo.
Younger Dominions of God:
3080) To the one that reads these simple words come away with a wider understanding of what "I am that I am" is as the Constant Creator, God of all Totalities United! What "I am" is not simple but complex beyond human total comprehension. So in childish terms of "I am" is utilized all around for all levels of basic comprehension as my living beautiful souls.
What you call as Creation as a meta-construct of reality as the Universe(s), Galaxies, Solar Systems, etc... This is merely one of my countless younger expressions of my Ultimate Majestic godly nature, fully seeped upon material physicality and so much greater yet still.
What humanity denotes as the afterlife of Hell as the underworld. The neutral reality of metaphysical limbo or purgatory as either a realm of heightened enlightenment or for the uninitiated as numbing detachment as apathy. With the stupendous exalted Heavens are all grade school versions of my adolescent corpus of my total Supreme Creation as the Absolute Self.
The Infinite and timeless Hells, Limbos, Creations, and Heavens are each stratum of my youthful forms of expressions. As the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of cosmic and ethereal realms of pure totalities of "I am" essence and personified substances. For To Be the I am that I am as the God of all gods plural in a Supreme Fashion has other greater dominions of realism. Each by far beyond the rudimentary tenure of my youth as the Hells, Limbos, Creation(s), and the Heavens can contain forever as my meta corpus.
For example, every dominion where good, neutrality, and evil are located is a moot point having never existed prior. There is no such power struggle of contrasts of differences. A Uni-polar reality versus a multi-polar existence of Principles that tranquility reigns constantly. Only in the realms of my godly youth does contrast stand out in stark terms of the illusion of a good versus evil approach as an eternal useless struggle.
In my youth like environs of ethereal and otherwise physical existence goes. That my younger created lesser children such as humanity and other permutations of my infinity of expressions. Truly mirror my existential struggles of archaic yesterdays as eternities of long ago. I have matured far greater and this creates, sustains, and destroys for another set of challenges and opportunities elsewhere in my Meta-Verse of cosmic and ethereal Superiority as the Apex God of all gods. Amen. ---Ivan Pozo-Illas / Atrayo. (Channeled Source as God(dess)
You can never run away. Not ever. The only way out is in. ---Junot Diaz.
Nature is not a place to visit, It is home. ---Gary Snyder.
Grace is the ability to redefine the boundaries of possibility. ---Manning Marable.
One of life's most fulfilling moments occurs in the split-second when the familiar is suddenly transformed into the dazzling aura of the profoundly new. ---Edward B. Lindaman.
What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are. ---C.S. Lewis.
Ivan "Atrayo" Pozo-Illas, has devoted 26 years of his life to the pursuit of clairaudient Inspired automatic writing channeling the Angelic host. Ivan is the author of the spiritual wisdom series of "Jewels of Truth" consisting of 3 volumes published to date. He also channels conceptual designs that are multi-faceted for the next society to come that are solutions based as a form of dharmic service. Numerous examples of his work are available at "Atrayo's Oracle" blog site of 16 years plus online. You're welcome to visit his website "Jewelsoftruth.us" for further information or to contact Atrayo directly.
Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?
Eli Kittim
I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.
For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.
As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.
The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!
But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!
Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!
There are many problems with that view.
First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.
Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
