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

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

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

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

——-

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

——-

Academic Bias on the Web

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.

——-

2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!

——-

This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!

——-

*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis

According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).

According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

NRSV translation:

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself.”

A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Conclusion

The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in

finding out the truth, but are much more inclined

to accept the first story they hear.

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)

——-

Response

I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:

Your pending post was declined from

Group for New Testament Studies by an

admin. See their feedback.

When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:

Group Rules that were violated

2 Keep it Scholarly:

NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the

field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to

impose a Christian perspective will not be

approved & commenting in this way will

result in a warning & then removal.

So, I wrote back to them . . .

Open letter

——-

I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.

——-

You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.

——-

As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).

——-

Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!

I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!

I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!

——-

Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!

——-

I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.

Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.

Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!

Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!

——-

I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.

——-

I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

——-

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture

Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!

And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!

This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, 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, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.

According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be 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).

Furthermore, 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 a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!

What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).

See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

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

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

Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.

Visions of the Resurrection

Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* 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. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Author & Psychologist Eli Kittim

——-

Christian Psychotherapy

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

——-

What is sin, anyway?

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

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

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

——-

What is the Difference Between Christian and Clinical Psychotherapy?

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

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

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new

creation has come: The old has gone, the

new is here!

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

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

can see the kingdom of God unless they are

born again.’

That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians 4.22-24 (NRSV) instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:

You were taught to put away your former

way of life, your old self, corrupt and

deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in

the spirit of your minds, and to clothe

yourselves with the new self, created

according to the likeness of God in true

righteousness and holiness.

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

——-

Christian Psychotherapy Not Only Cures but Also Offers Salvation

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

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

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

There is no fear in love. But perfect love

drives out fear, because fear has to do with

punishment. The one who fears is not made

perfect in love.

——-

Conclusion

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

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;

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

mind.

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

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

Tumblr

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

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

——-

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!