#EliKittim | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eli-kittim · 10 months

Text

The Bible Attributes the Hidden Name of God to Greece

Eli kittim

The Greek New Testament Unlocks the Meaning of God’s Name

The meaning of God’s name (YHVH) was originally incoherent and indecipherable until the appearance of the Greek New Testament. In Isaiah 46:11, God says that he will call the Messiah “from a distant country” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). Similarly, in Matt. 21:43, Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. That’s why Isaiah 61:9 says that the Gentiles will be the blessed posterity of God (through the messianic seed). Paul also says categorically and unequivocally, “It is not the children of the flesh [the Jews] … but the children of the promise [who] are regarded as descendants [of Israel]” (Rom. 9:6-8).

These passages demonstrate why the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. In fact, most of the New Testament books were composed in Greece. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, and most of the epistles address Greek communities. Not to mention that the New Testament authors used the Greek Old Testament as their Inspired text and copied extensively from it. That’s also why Christ attributed the divine I AM to the Greek language (alpha and omega). Now why did all this happen? Was it a mere coincidence or an accident, or is it because God’s name is somehow associated with Greece? Let’s explore this question further.

YHVH (I AM)

Initially, God did not disclose the meaning of his name to Moses (Exod. 3:14), but only the status of his ontological being: “I Am.” The four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHVH) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, and it’s pronounced as yahva. In Judaism, this name is forbidden from being vocalized or even pronounced.

Hebrew was a consonantal language. Vowels and cantillation marks were devised much later by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Thus, to call the divine name Yahva is a rough approximation. We really don’t know how to properly pronounce the name or what it actually means. But, through linguistic and biblical research, we can propose a scholarly hypothesis.

God Explicitly Identifies Himself with the Language of the Greeks

Since God’s name (the divine “I AM”) was revealed in the New Testament vis-à-vis 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 necessarily must reflect a Greek name. The letters Alpha and Omega constitute “the beginning and the end” of the Greek alphabet. Put differently, the creator of the universe (Heb. 1:2) explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks! That explains why the New Testament was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. That’s also 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).

This is a groundbreaking statement because it demonstrates that God’s name is not derived from Hebraic but rather Gentile sources. The Hebrew Bible asserts the exact same thing:

“All the Gentiles… are called by My name” (Amos 9:12).

The New Testament clearly tells us that God identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” (Rev. 1:8). In the following verse, John is “on the [Greek] island called Patmos BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9 italics mine). We thus begin to realize why the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, namely, to reflect the Greek God: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃ (Titus 2:13)! Incidentally, God is never once called Yahva in the Greek New Testament. Rather, he is called Lord (kurios). Similarly, Jesus is never once called Yeshua. He is called Ἰησοῦς, a name which both Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) and Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered to be derived from Greek sources.

Yahva: Semantic and Phonetic Implications

If my hypothesis is accurate, we must find evidence of a Greek linguistic element within the Hebrew name of God (i.e. Yahva) as it was originally revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. Indeed, we do! In the Hebrew language, the term “Yahvan” represents the Greeks (Josephus Antiquities I, 6). Therefore, it is not difficult to see how the phonetic and grammatical mystery of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH, commonly pronounced as Yahva) is related to the Hebrew term Yahvan, which refers to the Greeks. In fact, the Hebrew names for both God and Greece (Yahva/Yahvan) are virtually indistinguishable from one another, both grammatically and phonetically! The only difference is in the Nun Sophit (Final Nun), which stands for "Son of" (Hebrew ben). Thus, the Tetragrammaton plus the Final Nun (Yahva + n) can be interpreted as “Son of God.” This would explain why strict injunctions were given that the theonym must remain untranslatable under the consonantal name of God (YV). The Divine Name can only be deciphered with the addition of vowels, which not only point to “YahVan,” the Hebrew name for Greece, but also anticipate the arrival of the Greek New Testament!

There’s further evidence for a connection between the Greek and Hebrew names of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In a few Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is actually translated in Greek as ΙΑΩ “IAO” (aka Greek Trigrammaton). In other words, the theonym Yahva is translated into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see Lev. 4:27 LXX manuscript 4Q120). This fragment is dated to the 1st century BC. Astoundingly, the name ΙΑΩΝ is the name of Greece (aka Ἰάων/Ionians/IAONIANS), the earliest literary records of whom can be found in the works of Homer (Gk. Ἰάονες; iāones) and also in the writings of the Greek poet Hesiod (Gk. Ἰάων; iāōn). Bible scholars concur that the Hebrew name Yahvan represents the Iaonians; that is to say, Yahvan is Ion (aka Ionia, meaning “Greece”).

We find further evidence that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is translated as ΙΑΩ (IAO) in the writings of the church fathers. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B.D. Eerdmans, Diodorus Siculus refers to the name of God by writing Ἰαῶ (Iao). Irenaeus reports that the Valentinians use Ἰαῶ (Iao). Origen of Alexandria also employs Ἰαώ (Iao). Theodoret of Cyrus writes Ἰαώ (Iao) as well to refer to the name of God.

Summary

Therefore, the hidden name of God in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Hebrew Bible seemingly represents Greece! The ultimate revelation of God’s name is disclosed in the Greek New Testament by Jesus Christ who identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Rev. 1:8). In retrospect, we can trace this Greek name back to the Divine “I am” in Exodus 3:14!

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 11 months

Text

The Bible Says That The Messiah Will Not Come From Israel ❌❌❌

Eli Kittim

Isaiah Declares That The Messiah Will NOT Come From Israel❗️

In Isaiah 46:11 (KJV), God says: I will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute my counsel (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25):

Calling … the man that executeth my

counsel from a far country: yea, I have

spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have

purposed it, I will also do it.

For further biblical evidence concerning a Gentile Messiah, see the following paper: ⬇️

The Masoretic Text (Old Testament)

In Isaiah 46:11, the Hebrew word מֵאֶ֥רֶץ (mê·’e·reṣ) means “from the land” or “country,” while the word מֶרְחָ֖ק (mer·ḥāq) means “distant place” or “from afar.” Together they mean “from a distant place,” “from afar,” or “from a distant country.” Since God is speaking to the Israelites, it is obvious that the Messiah he has appointed to execute his counsel WILL NOT come from Palestine❗️

Isaiah 46:9-11 reads:

I am God, and there is none like me,

Declaring the end from the beginning, and

from ancient times the things that are not

yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand,

and I will do all my pleasure: Calling … the

man that executeth my counsel from a far

country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also

bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also

do it.

The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)

This is also recorded in the Greek Old Testament of Isaiah 46:9-11. The LXX uses the word αὐτόν (autón)——which is the accusative masculine singular form of αυτός, meaning “him”——to describe the “man” who will be called “from a land afar off” to execute both God’s counsel and plans! The key word here is πόρρωθεν, which means “from a distance” or “from afar” (see Lk. 17:12; Heb. 11:13). It means that this messianic figure will come from a distant country. He is obviously not a native Israelite! Similarly, in Matt. 21:43, the literary Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. What is more, the covenant of the seed (in Genesis 12) is a reference to Christ. That is to say, the covenant is through Abraham’s seed, who **is** Christ (see Gal. 3:16). That’s why Isaiah 61:9 says that the Gentiles are the blessed posterity of God (through the messianic seed):

And their seed shall be known among the

Gentiles, and their offspring among the

people: all that see them shall acknowledge

them, that they are the [Messianic] seed

which the LORD hath blessed.

For further proof of a Greek Messianic line, see the following article: ⬇️

God is Called by a Gentile Name 

Conclusion

Why is the New Testament written in Greek❓It’s not because it was the lingua franca. It has to do with the identity of the Messiah❗Why does the literary Christ call himself the alpha and the omega (referring to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet)❓Why is John on the Greek island of Patmos to proclaim the testimony of Jesus on the Lord’s day❓ It isn’t because he is in exile. That’s an old wive’s tale… There is much much more that I obviously cannot reproduce, here, due to time constraints.

‘all the Gentiles … are called by My name,’

Says the LORD (Amos 9:12 NKJV).

For additional information on a Gentile Messiah, see the following article: ⬇️ 

The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible 

3 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 11 months

Text

Israelology Versus Replacement Theology: Is the Bible about Israel or Jesus❓

Eli Kittim

If Jesus is the Messianic fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible, then the Old Testament is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and the New Testament is not talking about two peoples (the Jews & the church) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2:19-20), which is to say that the overarching theme of the Old Testament is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah!

If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 different sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third Jewish temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices. However, the Bible is not about ethnicity, racism, or nationalism. In Romans 2:28-29 (NASB), Paul redefines what the term Jew means in scripture:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

nor is circumcision that which is outward in

the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one

inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart.

In the Bible, there are not two people of God, but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ! The Bible is Christocentric. It is not ethnocentric. It’s not about a race.

Instead of admitting that they view the Bible as being about their race and not about Christ, the Hebrew Roots Movement dresses it up euphemistically as though the controversy was about the Jews versus the church. But that’s a misnomer. The real controversy is this: they don’t believe that the Bible is about Christ. But they hide that from you! Messianic Jews are often far more Judaic than they let on.

Read the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9. It’s all about how Christ is greater than the temple sacrifices or the Law of Moses. This is a New Covenant. So why are the Jews holding on to the old one? Hebrews 8:13 declares:

When He [God] said, ‘A new covenant,’ He

has made the first obsolete.

Both Galatians and Romans are authentic Pauline letters. In those letters, Paul says categorically & unequivocally that we are saved by Grace, not by the Law. Paul says in Galatians 2:16:

a person is not justified by works

of the Law but through faith in Christ.

In Galatians 2:21, Paul says:

if righteousness comes through the Law, then

Christ died needlessly.

In Galatians 3:11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching:

that no one is justified by the Law before

God is evident; for, ‘the righteous one will

live by faith.’

It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3:20:

by the works of the Law none of mankind

will be justified in His sight.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. According to Acts 4:12:

there is salvation in no one else [except

Jesus Christ]; for there is no other name

under heaven that has been given among

mankind by which we must be saved.

Yahweh is never once mentioned in the New Testament. Moreover, Galatians 3:7 says that we are the sons of Abraham by faith (not by race):

recognize that it is those who are of faith

who are sons of Abraham.

Ephesians 2:12-13 says that through “the blood of Christ” the elect are now part of God’s family. There’s only one plan, one family, one salvation, and one Lord, not 2 different salvation plans, or 2 peoples. It’s not that we have replaced Israel but that we have been brought into one family through Jesus’ atonement (the new covenant) which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31.31.

Incidentally, the history of replacement theology doesn’t go back to the dispensationalism of the 1800s, but rather to the early church. In Jer. 3:8, God gave Israel an official certificate of divorce. In Mt. 21:43, Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) concurred that God’s covenant with Israel was annulled and that the Jews had been replaced by the Gentiles. Origen’s (185-253 AD) view was along the same lines. Irenaeus (ca. 130-202 AD) also proclaimed that God disinherited the Jews from his grace. Tertullian (ca. 155-220 AD) also held that the Jews had been rejected by God. Similarly, Eusebius (ca. 265-339 AD) held that the promises of Scripture were given to the Gentiles because only the Church was the “true Israel.” So, this view didn’t start in the 19th century. It was there from the beginning.

The covenant of the seed (in Genesis 12) is a reference to Christ (see Gal. 3:16). Notice that Abraham is the “father of many nations” (Gen. 17:5), not just one. So the covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 17:8) is with multiple nations, not just one! And all these are part of the covenant through Abraham’s seed, who is Christ! That’s why Isaiah 61:9 explicitly refers to God’s posterity as the people of the Gentiles:

their offspring will be known among the

nations [Gentiles], And their descendants in

the midst of the peoples. All who see them

will recognize them because they are the

offspring whom the Lord has blessed.

“It is not the children of the flesh … but the children of the promise [who] are regarded as descendants [of Israel]” (Rom 9:6-8). Here’s further proof that the language which was once used for Israel is now used to address the church (cf. Gal. 6:16). In contradistinction to those who don’t believe in Christ, 1 Peter 2:9 is addressing the church who does believe in Christ, saying:

But you are a chosen people, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, a people for

God’s own possession.

In Colossians 1:26, “the mystery which had been hidden from the past ages and generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” is that the Gentiles are co-inheritors with Israel (cf. Gal 3:28). Ephesians 3:6 says:

This mystery is that through the gospel the

Gentiles are heirs together with Israel,

members together of one body, and sharers

together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

The real controversy about replacement theology is this: is the Bible about Judaism or Jesus? Jews argue that the Bible is not about Christ. Their Dual-covenant theology holds that the Old Covenant remains valid for Jews whereas the New Covenant is only applicable to gentiles.

Bottom line, the Bible is not about a nation or a race. It’s about a person: the God-incarnate Messiah. Those who believe in Christ think that the Bible is about Christ. Those who don’t really believe in Christ think that the Bible is about the nation of Israel. It’s that simple.

What is the argument about? It’s really about whether we pledge allegiance to Moses or to Jesus.

Has Christ been divided?

(1 Corinthians 1:13).

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

🔥 Was the Septuagint Destroyed When the Library of Alexandria Was Burnt Down in 48 BC❓🔥

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

The Argument

Some people (typically Jewish apologists) claim that the Septuagint doesn’t exist because it was destroyed when the Library of Alexandria was burnt down in 48 BC.

This conclusion, however, is both textually misleading & historically erroneous.

First

The Alexandrian Library and its collection were not entirely destroyed. We have evidence that there was only partial damage and that many of its works survived. According to Wiki:

The Library, or part of its collection, was

accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during

his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how

much was actually destroyed and it seems

to have either survived or been rebuilt

shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo

mentions having visited the Mouseion in

around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly

output of Didymus Chalcenterus in

Alexandria from this period indicates that

he had access to at least some of the

Library's resources.

Second

The Septuagint had already been written and disseminated among the diaspora since the 3rd century BC, and so many of its extant copies were not housed in the Library of Alexandria per se.

Third

Textual Criticism confirms that the New Testament authors used the Septuagint predominantly and quoted extensively from it. If the Septuagint didn’t exist, where did the New Testament authors copy from? And how do you explain the fact that the New Testament and the Septuagint often have identical wording in their agreements?

Fourth

The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the Septuagint was far more accurate than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text. See, for example, the textual controversy surrounding Deuteronomy 32:8. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint have “sons of God.” The Masoretic text is demonstrably inaccurate because it has “sons of Israel,” a later redaction. Israel didn’t even exist at that time!

Fifth

Emanuel Tov, a leading authority on the Septuagint who has explained the various textual families (or text-types) of the Old Testament, never once mentioned that we lost the Septuagint, or that it was destroyed, or that it was no longer in circulation. On the contrary, he claims that it continued to be in use during the Christian period and that it is much more older than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text, which the Jews call the “Hebrew Bible.”

Sixth

If the Septuagint was completely destroyed, as some have erroneously suggested, from where were the later revisionists and translators copying from? We have historical evidence that they were, in fact, copying from the Septuagint itself. Wiki writes:

Theodotion … was a Hellenistic Jewish

scholar, … who in c. 150 CE translated the

Hebrew Bible into Greek. … Whether he was

revising the Septuagint, or was working

from Hebrew manuscripts that represented

a parallel tradition that has not survived, is

debated.

So there’s evidence to suggest that the Theodotion version is a possible *revision* of the Septuagint. This demonstrates that the Septuagint existed in the second century AD! Otherwise, where was Theodotion copying from if the Septuagint didn’t exist?

Seventh

The great work of Origen, Hexapla, compiled sometime before 240 AD, is further proof that the Septuagint was still in use in the 3rd century AD! Wikipedia notes the following:

Hexapla … is the term for a critical edition

of the Hebrew Bible in six versions, four of

them translated into Greek, preserved only

in fragments. It was an immense and

complex word-for-word comparison of the

original Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek

Septuagint translation and with other Greek

translations.

Encyclopedia Britannica adds:

In his Hexapla (“Sixfold”), he [Origen]

presented in parallel vertical columns the

Hebrew text, the same in Greek letters, and

the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the

Septuagint, and Theodotion, in that order.

Eighth

Besides Origen’s Hexapla, we also have extant copies of the Septuagint. According to wiki:

Relatively-complete manuscripts of the

Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar

recension, and include the fourth-century-

CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century

Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-

surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of

the Old Testament in any language; the

oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date

to about 600 years later, from the first half

of the 10th century.

Ninth

There’s also historical and literary evidence that the Greek Septuagint was in wide use during the Christian period and beyond. Wiki says:

Greek scriptures were in wide use during

the Second Temple period, because few

people could read Hebrew at that time. The

text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted

more often than the original Hebrew Bible

text in the Greek New Testament

(particularly the Pauline epistles) by the

Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek

Church Fathers.

Tenth

Today, Biblical scholarship has a *critical edition* of the Septuagint. If it was destroyed in 48 BC, where did the critical edition come from? The Göttingen Septuaginta (editio maior) presents *a fully critical text* and should silence the skeptics and critics who try to mislead the public. They deliberately mislead the public by trying to discredit the far more reliable and much older Septuagint in order to get people to accept the much later Hebrew Masoretic text from the Middle Ages❗️

9 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Is Mara bar Serapion’s Letter a Forgery?

Eli Kittim

The letter has been claimed to include no

Christian themes.

— Wiki

Mara bar Serapion was a stoic philosopher. He is noted for a lengthy letter that he wrote to his son. The letter was composed in Syriac, written sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century. Many Christian apologists have suggested that Mara bar Serapion is alluding to Jesus Christ in this letter. But there are several problems with that theory.

First, a nonChristian like Mara bar Serapion would never have referred to Jesus as a “king.” Only dedicated and reborn Christians refer to Jesus as their Lord of lords and kings of Kings, not pagans.

Second, Jesus was not known as a “king.” In fact, according to Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (“Studying the Historical Jesus,” pp. 455–457), “the term ‘king of the Jews’ has never been seen in the Christian literature of antiquity as a title for Jesus.”

Third, Jesus was not known as a “wise king.” The only Jew known to be a “wise king” was King Solomon, who was in fact a *king,* and whose *wisdom* was known throughout the ancient world. What is more, King Solomon is well known for being the author of many books of *wisdom* in the Bible.

Fourth, Mara bar Serapion does not even mention the terms “Jesus” or “Christ.” And when referring to famous heroic philosophers who died, and what happened after their death, he never mentions Jesus’ resurrection. Even if he didn’t believe it, he would have, at least, mentioned the *rumor* of Jesus being raised from the dead. The fact that he doesn’t mention it at all means that he’s not talking about Jesus:

[Robert E.] Van Voorst adds two factors

that indicate Mara was not a Christian, the

first being his failure to mention the terms

Jesus or Christ. The second factor (also

supported by Chilton and Evans) is that

Mara's statement that Jesus lives on based

on the wisdom of his teachings, in contrast

to the Christian concept that Jesus

continues to live through his resurrection,

indicates that he was not a Christian.

— Wiki

Fifth, the language of the document suggests that Mara bar Serapion is referring to an actual king who enacted new laws and established new practices. For example, Jewish tradition ascribes ritual hand washing and eruvin to King Solomon, who also served as a Judge (e.g. the “Judgment of Solomon”). He was also responsible for building the first temple, and for instituting new laws of how the temple services would run:

Nay, Socrates did ‘not’ die, because of

Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the

statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King,

because of the new laws which he enacted.

— Wiki

Sixth, there’s something very odd about the reference to the Jews in this letter. This is quite a long letter, which is based entirely on Greek philosophy. Scholars are in agreement that Mara bar Serapion was a Stoic philosopher and a pagan. As a rule, Stoic philosophers held Jewish teachings in contempt, and so they would never have placed them on a par with the teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras. We know this from the apostle Paul who was scoffed at when preaching to stoic philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:15-34). The addition of the “Jewish” element, therefore, reads like a non sequitur, like a strange interpolation that doesn’t belong there… It sounds as if someone added it at a later time. And it seems as if the author (or editor?) got things wrong. Pythagoras was not burned, and King Solomon was not killed. And the expulsion of the Jews might be a reference to the deportation of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC, or to that of Judah in 586 BC:

The letter refers to the unjust treatment of

‘three wise men’: the murder of Socrates,

the burning of Pythagoras, and the

execution of ‘the wise king’ of the Jews.

— Wiki

Now that I have offered my critique, let’s actually read that portion of the letter that apologists have employed time after time as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Do you think that this pericope constitutes strong evidence for the existence of Jesus? Hardly! Not by a long shot:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain

by putting Socrates to death, seeing that

they received as retribution for it famine and

pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the

burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one

hour the whole of their country was covered

with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of

their Wise King, seeing that from that very

time their kingdom was driven away from

them? For with justice did God grant a

recompense to the wisdom of all three of

them. For the Athenians died by famine;

and the people of Samos were covered by

the sea without remedy; and the Jews,

brought to desolation and expelled from

their kingdom, are driven away into every

land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because

of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the

statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King,

because of the new laws which he enacted.

— Wiki

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Eli Kittim

The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.

From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:

he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities; 

upon him was the chastisement that

brought us peace, and with his wounds we

are healed.

We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!

How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,

and the ark of his covenant was seen within

his temple. There were flashes of lightning,

rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,

and heavy hail.

Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ❗️A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,

coming down out of heaven from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for her

husband. And I heard a loud voice from the

throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of

God is with man. He will dwell with them,

and they will be his people, and God himself

will be with them as their God.’

Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:

at the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, in heaven and on earth and under the

earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the

Father.

Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:

I will be ever present in your midst: I will be

your God, and you shall be My people.

Compare Revelation 21.3:

He will dwell with them, and they will be his

people, and God himself will be with them

as their God.

2 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

Eli Kittim

The Two Witnesses are Anointed with Power

In Rev. 11:4, the two witnesses on earth are said to be “the two olive trees” of the Lord. This verse is based on the Old Testament:

These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.

— Zechariah 4:14

The term “Messiah” (Gk. Christos) is derived from the Hebrew word “mashiach,” which means “anointed one.” So, Zechariah 4:14 cannot be talking about anyone else except the Messiah. As I will demonstrate, these two anointed witnesses could be none other than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And these two are one! The Holy Spirit is often called the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19), the “Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7), or “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6). We know that the Messiah is the “anointed one” (Dan. 9:26). But the Holy Spirit is “anointed” as well (1 Jn 2:20, 27), and anoints Jesus with power (see Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38). The anointing takes place when Jesus and the Holy Spirit become one (during Jesus’ baptism)! It is Jesus’ rebirth, so to speak, when the Holy Spirit enters him and anoints him with power (Lk 3:22; cf. Acts 2:1-4)!

As for those thinkers who take issue with this view, claiming that the two witnesses are probably Enoch and Elijah who never died, there are three problems with their theory. First, regardless of whether a biblical character died or not, scripture makes it clear that you only live once (Heb. 9:27); there is no reincarnation. A reincarnation of Enoch or Elijah is therefore out of the question. Second, neither Enoch nor Elijah were the anointed Messiah. Third, both of these fictional characters are “types” who represent and foreshadow the Messiah. Notice the specific typology that is presented in Revelation 11 which typifies the two witnesses’ unique relation and connection to Jesus: the two witnesses are said to prophesy in the exact same place where Jesus supposedly lived, and they will die in the exact same city where Jesus allegedly died. I think you can guess the rest of the script: “But after … three … days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet” (Rev. 11:11). Just like Jesus, they’ll be miraculously raised from the dead after 3 days!

Moreover, Rev. 11:6 says that the two witnesses have tremendous authority (ἐξουσίαν) over heaven and earth to do as they please. However, only Jesus has that kind of authority. No one else! Jesus says: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Mt. 28:18):

Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ

τῆς γῆς ·

Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are called Witnesses

What is more, the two witnesses’ assignment is to bear witness to the truth (μαρτυρίαν; Rev. 11:7). The two persons of the Godhead who bear witness (μαρτυρήσει) to the truth on earth are Jesus and the Holy Spirit (see Jn 15:26; 18:37; Rom. 8:16; Heb. 10:15 [Μαρτυρεῖ/bears witness]). Case in point. First John 5:6 mentions the witness of the Spirit——namely, that God comes in the flesh——using the symbols of “water and blood” which represent the divinity and humanity of Jesus, thus indicating that he’s both God and man:

This man, Jesus the Messiah, is the one

who came by water and blood—not with

water only, but with water and with blood.

The Spirit is the one who verifies this,

because the Spirit is the truth.

Then, 1 John 5:7-8 goes on to explain that “these three [witnesses] are one”:

For there are three witnesses

[μαρτυροῦντες] — the Spirit, the water, and

the blood—and these three are one.

— 1 John 5:7-8

And 1 Jn 5:9 tells us that the *content* of this prophetic witness (ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ) concerns the coming of the Son of God in human form at some point in human history. The Greek verb ἐλθὼν (came) is not referring to the time of action, but rather to the Christological prophecy which is supposed to take place according to the scriptures (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-4). So the *testimony* of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 is about the parousia, or the coming of Jesus to this earth! Interestingly enough, Rev. 1:5 calls Jesus “the faithful witness” (ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός). This is reiterated in Rev. 3:14 where Jesus is “the faithful and true witness.” Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are said to be God’s *two witnesses,* and these two are one! Since no one else except God can do these extraordinary miracles (e.g. fire-breathing, controlling the weather & the sea [cf. Mk 4:39], causing plagues; Rev. 11:5-6), and given that the language of the Greek New Testament is pointing to the authority, anointing, and witness of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, there can be little doubt as to who these two witnesses are.

First Comes Christ; Then Comes the Antichrist

The *sequence* of end-time events also reveals New Testament parallels and verbal agreements that are consistent with the notion that the Messiah will come first, followed by the antichrist. Notice the same sequence in Rev. 11:7:

And when they have finished their witness,

the beast that comes up out of the abyss

will make war with them and overcome

them and kill them.

This is essentially the same sequence that we find in 2 Thess. 2. The restrainer must first be taken out of the way before the lawless one can be revealed (2 Thess. 2:7-8). In other words, the restrainer must be removed before the antichrist can appear on the world stage. This same motif is repeated in Rev. 12:3-4 (italics mine):

a great RED dragon, with seven heads and

ten horns [representing the Antichrist and

the final world empire] … stood before the

woman who was about to give birth, so that

when she bore her child he might devour it.

The way Rev. 12:5 is described, it’s as if it gives us Jesus’ birth, resurrection, and ascension, minus his death (which is alluded to in verse 4):

She gave birth to a male child, one who is to

rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her

child was caught up to God and to his

throne.

So, in Rev. 12, the male child is born first, and then the RED dragon kills it. It��s the exact same sequence in Rev. 6. First comes the peaceful white horseman “holding a bow” (representing the covenant; see Gen. 9:13 LXX) and wearing the Stephanos crown, which is typically worn by victors in Christ (Jas. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 4:4), and then comes the RED horse which triggers World War III (Rev. 6:3). We find the exact same sequence in Rev. 11:7. First come the two witnesses, and then comes the beast out of the abyss to kill them. This is the antichrist who must come after Christ. It’s the exact same motif in 2 Thess. 2:7-8 in which the restrainer must be killed before the antichrist can appear.

So, there’s a running theme throughout the New Testament which repeats the same end-time sequence in all these narratives, namely, the idea that Christ comes first, followed by the Antichrist! Thus, Christ’s coming is imminent (it can happen at any time)! But how is all this possible if Christ already died two thousand years ago? It’s possible because the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. They’re theological narratives that are largely based on the Old Testament. By contrast, the epistles, which are the more explicit and didactic portions of scripture, say that Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9:26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.” In other words, Revelation 6:2, 11:3, 12:5, and 19:11 all refer to the FIRST COMING of Jesus at the end of days❗️

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Does the Phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ in Hebrews 12.26 Mean “Once” or “Once More”❓

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The New Testament Versions

There are various theories about past catastrophic Biblical events. For example, some biblical narratives describe a time when the earth trembled, such as the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, or the cataclysmic Noachian Deluge. Some Biblical scholars even theorize about a so-called “Gap Theory" (between the first and second verses of Genesis) regarding two different creations, or even an earlier creation-and-destruction of the universe prior to the current one.

So when we encounter biblical verses that seem to suggest some type of primordial earthly destruction, scholars often theorize about the probability of such events taking place as the ones mentioned above. Hebrews 12.26 is a case in point. It talks about some form of judgment in which God “will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” But there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this event will happen for the very first time. That’s because the key phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ has been variously translated in two different ways: “once” and “once more.” The former suggests a first time, the latter, a second. Hence, the meaning of the text remains an open question. Hebrews 12.26 (SBLGNT) declares:

οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν τότε, νῦν δὲ

ἐπήγγελται λέγων · Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ

μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.

Translation (NIV):

At that time his voice shook the earth, but

now he has promised, ‘Once more I will

shake not only the earth but also the

heavens.’

Most of the Bible versions of Hebrews 12.26 (with the exception of a few that I’m aware of) translate Ἔτι ἅπαξ as “once more.” That’s because Ἔτι can mean not only “still,” “yet,” “again,” but it can also relate to *time* and mean “longer” (Mt. 5.13; Lk 16.2; 20.36; Jn 7.33), “further” (Mt. 26.65; Lk 22.71), as well as “moreover” (Acts 2.26).

So, if the correct translation of Heb. 12.26 is “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” then the question arises: is this verse referring to Mt Sinai, the flood, the gap theory, or perhaps to a previous universe that was once-destroyed to make way for the creation of our own?

For example, one particular Bible version speculates that the reference in Heb. 12.26 is to the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai. The Amplified Bible reads:

His voice shook the earth [at Mount Sinai]

then, but now He has given a promise,

saying, ‘YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE

NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE

[starry] HEAVEN.’

However, on closer inspection, the aforementioned translation is speculative because this “shaking” does not only involve the earth but also the heavens. At Mount Sinai, only the earth trembled (with a mighty earth-quake), not the heavens. Similarly, during the flood, neither the earth nor the heavens were destroyed: only living things (Genesis 6.7). So, the Hebrews 12.26-reference seems to imply a much larger catastrophic destruction of both the earth and the heavens. Therefore, if the verse has been faithfully translated, it can only refer to the so-called “gap theory,” or to a previously-destroyed universe.

On the other hand, the majority of the translations might be completely flawed, and the few Bible versions which suggest that this event will occur only “once” might be correct! Accordingly, the YLT version of Hebrews 12.26 proclaims:

‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.’

Similarly, the Darby Bible Translation exclaims:

Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.

We find a similar reading in the Godbey New Testament:

I will still once shake not only the earth, but

also heaven.

Therefore, these latter versions would imply that this impending destruction will occur only once, in the future, in the same way as described, for example, in 2 Peter 3.10!

The Old Testament Versions

In trying to figure out the correct translation, it’s important to go back and look at the sources of the quoted material from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. Hebrews 12.26 is actually quoting Haggai 2.6 via the Septuagint. Therefore, let’s go back and look at what that verse actually says both in the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek Septuagint. Haggai 2.6 (NIV) reads:

This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a

little while I will once more shake the

heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry

land.’

It’s important to note that most of the modern Bible versions of Haggai 2.6 say “once more,” but some say “once” (see e.g. ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917, and a few others). The KJB also says “once” at Haggai 2.6:

For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once,

it is a little while, and I will shake the

heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and

the dry land;

Here, however, the KJB is inconsistent. While it says “once” in Haggai 2.6, it says “once more” in the parallel verse of Hebrews 12.26:

Yet once more I shake not the earth only,

but also heaven.

In Haggai 2.6, the Hebrew text (BHS) has אַחַ֖ת (once) ע֥וֹד (yet/again). In other words, the term ע֥וֹד (od) can be translated either as “yet” or “again.” But even the Hebrew Bible versions have conflicting translations. For example, the Sefaria Bible implies that this destructive event will occur only “once.” It reads thusly:

For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a

little while longer I will shake the heavens

and the earth, the sea and the dry land.

Similarly, the JPS Tanakh (1985) says:

For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a

little while longer I will shake the heavens

and the earth, the sea and the dry land.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) also seems to suggest “yet once in a little while”:

‎כִּ֣י כֹ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות עֹ֥וד אַחַ֖ת מְעַ֣ט הִ֑יא וַאֲנִ֗י מַרְעִישׁ֙ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָֽה׃

By contrast, the Hebrew Bible——edited by translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg——featured in Chabad.org reads:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will

rise] another one, and I will shake up the

heaven and the earth and the sea and the

dry land [for] a little while.

So, even these Hebrew versions conflict. Most of them imply “once,” while the last one suggests “another.” So there are arguments on both sides. However, the most credible ones seem to suggest “once” for all. That’s probably why the Greek translations (LXX & NT) employ the term hapax (ἅπαξ), which also means “once for all”!

Let’s now explore how the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates it. The LXX renders Haggai 2.6 thusly:

διότι τάδε λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ· ἔτι

ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν·

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I

will shake the heaven, and the earth, and

the sea, and the dry [land].

Thus, the Septuagint agrees with most of the Hebrew Bible versions that Haggai 2.6 is saying “once,” not “once more.”

Interestingly enough, Hebrews 12.26 quotes the Septuagint-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω verbatim (word for word), with a slight variation on the theme concerning “the heavens and the earth” at the end of the sentence. Hebrews 12.26 reads:

Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν

ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.

Notice that both the LXX and the NT texts use the exact same key-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ. Yet the LXX and most of the Hebrew versions say “once,” while most of the New Testament translations render it as “once more.” So which is it? If both the Septuagint and the New Testament are saying the exact same thing, then why are these texts translated differently? Both cannot be correct. According to the law of non-contradiction, contradictory statements cannot both be true. So, somewhere, somehow, someone got it wrong! The question is, what’s the right answer? What’s the correct translation?

Conclusion

The Septuagint translates the term עוֹד (od) as ἔτι (yet), and renders the phrase ‘ō·wḏ ’a·ḥaṯ as “yet once.” As far as the Hebrew translations are concerned, both the Sefaria Bible and the JPS Tanakh (1985) imply “once.” The BHS also seems to imply “once.” Only the Chabad.org Bible (with Rashi's commentary) seems to suggest “once more.” So, most of the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek texts support the phrase “yet once,” not “once more” or “once again”! All in all, from the point of view of the Old Testament concerning Haggai 2.6, it seems that both the Hebrew and the Greek versions agree on the “yet once” meaning!

Carrying this information over into the New Testament, we come to realize that the key phrase (ἔτι ἅπαξ) in Haggai 2.6 (LXX), which is quoted in Hebrews 12.26, should have the exact same meaning in the New Testament as it does in the Old Testament, namely, “yet once.” Yet, surprisingly, most of the modern NT translations say “once more,” although there are some that do say “once,” as has already been noted. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament are actually conflicting with the Old Testament data. Apparently, the range of meanings for the word Ἔτι makes it unclear as to which word should be applied.

So, if we combine our findings, it seems that more attention should be placed on the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions from which the quote of Haggai 2.6 is derived. Given that they are the sources of the Hebrews 12.26-phrase, the usages in these versions carry more weight than those of the New Testament translations in steering us in the right linguistic direction. Therefore, despite the fact that most of the modern Bible versions have “once more” for Hebrews 12.26, the few translations that have “yet once” (e.g. the YLT, Darby, etc.) might be closer to the truth!

Bottom line, given the range of meanings for the aforementioned terms, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact rendering of both the Haggai 2.6 and Hebrews 12.26 phrases, especially since even the Hebrew translations have divergent meanings. Nevertheless, given that most of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions agree on the phrase “yet once,” it seems more likely that this is the authorial intent of Haggai 2.6. And since that happens to be the exact same phrase in Hebrews 12.26, there’s no reason for the meaning to be any different than that which we find in Haggai 2.6 (LXX). Thus, it appears that the meaning of Hebrews 12.26 is faithfully translated in the YLT version which reads:

‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.’

This exegetical conclusion, of course, would not support the so-called “Gap Theory" or an earlier destruction of the universe prior to the current one. Rather, it would point to one final destruction at the end of the world!

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

The Antichrist is Russian: Not Assyrian, Muslim, Or Jewish

By Independent Researcher 🎓 Eli Kittim

The Connection Between Daniel’s 4 empires & Russia

Daniel chapters 2 & 7 show 4 super empires, the last of which will last until the end of the world. According to history, we know that the first was Babylon (gold), the second was Medo-Persia (silver), the third was Greece (bronze), and the fourth was Rome (iron), which had 2 legs (representing East & West). Then, Daniel says that the 10 toes represent the final phase of that same empire (i.e. a revived Roman Empire), which the endtimes Christ will smash to pieces. We also know that the 2 legs of the Roman Empire were Rome and Constantinople. Rome (West) was sacked and conquered in the 5th century AD and ceased to be an empire. There was no western Roman Empire in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries. According to Voltaire, “The Holy Roman Empire [of the 9th century] was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire.” In fact, according to Wiki, “The exact term ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was not used until the 13th century.” So, the only remaining and legitimate Roman empire was the one at Constantinople, namely, the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium (East). So far, we are still talking about the 2 iron legs of Daniel’s composite statue. Then, in 1453, the Turks sacked Constantinople, and most of the Byzantine elites fled north to Moscow, where Moscow became the third Rome.

Chuck Missler pointed out that most commentators think that the Antichrist will come from the west (Rome), that is Europe, but they neglect the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire, namely Constantinople. And he was right. The Antichrist comes from the eastern part of the Roman Empire that moved to Moscow! In addition, Ivan the Great adopted the official emblem of the Byzantine Monarchy: the double-headed eagle. He then went on to marry Sophia Paleologue, the niece of the final Byzantine ruler Constantine XI. In the aftermath of the Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and in an effort to salvage the last vestiges of Christianity, Ivan designated Moscow as the Third Rome in 1497 A.D. In effect, Moscow became the offspring of the Roman Empire; heirs to the legacy. Russia, then, becomes the link of the little horn (Antichrist) to the Roman Empire (cf. Daniel 7:7-8 f.). Ivan even called himself Tsar, which means “Caesar.” And he inherited all the symbols of Byzantium, including the Greek Orthodox Church. Russia is therefore the continuation of Daniel’s empires, or the revived Roman Empire after the 2 proverbial iron legs collapsed.

Mind you, Daniel only mentions a revived Roman Empire out of which the little horn will come. He doesn’t mention any Muslim or Assyrian nations. He doesn’t mention anything about a Jewish antichrist. For proper exegesis, we have to stick to the text of Daniel, not to what people are currently adding to it. And Daniel only alludes to a revived Roman Empire. So the notion of an Assyrian, Muslim, or Jewish antichrist is foreign to the text and completely bogus and misinformed.

Moreover, we know that the book of Daniel is referring to the endtimes——and that this revived Roman Empire will appear in the last days——because Daniel 12.4 talks explicitly about the endtimes, while Daniel 12.1 mentions the great tribulation which will be the worst event that has ever occurred on planet earth, and one that has not yet happened. We also know that the 10 final leaders will fight Jesus Christ (Rev. 17.14) and that the Antichrist will be annihilated by Christ himself at his coming (see 2 Thess. 2.8). So the little horn of Daniel is definitely a future antichrist!

The 7 empires of Revelation 17

Just to recap, Revelation 17.9-13 says that there will be 7 empires until the end of time. There will also be an 8th, but because it’s part of the seven, it’s not counted as an 8th. So let’s enumerate them. It’s not Assyria or Egypt, as some unskilled interpreters suggest. Daniel doesn’t mention them at all. Historically, the 7 empires are as follows: 1) Babylon, 2) Medo-Persia, 3) Greece, 4) Rome, 5) Constantinople, 6) Moscow, 7) Soviet Union (USSR), 8) Russian Federation, which is part of the 7, and is therefore still part of the 7th empire. And all this takes place in the endtimes because Rev. 17.14 says:

These will wage war against the Lamb, and

the Lamb will overcome them.

Remember that John “was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10), not physically in the body. And he heard and saw visions pertaining to the day of the Lord. So when he says——there “are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while,” (Rev. 17.10)——the one that exists (or the “one [that] is”) during this prophetic time period that John sees is not Rome (which was the 4th empire), but rather the 6th (Moscow)! Why Russia? Because John is “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10). He is showing us where the Antichrist comes from. He is giving us a prophetic clue. That’s exactly why the 7th empire “has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.” That would be the USSR, which remained a little while, approximately only 70 years.

Here’s the passage in Rev. 17: 9-14:

Here is the mind which has wisdom. The

seven heads are seven mountains upon

which the woman sits, and they are seven

kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has

not yet come; and when he comes, he must

remain a little while. The beast which was,

and is not, is himself also an eighth and is

one of the seven, and he goes to

destruction. The ten horns which you saw

are ten kings who have not yet received a

kingdom, but they receive authority as kings

with the beast for one hour. These have one

purpose, and they give their power and

authority to the beast. These will wage war

against the Lamb, and the Lamb will

overcome them because He is Lord of lords

and King of kings.

The 10 toes at the bottom of Daniel’s statue represent the 10 leaders that will emerge out of this revived Roman Empire. And the 7th great superpower that emerged out of Russia was the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 3 more figures emerged, totalling 10 leaders, plus an 11th (Putin), exactly as foretold in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7.19-22). The “three of the previous horns [that] were plucked out” (Dan. 7.8) represent the 3 leaders of the Russian Federation which came out of Soviet Russia.

THE 10 KINGS OF DANIEL 7.20 & REVELATION 17.12

From its inception in 1917 until 1991, the Soviet Union had 8 leaders:

1) Vladimir Lenin

2) Joseph Stalin

3) Georgy Malenkov

4) Nikita Khrushchev

5) Leonid Brezhnev

6) Yuri Andropov

7) Konstantin Chernenko

8) Mikhail Gorbachev

The succeeding Russian Federation has only had 3 leaders since its formation on December 25, 1991 (cf. Daniel 7.8):

9) Boris Yeltsin, 10) Dmitry Medvedev, and

11) Vladimir Putin!

There you have it. Putin is the 11th horn (the 11th king) of Daniel 7.20, “to make room for which three [kings] . . . fell out” (emphasizing the last 3 leaders of the new federal republic that arose out of the former USSR)!

Ezekiel 38: The War of Gog & Magog

We have much more evidence that Ezekiel 38 is referring to Russia not only because of historical studies but also because of the language that is used in the Septuagint, not to mention the evidence from Josephus and other historians linking the inhabitants of Magog to the Scythians. The evidence pointing to Russia is overwhelming. For further evidence, see the following article:

What’s more, Ezekiel 38 talks about Russia invading countries in the last days, the so-called Gog/Magog war. That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα in Greek, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively❗️ Thus, it’s the Eastern rather than the Western leg of the Roman Empire that is considered to be Daniel’s Revived Roman Empire of Bible Prophecy, which was supplanted by Russia after the fall of Byzantium in 1453. And, as I have shown, Russia is also the final empire of Revelation 17, the one with the aforementioned ten kings!

This is the most accurate exegetical explanation of the 10 horns (which also includes the 11th horn, the Antichrist) and the only one that fits with all the details in the prophecies of Daniel 2 & 7, Ezekiel 38, Luke 21, and Revelation 12 & 17. That’s why the final empire is depicted as a red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns in Revelation 12. It’s the exact same Red Empire of the USSR that has morphed and continues to the present day. See the second seal of revelation, the red horse, which represents the Russian empire that will take peace away from the earth by starting world war 3!

Besides the fact that this position solves the biblical puzzle completely, one can also see that the current events fit perfectly as well. Russia is allied with Turkey, Iran, and many Muslim nations, just as prophesied in Ezekiel 38, and Putin has begun his military invasion of the west and is repeatedly threatening **nuclear war.** in fact, in New York City, ads about what to do in case of a nuclear explosion have begun to be seen on television. You have to be literally asleep not to notice that Putin is the person who has begun to invade countries and threaten **nuclear war,** and that a Russian Antichrist has already been foretold in the Bible❗️Daniel 8.23 calls the Antichrist “a master of intrigue” (i.e. “proficient at deception” [ISV]), while Daniel 8.25 (NLT) refers to him as “a master of deception,” obviously implying that he’s trained in secret plans, underhand plots and schemes. In short, a spy! So, you can, in effect, hold the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, and they match❗️

Not to notice either the Bible prophecies or the current geopolitical situation of the world, and the constant threat of nuclear war, is equal to being completely ignorant and misinformed❗️ Now let’s look at some faulty and erroneous interpretations that are not based on Daniel or Revelation, or on the canonical context. I will not even bother refuting the Seventh-Day Adventist position——that the Antichrist is the Pope and that the Mark of the Beast is Sunday-observance of the Sabbath——since it is too ridiculous for any one to take seriously, and also because it falls of its own accord.

The Assyrian VS. the Russian Antichrist

The Bible never links the Antichrist to a Muslim country. All lines of evidence link him to a revived Roman Empire. In Isaiah 10.5, for example, the text uses the term Asshur (Assyria)——which once invaded the northern kingdom of Israel——as a type, or symbol, of the final Antichrist who will invade Israel in the latter years (see Ezek. 38). You can’t just take a literal historical figure in the Bible and claim they are the Antichrist. That is not a credible exegesis. If that were so, then we can equally say that Cyrus was the messiah, and not Jesus Christ. Cyrus is called God’s anointed in Isaiah 45.1. Besides, the name Asshur or Assyrian may be a cryptic *anagram* for “Russia,” or for the word “Russian.” The word Asshur can also be used as a semordnilap, a word that has a different meaning when read in reverse (or backwards). For example, Asshur in reverse is Ruhssa (i.e. Russia)! Today, it is laughable to think that Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Turkey will become superpowers and take over the world. They don’t fit the bill. They’re neither Roman, nor do they have the necessary qualifications (11 kings). Yet Revelation 13 says that the Antichrist will conquer, subjugate, and control the entire world. Only a superpower like Russia, allied with many powers, such as China, can achieve these aims. Moreover, the Biblical evidence always points to Russia, as I have already demonstrated! There are many hermeneutical mistakes in the Assyrian interpretation. For example, Daniel never mentions any other kingdom in connection to the little horn besides the Roman Empire (see Daniel 7.23-25). Still others argue that the antichrist comes from the 3rd kingdom (the Hellenistic empire). But the Hellenistic connection in Daniel 8 simply points back to Byzantium because *tiny Thrace* (the symbol of the little horn with its ruler General Lysimachus) later became the seat of the Byzantine Romans, namely, Constantinople. So we’re back to Daniel 7 again. These interpreters confuse the details with the big picture, as well as Daniel’s chronological sequence of succeeding empires. Daniel chapter 8 is simply *zooming in* to give us some specific details. But Daniel chapters 2 & 7 give us *the big picture* and cannot be ignored because they clearly indicate a 4th kingdom that will arise AFTER Greece, out of which the little horn will come (Dan. 7.24)!

And modern day Iran is not Assyria. Both names (Assyria & Persia) are clearly distinguished in the Old Testament as 2 separate and distinct nations. Assyria (not Persia) is the nation that attacked the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kings 17:3–6), while Iran is called “Persia,” not Assyria, in Ezek. 38.5❗️Today, both Syria and Iraq (which were once part of ancient Assyria) are in ruins. Neither one of them is a superpower that can take over the world (Rev 13). Many interpreters are deliberately ignoring the Book of Daniel, which speaks of the little horn coming out of one of the 2 legs of the Roman Empire. Daniel doesn’t imply anything other than the Roman empire. To add extra-Biblical material about “Muslims” (which are not in the text) is not a proper methodology. And these misleading interpreters don’t know history either, how, for instance, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Moscow became the Third Rome. Moscow adopted the Byzantine customs, rituals & religion, as well as the doubleheaded eagle as their insignia, & the Russian leaders called themselves czars, which means “Caesar.” In fact, the double-headed eagle, which has Byzantine antecedents, is still in the coat of arms of Russia!

That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ in Greek that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively❗️ This is the nation that will invade Israel and conquer it “in the last days” (Ezek. 38.16). So, the interpreters who advance the theory of an Assyrian Antichrist are obviously ignorant of the historical studies that link this great end-times Ezekiel 38 invasion to Russia❗️

There are many other prophecies that support Ezek. 38, and link Russia to the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns (cf. Rev. 12), just as the sequence of Daniel’s empires leads to a seventh and final empire in Rev. 17. Starting from Babylon in Daniel 2, the USSR was the 7th empire, and there have been 10 leaders since Lenin, with Putin being the 11th, the so-called “little horn.” Hence why these “ten kings receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [one century]” (Rev. 17.12)! That’s the last days seven-headed empire with 10 horns. Which other nation can fit the bill? None! Once you have the pieces of the exegetical puzzle together, you can zero in on the Antichrist❗️

The interpreters who opt for a Muslim or Assyrian antichrist don’t have a single shred of proof to refute the multiple lines of evidence I’ve just unpacked. All they’re basing it on is a single word (Assyrian) that they’re MISINTERPRETING out-of-context by reading it as a **literal** interpretation. And if the Antichrist is Iranian——as some interpreters have proposed, based on Shia Islam’s belief in a coming Islamic Messiah, the 12th Imam, who will rule for 7 years——then why is Cyrus the Iranian called God’s Messiah? See how ridiculous this eisegesis is❓They’re saying that the Iranian is both the Antichrist and the Messiah❗️Therefore, should we be praying to the Iranian❓

The 10 Horns Are 10 Human Kings (not 10 spirits)

Then there are some who have proposed that the 10 kings are not Humans but Spirits. However, both Dan. 7.9 & 7.11 do not refer to a spirit but rather to a *human being* that is represented by a “horn” (in this case, the little horn). In fact, in Daniel 7.24, in the Old Testament, Daniel asks the angel what the 10 horns are. Here’s the angel’s reply:

As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten

kings shall arise, and another shall arise

after them.

Notice that they don’t come out of different kingdoms but out of the same kingdom. Moreover, the 10 horns represent 10 actual kings, not 10 spirits. This is multiply attested in the New Testament as well. In Rev 17.12-14, the angel provides an interpretation in which the 10 kings are not only human but they will also go to war against Christ:

And the ten horns that you saw are ten

kings who have not yet received a kingdom,

but they are to receive authority as kings for

one hour, together with the beast. These

are united in yielding their power and

authority to the beast; they will make war

on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer

them, for he is Lord of lords and King of

kings.

Moreover, in referring to the figure that we call the “Antichrist,” Daniel 7.20 describes an actual human being, not a spirit, who will control the earth for 3 and a half years (cf. Rev. 11.2; 13.5). What is more, Daniel 7.25 is rather explicit that it’s a male figure (not a spirit) who will blaspheme God and who will persecute the faithful:

He shall speak words against the Most

High, shall wear out the holy ones of the

Most High, and shall attempt to change the

sacred seasons and the law; and they shall

be given into his power for a time, two

times, and half a time.

Further evidence can be found in Revelation 13.18, which tells us that 666 is the number of a human being. It says that 666 is the number of ἀνθρώπου (a human being/ not a spirit, which would have been “pneuma” in Koine Greek if that were the case). And it also refers to him as a male figure (αὐτοῦ), which is a personal/possessive pronoun, genitive masculine 3rd person singular (him/his).

So we’re talking about a man, not a spirit. Second Thessalonians 2.3 calls him the “lawless one” who will be revealed on the world stage, and verse 2.4 goes on to say “that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.” These are actual events that will take place by a real ipso facto human being (the so-called “Antichrist”; 1 Jn 2.18).

Conclusion

The 7 heads are seven empires, the last of which is Russia, which, according to Ezekiel 38, will invade Israel with a large coalition. Watch this short video:

youtube

This invasion is also prophesied in Zechariah 14 and Luke 21 as well. Astonishingly, the incumbent president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, came to power at the turn of the century, in 1999 [666], which also marks the end of a thousand-year period. This important timeframe coincides with a Biblical prophecy in which the Antichrist will not appear “until the thousand years . . . [have] ended” (Rev. 20.3, 7-8)!

So when you see references to the red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns, for example, in Revelation 12, it is a reference to Russia as the final world empire that will dominate the world and create a New World Order (Rev 13)❗️

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship❓

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once❗️The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once❗️The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus❓Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic❓By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble❓After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)❗️After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se❗️

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse❓Nowhere❗️The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament❓

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ ❓Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament❓

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament❗️

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it❗️

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς❓All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we❓

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both❗️

8 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

youtube

A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus

By Eli Kittim 🎓

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation [Amazon] ⭐️

(By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim) 📚📖

———————————————

Amazon Books 🎓

⭐️ 🌍 Winner of 2015 Religion & Spirituality Double Decker Books Awards on Goodreads 🪐 ⚡️

———————————————

Eli Kittim - Het kleine boek Openbaring: De eerste komst van Jezus aan het einde der dagen

Eli Kittim - Küçük Vahiy Kitabı: Günlerin Sonunda İsa'nın İlk Gelişi

Eli Kittim - Den Lille Åbenbaringsbog: Jesu første komme ved dages ende

Eli Kittim - Den lilla Uppenbarelseboken: Jesu första ankomst vid dagens slut

Eli Kittim - Den lille Åpenbaringsboken: Jesu første komme ved slutten av dagene

Eli Kittim - Pieni Ilmestyskirja: Jeesuksen ensimmäinen tuleminen päivien lopussa

———————————————

3 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Christian Universalism Debunked

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 📚🎓

Introduction

Universal reconciliation (also called “apocatastasis”) is the belief that, in the end, everyone will be saved. Advocates of this position assert that the concept of an eternal hell was never part of Judaism or early Christianity. Although this is certainly a very appealing view, there are many problems with it. For one thing, it is, in effect, a denial of free will, as if God will somehow coerce us into union with him. For another, morality has been thrown to the wind, as if there is no punishment for lawlessness. This doctrine essentially urges us to do what we please because, in the end, we will *literally* get away with murder! It reminds me of Aleister Crowley’s occultic expression, “Do what thou wilt.” The motto is, eat and drink for tomorrow we’re saved. Thus, whether or not you murder, torture, molest, or harass innocent human beings is unimportant and irrelevant. You’re going to heaven. So carry on. There’s no need to stop. This position reminds me of free grace theology which essentially says the same thing: don’t stop sinning because you’re already saved. Therefore, both views are unscriptural and unacceptable❗️

The New Testament does not support universalism, and in fact mentions the reality of hell many times. The belief in hell is also contained in the Nicene creed and in the writings of the apostolic fathers. In fact, universalism was officially condemned as a heresy in the second Council of Constantinople (553 AD), when Origen’s teaching of apokatastasis was formally anathematized. Universalism is, therefore, not only a heresy but a denial of scripture. Nevertheless, since the apostolic age, there have been quite a few people who have affirmed the doctrine of universalism. The latest proponent is religious studies scholar David Bentley Hart with his 2019 book, “That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.”

Universalists come in many different flavors. Although some reject the existence of hell completely, others see it as a sort of purgatory prior to entering heaven. Universalists typically argue that the concept of eternal hell is based on a mistranslation of the Greek term αιών (aion). However, the word αἰώνιος means “ever-lasting,” or “eternal” (see Liddell and Scott. “An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.” Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889). Moreover, the idiomatic phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» does mean “forever,” as seen in the following examples:

Gal 1.5 - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Phil 4.20 - τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ

δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

1 Tim 1.17 - τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων

ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ

τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.6 - καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ

αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς

τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.18 - καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς

καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς

τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου.

The No-Hell Argument

Universalists claim that there’s no hell, and especially no “eternal hell.” Let’s see if their claims can be substantiated. How do the universalists explain the fallen angels who are locked away? Where are they imprisoned? (2 Pet 2.4). Doesn’t sound like the land of the dead (Sheol)! Plus, the Greek words that are used in these particular contexts suggest “eternity,” not annihilation or apocatastasis. For example, Jude 1.6-7 (NRSV) reads:

And the angels who did not keep their own

position but deserted their proper dwelling,

he has kept in eternal [ἀϊδίοις] chains

[δεσμοῖς] in deepest darkness for the

judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom

and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,

which, in the same manner as they,

indulged in sexual immorality and pursued

unnatural lust, serve as an example by

undergoing [ὑπέχουσαι] a punishment

[δίκην] of eternal [αἰωνίου] fire [πυρὸς].

By the way, «αἰωνίου δίκην» means “eternal judgment.” So the question is, if all the damned are eventually saved (universalism), or if they simply die in the land of the dead (annihilationism), then why did God *prepare* (ἡτοιμασμένον) the eternal fire (τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον) for the devil & his angels❓ (Mt 25.41, 46 [eternal punishment; κόλασιν αἰώνιον]; cf. Mk 9.48; 2 Pet 2.4; Jude 1.13; Rev 14.11; 20.10)! The Greek phrase «κόλασιν αἰώνιον» actually means “eternal punishment.” Daniel 12.2, in the Septuagint (LXX), also mentions an “everlasting life” for the righteous, as well as an “everlasting shame” for the wicked:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of

the earth shall awake, some to everlasting

life, and some to reproach and everlasting

shame.

The Greek phrases «ζωὴν αἰώνιον» and «αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον» mean “everlasting life” and “everlasting shame,” respectively. Look up the phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» (Gal. 1.5; Phil. 4.20; 1 Tim. 1.17; 2 Tim. 4.18; Heb. 13.21; 1 Pet. 4.11; Rev. 1.6; 1.18; 4.9-10; 5.13; 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5)! The phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» means “for ever and ever.” Moreover, if the damned die once for all, then why is the word “eternal” used to frequently describe their punishment❓ Is it simply that our *memory* of them will be “eternal”? That’s not exactly what the Bible says. So, is the Bible (or God) lying to us or trying to confuse us?

Annihilationism: How ‬Bart Ehrman‪ Gets Things Wrong In His Book, Heaven and Hell

Although some believers in universal reconciliation (aka “apocatastasis”) might accept the notion of hell in some short-term temporal sense, they do not accept it either as a a place of endless torment or as a place of ultimate “annihilation” for the wicked after the last judgment. And although this subsection is on the topic of annihilationism, I’m discussing it simply because it has a great deal to say about the term αἰώνιον (everlasting), which the universalists mistranslate!

In his “Fresh Air Interview” with Terry Gross, world-renowned biblical scholar Bart Ehrman falsely “states that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found in the Old Testament.” This statement directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament. Much to Bart Ehrman‪’s‬ dismay, there is a clear reference to a resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament in which there are definite rewards and punishments that await both the righteous and the wicked. In fact, these rewards and punishments are said to be “everlasting.” The following constitutes a further treatment of Daniel 12.2 (NRSV), which reads:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the

earth shall awake, some to everlasting life

and some to shame and everlasting

contempt.

The so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the Septuagint (LXX) confirms that the rewards and punishments in the aftermath of the resurrection are indeed *continuous* by using the Greek word αἰώνιον, which means “everlasting.” Daniel Th 12.2 proclaims:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

The Hebrew text (BHS) of Daniel 12.2 reads:

‎וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עֹולָ֔ם

‎וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפֹ֖ות לְדִרְאֹ֥ון עֹולָֽם׃ ס

The key Hebrew words are עוֹלָ֔ם ‘ō·w·lām (everlasting) and לְדִרְא֥וֹן lə·ḏir·’ō·wn (contempt). In short, the dead are not annihilated, nor do they sleep forever, as Ehrman mistakenly assumes, but are rather *resurrected* to exist either in an “everlasting life” of Blessedness or in “everlasting contempt.” What is more, Daniel 12 is found in the Masoretic and Qumran texts and is not, therefore, a later edition.

As for Ehrman’s other false statement “that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found . . . in the teachings of Jesus,” he should go back and restudy the Koine Greek of the earliest New Testament gospel, namely, the gospel of Mark! The English translation of Mark 9.47-48 reads as follows:

And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear

it out; it is better for you to enter the

kingdom of God with one eye than to have

two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where

their worm never dies, and the fire is never

quenched.

Two things are indisputably mentioned by Jesus that are both unequivocal and categorical: the *punishment* is •everlasting• in that neither human beings nor the fires of hell (γέενναν) are put out or extinguished. In short, human beings never die and the fires of hell never end. And this pericope is considered to be part of the sayings of Jesus! Thus, in accordance with Daniel 12.2, Jesus definitely confirms the duration, rather than the extinction, of the afterlife! In fact, the Greek term πῦρ (“fire” of hell) in Mark 9.48 is the exact same term used to designate “the lake of fire” (Gk. λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς) in Revelation 20.10! The Greek text (NA28) of Mark 9.48 is illuminating in this regard. It reads:

ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ

πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.

The Greek term σκώληξ (skóléx) means “worm,” “symbolizing perhaps the loathsomeness of the penalty” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) or it maybe used figuratively as a general term of contempt for a living being. Moreover, the Greek phrase οὐ τελευτᾷ means that their “organism” (or “worm”) never ceases to exist; it does not come to an end. Equally, the Greek phrase οὐ σβέννυται means that the fires (Gk. πῦρ) of punishment are not put out: they are not extinguished or quenched! It’s also important to note that Mark 9.48 is not an interpolation because it’s preserved in Isaiah 66.24. It’s part of the Old Testament tradition.

In other words, Jesus clearly teaches in Mark 9.47-48 that there are eternal punishments precisely because people do not cease to exist after death, nor are the fires of hell put out (cf. Mt. 25.46). And Daniel 12.2, among other places in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Isa. 66.24), supports the New Testament teaching of the abiding presence of rewards and punishments for both the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife! Further supportive evidence comes from Rev. 20.10, which contradicts annihilationism by explicitly stating that the damned “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Gk. βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)! Besides, if annihilationism is true, why, then, will the damned be resurrected? To die again❓(Jn 5.29). It doesn’t make any sense! It is, therefore, deeply misleading and particularly dangerous to assume that the Bible does not speak of an afterlife or that there are no ultimate consequences for our actions here on earth!

Universalists Misinterpret Scripture

Universalists are putting a spin on practically every scriptural verse they mention, adding a speculative (private) interpretation that is not in the text, while ignoring other parts of scripture that say the exact opposite. It’s a sort of *confirmation bias* in which they add interpretations to the text that are not explicitly stated. For the sake of convenience, I’ll simply mention a few verses that they often use to twist scripture in order to make it say what it doesn’t actually say.

For example, Rev 5.13 is talking about the new creation——that is, everyone who has been reborn in Christ——when it says that all will sing praises to God. But it doesn’t mean that the most violent and wicked demons that ever lived (such as Satan) will hold candles and sing praises to God. Or, take 1 John 4.14. Yes, Christ is the Savior of the world, meaning that his atonement covers all human beings, provided that they’re freely willing to come to him. But that doesn’t mean that the will of the people can be forced into salvation. Similarly, 1 Timothy 2.4-6 says that God wants all men to be saved. But this verse is simply informing us of God’s disposition, not that all men will definitely be saved. Along the same lines, Philippians 2.9-11 says that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But this could be referring to the new creation following the judgment, after the former things have passed away. Besides, during the judgment, the unsaved will certainly recognize that Jesus is Lord, even if they despise him. It’s a similar situation to the demons who acknowledge God’s existence in James 2.19. Moreover, the narratives in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which claim that all nations will come to worship God, are true. But they are symbolic of those particular nations that will be saved. They don’t imply that each and every person that ever lived will be saved, or that there is no judgement:

Psalm 1.5 - Therefore the wicked will not stand

in the judgment nor sinners in the

congregation of the righteous.

Psalm 7.6 - Rise up, O Lord, in your anger;  lift yourself up against the fury of

my enemies; awake, O my God;

you have appointed a judgment.

Jn 5.24 - Very truly, I tell you, anyone who

hears my word and believes him

who sent me has eternal life and

does not come under judgment but

has passed from death to life.

Jn 5.29 - and [they] will come out: those

who have done good to the

resurrection of life, and those who

have done evil to the resurrection

of condemnation.

Rom 2.3 - Do you imagine, whoever you are,

that when you judge those who do

such things and yet do them

yourself, you will escape the

judgment of God?

1 Pet 4.17 - For the time has come for

judgment to begin with the

household of God; if it begins with

us, what will be the end for those

who do not obey the gospel of

God?

2 Pet 2.4 - God did not spare the angels when

they sinned but cast them into hell

and committed them to chains of

deepest darkness to be kept until

the judgment;

What is more, Ephesians 1.11 doesn’t say that God will bring all people under Christ, as some universalists have argued. Rather, it says that those who have been saved have been predestined to obtain an inheritance according to God’s will, and that all things work according to his will. Besides, in 1 Corinthians 15.22-28, Christ is said to eliminate all his enemies, and after that he will recreate a new universe in which God will be all in all (in the new creation, that is!). It means that God will be in all the righteous people that remain, not in all the wicked to whom he says “I never knew you; depart from me” (Mt. 7.23 ESV)! Moreover, if “the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Mt. 7.14 NRSV), does that sound like universalism? And if “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3.5), how, then, can people who are not born of the Spirit be saved? And if all will be saved, then why are we commanded to preach the gospel? Why do we need to be reborn then? Why even believe in Jesus? Thus, universalism has clearly embraced aberrant teachings based on mistranslations and misinterpretations❗️

The Universalists Claim that Eternal Hell Does Not Exist Because God is Love

But God is also Justice. Everyone will be punished accordingly. Everyone will be judged. No one will get off scot-free. Everyone will get what they deserve. You don’t have to look very far to see the coming judgment, such as Jesus waging war on the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8), or waging a just war in Rev. 19.11, or the wrath of Christ that leaves corpses lying dead by the thousands (Rev. 19.18), or “the great winepress of the wrath of God”:

Rev 14.19-20

So the angel swung his sickle over the earth

and gathered the vintage of the earth, and

he threw it into the great winepress of the

wrath of God. And the winepress was

trodden outside the city, and blood flowed

from the winepress, as high as a horse’s

bridle, for a distance of about one thousand

six hundred stadia.

Rom 12.19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave

room for the wrath of God, for it is written,

‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the

Lord.’

Deut 32.35

for the day of vengeance and recompense,

for the time when their foot shall slip?

Because the day of their calamity is at

hand; their doom comes swiftly.

Isa 13.6

Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;

it will come like destruction from the

Almighty!

Isa 13.9

See, the day of the Lord is coming,

cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,  to make the earth a desolation

and to destroy its sinners from it.

Jer 46.10

That day is the day of the Lord God of

hosts, a day of retribution,

to gain vindication from his foes.  The sword shall devour and be sated

and drink its fill of their blood. 

Does that sound like universal salvation❓So even though God is good, he is also just❗️

Conclusion

There are two views on opposite sides of the spectrum. One claims that all the wicked will be destroyed, while the other asserts that they will be saved. Both are wrong❗️ As we have seen, both annihilationism and universal reconciliation (apocatastasis) are not consistent with the teaching of Scripture. The Bible tells us that the wicked will continue to exist in “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12.2). Their everlasting abode is described as an eternal place “where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48)❗️

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!

Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”

But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!

By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!

1 note · View note