Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
What Is The Super-Sign Of The Coming Antichrist In Revelation 13? And Is The COVID-19 Vaccine The Mark
What is the Super-Sign of the Coming Antichrist in Revelation 13? And Is the COVID-19 Vaccine the Mark of the Beast?
By Author Eli Kittim
The First Beast of Revelation 13: The Antichrist
Given that Revelation 13 mainly features the political leader whom we call the Antichrist, and his prophesied final empire, this article will only deal with the first beast (the political figure), not the second (the religious figure). The latter subject has been treated elsewhere on my blog.
Russia is the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns
The key words of the prologue are: θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, ἔχον κέρατα δέκα, καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά (Rev. 13.1). That’s the notorious beast with 7 heads and 10 horns. Most Biblical studies indicate that this is Russia. Based on Daniel 7.19-22 and Revelation 17.9-13 no other country except Russia can claim to be the 7th successive world-empire after Babylon, which comprised 10 rulers of the Soviet Union.
(For further details on why Russia is the 7th empire with 10 kings see my article “Nostradamus and the Bible Seemingly Predict the Coming of Putin”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the).
The Super-Sign: Russian Ruler Will Come Back from the Dead
As we continue with Revelation 13’s account, it notes that the first beast had the feet of a bear (ἄρκου v. 2), which is the modern symbol of Russia. In verse 3 we are told in no uncertain terms that the dragon (Satan) gave the political leader of this nation (“him”; αὐτοῦ v. 1-2) his power and his throne, as well as great authority (ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην)! So, even though it speaks of an empire, Revelation 13 repeatedly talks of its leader as a person (αὐτοῦ), using the personal pronoun αὐτός, meaning “he.” Based on my extensive eschatological studies, this person will be the leader of Russia, during the Great Tribulation, who will rule a one-world government (v. 7) for 42 months (v. 5) or three and a half years!
Next, verse 3 tells us that he will die. In fact, he will be killed (ἐσφαγμένην v.3) by a sword (τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης v. 14). But he will also be miraculously resurrected, and the world will marvel at that event (ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη, καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη ἡ γῆ v.3). This will be the turning point or the super-sign of his rise to fame. The result is that every one on the planet will worship Satan, who gave his authority to the beast, but they will also worship the beast as well for his tremendous powers (v. 4, 12). They’ll worship him as a god, asking a rhetorical question: “Who is as great as the beast?” … “Who is able to fight against him?” (Rev. 13.4 NLT).
The Worship of Antichrist and the Tightening of his Grip on Power
He will speak of great things but will also blaspheme God, his name, his temple, as well as the heavenly host (v. 6). Then he will be successful in a sort of ethnic cleansing campaign in which he will exterminate the sacred or holy people and their religion, and will subsequently rule over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation (v. 7). In fact, all the inhabitants of the earth will worship him, at least all those who are not regenerated in Christ (v. 8). This is the same time period when imprisonments, executions, and divided loyalties (even among family members)——which Matthew 24.8-13 predicts——will occur (v. 10).
This is precisely why Matthew 24 repeatedly warns of deception, namely, of messianic figures who will claim to be the Christ, producing “great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt 24.4-5, 11, 23-26 NRSV). Let’s face it, who could resist admiring, if not worshiping, someone who just came back from the dead?
The Mark of the Beast
Revelation chapter 13 verse 16 makes clear that the beast is able to rule the whole world, and control commerce and trade, through a mandatory mark that all must receive in order to buy, or sell, or hold a job (v. 17). This mark (χάραγμα) is like an identification-marker or a “brand-mark” of a person. The word χάραγμα itself suggests something similar to a branding iron that is pressed against livestock in order to leave an identifying mark. It’s something akin to a fingerprint or a tattoo. Something along those lines was recently developed by MIT, embedding a person’s vaccination history directly into the skin, using a dye that’s invisible to the naked eye but visible with a special cell-phone filter. Similarly, a needle puncture is also said to be a “mark” made by a pointed instrument.
Government Surveillance Within YourSelf
Due to our current pandemic crisis——the worldwide lockdowns, quarantines, the emergence of new COVID-19 variants that have appeared as a result of mass vaccination, according to French virologist Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize in medicine), and the increasing government policies to vaccinate every single individual on the planet——the so-called “mark” can certainly take the form of a needle injection. Given that the COVID passports will eventually become unique individual profiles (replacing fingerprints), the vaccinations themselves will require data entries and updates, close monitoring, nanotechnology, follow-ups, and the like. In short, they will become our profiles that, hooked up to computers, will tell a government employee or a doctor all they need to know about us. Not to mention that they will have tracking devices to know exactly where you are at any given moment.
We already have nanotechnology, like scanning probe microscopes that comprise imaging, measuring, and generally manipulating matter at the smallest possible scale. For example, Lipid nanoparticles are an important component of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. They’re liposomes which employ nanotechnology and are used for the efficient delivery of various therapeutics. This technology is already available and in use! This is scary because it implies potential government surveillance not from without but rather from within your own body.
It is, first and foremost, a violation of the right to privacy, namely, that an individual’s private information must not be made public without their consent. With the emergence of technology, however, our personal information has already ended up in the databases of third parties, sold to the highest bidder, not to mention the possibility of being hacked. This nanotechnology also violates our constitutional rights. In fact, a mandatory vaccine with surveillance capability would constitute a violation of the right to a person’s privacy. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states:
[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated …
Social Conformity Imposed By Unethical Vaccinations
Not to mention that these vaccines are essentially unethical because they do not measure up to the medical guidelines for patient safety, which are best achieved by high standards and safety protocols. Rather, they were hastily distributed on the basis of “emergency use authorizations and approvals.” Typically, it takes at least 2 years for a vaccine to go through clinical trials in order to test its efficacy and adverse reactions. In the case of the current vaccines, it was several months. Moreover, if a potential vaccine kills 25 to 50 people, at most, it is discarded as unsafe. However, the current vaccines have killed over 4,000 people already and yet people continue to propagate fake news about its successes. Despite the adverse reactions——deaths, blood-clots, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, facial swelling & paralysis, myocarditis, severe anaphylaxis, and other medical concerns and complications that have put a halt to some vaccines, at least for a time——nevertheless they are relentlessly promoted as if they are wonder drugs and super-safe. And instead of years of testing and academic peer-review, they have been authorized for use on very short notice. That’s why if you decide to get vaccinated you’ll be asked to sign a consent form (i.e. a Waiver of Liability Agreement) so that they have “in writing” your consensual participation in an experimental drug, indicating that you fully understand the risks of the vaccine, which is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
Meanwhile, other cures like hydroxychloroquine (whose side effects are very mild by comparison) have been banned in the US. The stakeholders have conveniently banned this significantly safer treatment in order that you succumb to the vaccinations that are being aggressively imposed on you. And even when credible doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough (Doctor of Internal Medicine & Board certified Cardiologist), voice their genuine concerns, they are usually censored and ostracised by the fake news media.
Vaccine Passports As a Form of Allegiance: the Initial Phase of Globalist Control
I’m not, by any means, suggesting that the COVID-19 vaccines are, in and of themselves, the mark of the beast. But I am warning that these soon-to-be-mandatory vaccines, and their associated passports, will be *used* by the Antichrist to control world commerce and trade in the near future. In other words, it’s not just social conformity and the subjugation of the masses by means of scare tactics with regard to a pandemic that is at stake, here, but, more importantly, the implantation of a digital vaccine ID that will eventually become a form of *technological allegiance* (i.e. surrendering your mind and body) to the Antichrist’s one-world government, which will ultimately seal people’s fates. The regenerated Christians, however, will be divergent! In the globalist agenda, the vaccine passports are simply the first phase of government conformity and allegiance!
Conclusion
The super-sign of the Antichrist will be the miraculous *resurrection* of a prominent figure, most probably a Russian leader! That will be the ultimate sign that will give away the identity of the Antichrist. That’s the deception that the Bible warned us about in Mt 24 and 2 Thess. 2.4, 9-12. The person that will be resurrected from the dead is not the Christ. The difference is this: whereas the Antichrist’s resurrection will propel him to world domination, Christ’s resurrection will trigger the rapture.
Moreover, if by “the mark of the beast” we mean some type of technological allegiance to the one-world government of the Antichrist, without which you can neither buy or sell (Rev. 13.17), then a vaccine passport would certainly qualify as “the mark of the beast.” And I haven’t even discussed the House of Representatives bill 6666 that would authorize COVID-19 “contact tracing [surveillance technology?], through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals' residences, and for other purposes.” (see congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666/all-info).
Thus, the introduction of internal surveillance technology (i.e. wireless biomedical data transmission and real-time monitoring), as well as the reprogramming of our DNA via such gene-modification technology, could certainly herald the Biblical end-times! And the Antichrist will most certainly use the dramatic advances in the “Human Vaccines Project” to his advantage in order to facilitate his primary plan for world domination!
More Posts from Eli-kittim
How to Deal with Loneliness, Fears, Phobias, Depression, and Anxiety
By Eli Kittim (Psychologist & Biblical Researcher)
Loneliness, fears, phobias, depression, and anxiety are not so much reactions to real life situations as they are negative maladaptive thinking patterns. The cure or *remedy* lies in exposing the *falsehoods* or *false premises* that create them in the first place, thereby being able to change the negative maladaptive thinking patterns and their associated feelings and emotions. The way to apply this technique is through a process that the Buddhists call “mindfulness.” Christian mystics call it “guarding the heart.”
By constantly paying attention to your mind (i.e. being alert), you grant access to certain thoughts while refusing entry to others. Sometimes you’ll need to question the reliability and authenticity behind the premise of a thought before deciding to accept it as true or discard it as false. With practice, however, you will become successful in removing all forms of anxiety from your life by focusing on the false assumptions behind the negative thinking patterns as well as on the positive things that God has in store for you. 2 Corinthians 10.5 (NIV) explains this technique as follows:
We demolish arguments and every
pretension [or falsehood] that sets itself up
against the knowledge of God [or truth], and
we take captive every thought to make it
obedient to Christ.
Dave Jenkins, the Executive Editor of Theology for Life Magazine, and the Host of the Equipping You in Grace Podcast, put thusly the concept of the guarding of the heart:
For Christians to ‘guard their hearts and
minds’ in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7)
means for them to be alert, through Christ's
power and protection, to what enters and
dwells in their hearts, because the Bible
teaches that what we say and do, and who
we become is the result of the state of our
hearts.
To this end, Philippians 4.7 promises God’s protection:
And the peace of God, which transcends all
understanding, will guard your hearts and
your minds in Christ Jesus.
In order to stay positive and hopeful——in counteracting loneliness, fear, depression, or any other negativity we might have——Paul insists that we should train our minds to entertain only thoughts that are true and beautiful (Philippians 4.8):
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is
true, whatever is noble, whatever is right,
whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable--if anything is
excellent or praiseworthy--think about such
things.
This is the PDF of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles.
A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What is Contextual Theology?
Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?
First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.
Some Examples of Contextual
Theology
For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.
It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?
A Brief Introduction to Contextual
Theologies
Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.
Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.
Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).
Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.
This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):
When Jesus realized that they were about
to come and take him by force to make him
king, he withdrew again to the mountain by
himself.
The Excesses of Feminist Theology
A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.
This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.
Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.
Problems of Contextual Theology
The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.
The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).
Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!
——-
A Response to Jon Bloom’s “Can I Follow My New Heart?”
By Biblical Researcher, Psychologist, & Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim
In an article entitled “Can I Follow My New Heart?” (published July 1, 2021), which was posted on John Piper’s desiringGod website, Jon Bloom, staff writer of https://www.desiringgod.org/ writes:
When Christians are born again, we enter
into a lifelong internal war where ‘the
desires of the flesh are against the Spirit,
and the desires of the Spirit are against the
flesh, for these are opposed to each other,
to keep you from doing the things you want
to do’ (Galatians 5:17).
That is incorrect, inaccurate, and misleading. When Paul talks about the war within, between the flesh and the Spirit, he is referring to a *pre-regenerative* rather than a “post-regenerative” state of mind. This battle or war between the flesh and the Spirit is waged BEFORE “Christians are born again,” NOT after! After “Christians are born again” this battle ENDS! The War within ends, provided an *authentic-regeneration* has taken place (not simply a fake “rebirth” based on a profession of faith or an altar call) in which we have died to our selves in order to receive a new identity (Ephesians 4:22-24). There is no more internal struggle. Sin no longer reigns within. God is now on the throne of your heart and, instead of war, there is peace. Instead of bitterness and anger there is love and self-acceptance. Sin has not been completely eradicated. It’s still there. But it no longer dominates your mind and heart. So, the notion that we enter a battle or a war AFTER we are reborn is completely false. On the contrary, that’s when the battle, in a certain sense, ends for us and tranquility ensues.
Jon Bloom misinterprets both the authorial intent of the Biblical authors as well as the concept of authentic rebirth. He mistakenly employs certain Biblical quotes to suggest that they are referring to a condition AFTER rebirth, when in fact they are referring to a carnal mind PRIOR to regeneration. Thus, he misreads the following verses out-of-context:
their ‘passions are at war within’ them
(James 4:1). Peter warns his readers (and
us), ‘Do not be conformed to the passions
of your former ignorance’ (1 Peter 1:14).
Paul describes this internal experience of
warring passions as ‘wretched’ (Romans
7:24).
Finally, the fact that he’s been totally misreading and distorting the Biblical authors becomes apparent. He writes:
And he [Paul] admonishes the Colossian
Christians (and us) with strong language:
‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in
you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion,
evil desire, and covetousness, which is
idolatry’ (Colossians 3:5). Why did these
apostles feel the need to speak this way to
regenerated people? Because the hearts of
these regenerated people were not yet fully
free from the influence of their flesh, their
old selves.
Why would Paul say “put to death” all these vices to regenerated Christians who have already done just that and have died to sin? And if reborn, recreated Christians are “not yet fully free from the influence of their flesh” (i.e. “their old selves”), then that implies that Christ either lied or was confused when he said “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32 NIV). No! It is Jon Bloom himself who is confused because in spite of what he writes, he nevertheless seems to acknowledge that after rebirth sin no longer dominates. He writes:
Paul lays the theological foundation of our
understanding by explaining ‘that our old
self was crucified with [Christ] in order that
[our] body of sin might be brought to
nothing, so that we would no longer be
enslaved to sin’ (Romans 6:6). Our new
selves were ‘raised with Christ’ (Colossians
3:1) so that ‘we too might walk in newness
of life’ (Romans 6:4). Therefore, we ‘must
consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to
God in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 6:11).
In sharp contrast to Jon Bloom’s overall message, Paul declares a radical change that has ALREADY occurred in the personality as a result of the *NEW BIRTH,* as well as a new way of being that is no longer dominated by sin or the carnal mind (Romans 8:1-2 ESV):
There is therefore now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of
the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ
Jesus from the law of sin and death.
I therefore take issue with the notion of *regeneration* as an “internal war” between the flesh and the Spirit in which we “are not yet fully free.”
For a comparative reading, see the undermentioned link:
“Can I Follow My New Heart?” (Article by Jon Bloom, Staff writer, desiringGod website): https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-i-follow-my-new-heart?fbclid=IwAR0SjG4T6TVZN8TVuB0Sjt-10zS5UnRy05rxjPd00YiVWcixmVCR6dm3EW0
——-
Science & God’s Existence
By Author Eli Kittim
Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?
Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.
No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!
If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!
——-
Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?
Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp
Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.
Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.
——-
Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?
Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.
——-
Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God
If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.
We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.
It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.
——-