What Is Truth? Pilate Asked.

“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Feigned madness

Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:

a persistent false … belief … that is

maintained despite indisputable evidence to

the contrary.

——- Merriam-Webster dictionary

It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:

‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in

popular culture to describe the assumption

of a mental disorder for the purposes of

evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.

——- Wikipedia

It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:

Denial … is a psychological defense

mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst

Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced

with a fact that is too uncomfortable to

accept and rejects it instead, insisting that

it is not true despite what may be

overwhelming evidence.

——- Wikipedia

It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:

The theory of denial was first researched

seriously by Anna Freud. She classified

denial as a mechanism of the immature

mind because it conflicts with the ability to

learn from and cope with reality.

——- Wikipedia

Seeking Truth

But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?

What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’

——- John 14.6 (NASB)

So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).

What is Truth?

When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:

you will know the truth, and the truth will set

you free.

——- John 8.32

First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”

Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:

Everyone who is of the truth listens to My

voice.

——- John 18.37

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”

That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).

We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:

Are you willing to follow the *truth*

regardless of where it might lead?

——-

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!

The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles

First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.

Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.

Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the 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.”!

Was There An Oral Tradition?

The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

Tumblr

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

By Eli Kittim 🎓 When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argumen

First, the gospels are written anonymously.

Second, there are no eyewitnesses.

Third, there are no firsthand accounts.

Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

tumblr.com

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim ——- The New Testament: Book by Book Matthew. Place Written: Antioch? Written in 80-85 CE. Author: anonymous; tradit

Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:

“The majority of New Testament scholars

agree that the Gospels do not contain

eyewitness accounts; but that they present

the theologies of their communities rather

than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki

“Many biblical scholars view the discussion

of historicity as secondary, given that

gospels were primarily written as

theological documents rather than historical

accounts”. — Wiki

Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

tumblr.com

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim ——- A Call For a *New Reformation* A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way: “If your doc

What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?

First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.

Mark 1.28

“News about him spread quickly over the

whole region of Galilee”.

Mt. 4.24

“News about him spread all over Syria.”

Matthew 4.25

“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and

the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea

and from beyond the Jordan.”

So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?

Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.

Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.

Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.

Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.

Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:

“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th

century and from the Benedictine abbey at

Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving

copy of the passage describing Christians.

Scholars generally agree that these copies

were written at Monte Cassino and the end

of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus

cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of

the two abbots of that name at the abbey

during that period”. — Wiki

Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.

Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!

But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?

Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.

Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?

First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):

“For I would have you know, brothers and

sisters, that the gospel which was preached

by me is not of human invention. For I

neither received it from man, nor was I

taught it, but I received it through a

revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.

There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ

I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

tumblr.com

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

By Author Eli Kittim ——- What does the Bible say about salvation? Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a c

The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods

By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚

The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits

Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).

However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.

As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.

What is more, the Bible has many different literary genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text

Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:

the sons of God had intercourse with the

daughters of human beings.

The NET Bible similarly says:

the sons of God were having sexual

relations with the daughters of humankind.

The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:

the sons of God had intercourse with

women.

These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:

Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,

romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons

of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the

Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian

Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in

Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of

different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:

The fallen ones were in the earth in those

days, and even afterwards when sons of

God come in unto daughters of men, and

they have borne to them -- they are the

heroes, who, from of old, are the men of

name.

It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man

was great in the earth, and that every

intention of the thoughts of his heart was

only evil continually.

The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.

But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”

But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!

The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist

In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!

Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:

The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on

the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New

King James’). These figures, which are

beyond human description, represent the

gods that have come down upon the earth

in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to

whom scripture devotes a brief but

noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who

were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).

Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:

Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the

clouds, and every eye will see Him.

From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.

The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!

Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).

Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!

Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:

I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the

serpent of old who is called the devil and

Satan, who deceives the whole world; he

was thrown down to the earth, and his

angels were thrown down with him.

Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:

I saw one of his heads as if it had been

fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was

healed. And the whole earth was amazed

and followed after the beast; they

worshiped the dragon because he gave his

authority to the beast; and they worshiped

the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,

and who is able to wage war with him?’

Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:

For the coming of the Son of Man will be

just like the days of Noah.

It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:

And its end will come with a flood.

In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:

And there was war in heaven, Michael and

his angels waging war with the dragon. The

dragon and his angels waged war.

Conclusion

Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible’s internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah’s Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience.

——-

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!

🎥 Eli of Kittim

Rumble Channel 🎥

🕎 Eli Kittim On Bible Prophecy ✝️

————————————-

🎓📚 Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓

————————————-

🌏🪐🌓🌍🌖🌎🪐