The Two Witnesses Of Revelation 11

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!

A Study in Textual Criticism: Who’s Copying Who in First Timothy 5:18 & Luke 10:7

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

First Corinthians 9:9 is the first New Testament verse to quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The Septuagint version reads:

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads

out the corn.

Remember that 1 Corinthians was written around 53–54 ce. by Paul.

First Corinthians 9:9 (SBLGNT) reads as follows:

ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται · Οὐ

κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν

μέλει τῷ θεῷ.

Translation (NASB):

For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘You

shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.’

God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

Then, 1 Cor. 9:10 gives us the “interpretation”:

ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ

ἐγράφη, ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ⸃ ὁ ἀροτριῶν

ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ

μετέχειν.

Translation:

Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes,

it was written for our sake, because the

plowman ought to plow in hope, and the

thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the

crops.

Interestingly enough, 1 Cor. 9:9 must be copying an alternative version of the Septuagint because it uses the word κημώσεις instead of the Septuagint’s φιμώσεις. Both words mean “to muzzle.”

Then, the unknown author of 1 Timothy——who composed the letter around the end of the first century——seems to be quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, rather than from 1 Cor. 9:9. First Timothy 5:18 is actually quoting the Greek Septuagint verbatim but switching the word order around:

First Timothy 5:18 says:

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή · Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ

φιμώσεις, καί · Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ

αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT

MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,’

and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’

But notice that the quotation from 1 Tim. 5:18 is backwards:

Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις.

Compare Deut. 25:4 (LXX):

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

Perhaps 1 Tim. 5:18 is involved in a mop-up job to clean up the verse that 1 Cor. 9:9 kind of changed a little bit.

Anyway, 1 Tim. 5:18 also adds the “interpretation”:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

The laborer is worthy of his wages.

Luke 10:7 reads:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke omits the “saying” from Deut. 25:4 and simply states the “interpretation,” which is found in 1 Cor. 9:10. But, surprisingly, Luke seems to be quoting from Exod. 22:15 (LXX):

ἐὰν δὲ μισθωτὸς ᾖ, ἔσται αὐτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ

μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

but if it be a hired thing, there shall be [a

compensation] to him instead of his hire.

So it’s unclear whether Luke 10:7 is copying 1 Cor. 9:9-10, or an entirely different context from Exod. 22:15 (LXX). Remember that the saying “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing” was first quoted in the NT by 1 Cor. 9:9, which then added the “interpretation” (NASB):

the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in

the crops.

But the Greek text of Luke seems to be copying from elsewhere when it says: “the laborer is deserving of his wages” (Lk 10:7). Let’s not forget that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in the 50s, prior to Luke’s gospel, which was written c. 80-85 ce.

Neither 1 Tim. 5:18 nor Lk 10:7 seem to be copying directly from 1 Cor. 9:9-10, even though the “saying” that we are studying (from Deut. 25:4) was first quoted and interpreted in 1 Corinthians back in the 50s. Rather, it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting Luke almost verbatim. The unknown author of 1 Tim. 5:18 simply omits the word γὰρ. Notice the 3 versions side by side (SBLGNT):

First Corinthians 9:10:

καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.

First Timothy 5:18:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 10:7:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

To sum up, 1 Cor. 9:9 was the first to quote Deut. 25:4, probably using an alternative Septuagint reading from the pluriform textual tradition. And it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is sanitizing 1 Cor. 9:9-10 by quoting the LXX verbatim, but simply altering the word order. Interestingly enough, 1 Tim. 5:18 uses Luke’s interpretation nearly verbatim, and doesn’t quote Paul from 1 Cor. 9:9-10. If Paul had written 1 Tim., we would have expected him to quote himself (from 1 Cor. 9:9). First Timothy 5:18 may also be sanitizing Luke, who might be copying a wrong verse, thus tying Luke to Paul. The connection between 1 Cor. 9:9-10 & Luke 10:7 only becomes apparent in 1 Tim. 5:18’s editorial work which harmonizes the two! So the copying sequence runs from Deuteronomy to 1 Corinthians to Luke to 1 Timothy. Given that 1 Timothy was written after Luke, it’s fair to assume that it is copying Luke. But this is not Paul. It’s an unknown author. The point of all these verses is that the followers of Christ, who labor for the kingdom, should know that they will be handsomely rewarded for their toil!

Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Eli Kittim

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

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

he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;


upon him was the chastisement that

brought us peace, and with his wounds we

are healed.

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

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

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

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

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,

and the ark of his covenant was seen within

his temple. There were flashes of lightning,

rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,

and heavy hail.

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

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,

coming down out of heaven from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for her

husband. And I heard a loud voice from the

throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of

God is with man. He will dwell with them,

and they will be his people, and God himself

will be with them as their God.’

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

at the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, in heaven and on earth and under the

earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the

Father.

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

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

your God, and you shall be My people.

Compare Revelation 21.3:

He will dwell with them, and they will be his

people, and God himself will be with them

as their God.

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 Exact Month and Year of Jesus’ Birth Are Revealed in the Bible

By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Matthew 1.17 tells us the year of Jesus’ birth

Astoundingly, the gospel of Matthew imparts a cryptic clue concerning the birth of Jesus that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, is actually a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of his birth! The key to solving this puzzle can be found in Chapter 1 and Verse 17. Notice that there is a constant repetition of 14 generations throughout the foregoing lineage. We also know from Scripture that a generation is equal to 70 years (Ps. 90.10). Matthew 1.17 reads as follows:

there were fourteen generations in all from

Abraham to David, fourteen from David to

the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the

exile to the Messiah.

One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! Do the math.

So, let’s work out the calculation. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from David to Babylon. Each generation is equal to 70 years. Thus, 14 x 70 = 980 years from David to Babylon. And there were 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah. Therefore, 14 x 70 = 980 years. So, from David to the exile are 980 years, and from the exile to the Messiah are another 980 years. Hence 980 (+) 980 = 1960, the year of the Messiah’s birth! Mind you, this is not a historical but rather an esoteric rendering, which contains a cryptic clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth!

Luke 1.26 tells us the month of Jesus’ birth

The Bible is very clear and very simple when it comes to imparting cryptic and esoteric clues. We don’t need to use overly technical, heavy-handed, and convoluted mathematical equations. For instance, in an attempt to figure out the month of Jesus’ birth, some scholars begin by applying the months pertaining to the 24 courses of the Levitical priests that rotate to minister in the Tabernacle (based on John the Baptist’s father in Luke 1.5, “Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”), and then, after figuring out the date of Elizabeth’s conception, they add 6 months to determine the timing of Mary’s conception (Luke 1.26, 36), and so on and so forth. But this calculation is far too complex and very confusing. By contrast, Luke’s gospel makes it very, very simple and very clear. Luke 1.26-27 reads thusly:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel

was sent from God to a city in Galilee

named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a

man whose name was Joseph, of the

descendants of David; and the virgin’s

name was Mary.

In Luke 1.26, the angel was sent “in the sixth month.” That’s the clue. That’s the key! Simple and to the point. The sixth month (in the Jewish religious calendar) is called Elul. In the Gregorian calendar it falls on the month of August. Thus, that’s the month that the Messiah is born!

Conclusion

In chapter 1 verse 17, Matthews’ genealogy is theological, not historical. That’s because “historically” it doesn’t make any sense. For example, we know that the Babylonian exile took place sometime around 586 BCE. If David lived approximately 980 years earlier, that would put David’s timeline at around 1566 BCE, which is historically inaccurate. David lived around 1,000 BCE. Similarly, 980 years after the Babylonian exile would put Jesus’ birth at around 394 CE (the fourth century), making him a contemporary of Jerome. So Matthew’s genealogy is obviously crypto-theological, not historical. It is meant to impart a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of the Messiah’s birth!

But you may object and say, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was born in 4 BCE and died sometime around 30 CE, right? Well, not exactly. The gospels are theological, not historical, documents. Scholars know that the early extra-biblical references to Jesus by people like Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with (interpolations). What is more, there are no eyewitnesses and no first-hand accounts of Jesus. There are also many literary discrepancies in the New Testament. For example, the earliest New Testament writings (the Pauline letters) don’t contain the embellishments and legends we find in the later writings (the gospels). Not to mention the historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus was supposedly born in 4 BCE (Matthew) or 6 CE (Luke).

But, more importantly, the New Testament epistles themselves tell us that Jesus will actually be born during the consummation of the ages, or “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), and that he will be “revealed [for the very first time] at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB). Moreover, Hebrews 1.2 tells us that Jesus will speak to humankind in the “last days,” while Rev. 12.5 confirms that Jesus will be born in the end-times as a contemporary of the last empire on earth (the so-called “7-headed dragon with 10 horns”), during a time period just prior to *the great tribulation* that lasts 3 and a half years (see Rev. 12.5-6, 13-14). Similarly, Isaiah 2.19 says that the Lord rises (or resurrects) “to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no 2,000 year gap between Jesus’ resurrection and judgment day! Rather, they’re contemporaneous events. And Daniel 12.1-2 prophesies (in the Greek Septuagint) about a princely figure who will die and resurrect in the last days, just prior to the *general resurrection* of the dead.

So, there are many, many references to the Messiah’s one-and-only visitation in the end-times (e.g. Job 19.25; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 2.1—3; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 19.10d)! But probably the most important and explicit reference to Jesus’ *atonement* and *death* at the end of days comes from Hebrews 9.26b (KJV), which says categorically and unequivocally that the timeline of this event is in the end-times:

once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus]

appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice

[or death] of himself.

So, according to Hebrews 9.26b, Jesus’ death takes place “in the end of the world,” not 2,000 years ago! Therefore, the one-and-only visitation of Jesus in the end-times is well-supported and multiply attested!

——-

For further scholarly details (from the original Greek) on the future incarnation of Christ, watch the following (short) video: ⬇️

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

——-

I just spent some time giving you the backstory concerning the Jesus prophecy. Now that you understand the biblical timeline and context of Jesus’ one-and-only coming, let’s get back to what we were talking about earlier. So, in conclusion, Matthew 1.17 reveals the year of the Messiah’s birth (1960)! Similarly, Luke 1.26 reveals the month that the Messiah is born (in August)! Thus, Jesus the Messiah has already been born and will soon appear on the world stage. That’s precisely why the countdown to Armageddon began after the restoration of Israel in 1948. The rebirth of Israel in 1948 (Ezek. 38.8) marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations in that modern Israel becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days (cf. Mt. 24.32-34; Acts 1.6). So the idea that the Messiah would be born 12 years after the rebirth of modern Israel coincides with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. Accordingly, the so-called *restoration* of “Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9.25), in the 70 weeks of Daniel, also began during this same time period! In other words, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel also prophesies of a coming messiah after the restoration of Israel. If you do the work of modern critical scholarship, it all fits like a glove. So, are we living in the last days? You better believe it!

——-

For further details on the 70 weeks of Daniel, see the following article: ⬇️

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

Tumblr

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim ——- Christological readings The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Boo

——-

The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels

By Eli Kittim 🎓

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

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

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

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

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