Should Our Prayers Be Offered To Jesus Or To The Saints?

Should Our Prayers Be Offered to Jesus or to the Saints?

By Author Eli Kittim

The Communion of Saints

Intercession of the saints plays a crucial role in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. This practice is derived from the Catholic creed of the Communion of saints. The said doctrine holds that dead saints pass instantly into the divine presence and therefore have a sort of fiduciary power in helping others to procure favors and blessings. This is not unlike Shinto, a Japanese religion that incorporates the worship of ancestors. In fact, the Christian patron saints that act as intermediaries between God and humans, interceding for trade, agriculture, health, and so on, are reminiscent of the Greek pantheon of demigods (The Twelve Olympians) in which each deity was responsible for a particular aspect of life. In this sense, the church adopted a form of pagan polytheism. The specific dedications and remembrances of saints in the Catholic, and especially in the Orthodox, churches have been highly developed to such an extent that the entire liturgical year is devoted to and structured around the so-called calendar of saints, in which each day pays homage to a particular saint(s) (i.e. feast day). Not to mention the ancient preoccupation with saints' relics and the lucrative pilgrimages that have been designed for such worship.

Do the Saints in Heaven Pray for the People on Earth?

Much to our dismay, saints in heaven don’t pray on behalf of earthlings. Rather, these martyrs pray for God to avenge their blood (Rev. 6.9-10 NRSV):

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under

the altar the souls of those who had been

slaughtered for the word of God and for the

testimony they had given; they cried out

with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign

Lord, holy and true, how long will it be

before you judge and avenge our blood on

the inhabitants of the earth?’

Similarly, “the prayers of the saints” in Rev. 5.8-10 are solely directed to Jesus, praising him for his extraordinary feats. They’re not about helping John Doe, back on earth, with his financial woes, or Jane Doe with her marital breakdown. Rev. 5.8-10 reads:

When he had taken the scroll, the four living

creatures and the twenty-four elders fell

before the Lamb, each holding a harp and

golden bowls full of incense, which are the

prayers of the saints. They sing a new song:

‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to

open its seals, for you were slaughtered and

by your blood you ransomed for God saints

from every tribe and language and people

and nation; you have made them to be a

kingdom and priests serving our God, and

they will reign on earth.’

Incidentally, the so-called “saints” in Rev. 5.8 are not an elite, hierarchical class of people worthy of worship. That’s a misnomer. On the contrary, all who are *born-again* in Christ are called “saints” (cf. Rom. 1.7). Remember, not even angels are allowed to be worshipped in God’s kingdom (see Rev. 19.10), let alone departed spirits.

Is Praying to Saints Biblical?

Over against the intercessory prayer of saints is Deut. 18.11 which explicitly forbids those who consult the dead (cf. Isa. 8.19). That’s precisely why, in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), the rich man’s intercessory-prayer request is denied!

Sometimes Catholic and Orthodox writers will point to Old Testament accounts in which patriarchs or prophets enlisted the help of an angel (e.g. Gen. 48.16; Zech. 1.8-11). But they fail to mention that the said angel is typically associated with the angel of the Lord, which is traditionally viewed by Christian commentators as the Pre-Incarnate Son (cf. Gen. 16.7; Exod. 33.14; Jer. 1.4). Furthermore, conversing with an angel is not the same as praying to an angel. Yet in defense of intercessory prayer of heavenly beings, Catholic writers often point to the Annunciation as a case in point. But again, Mary’s conversation with Gabriel does not involve an intercessory prayer request, nor an act of prostration or worship.

The Catholic commentariat has also presented several examples from the New Testament to make their point. For instance, they cite Rev. 8.3, namely, the prayers of the saints that rise up before God. However, the context of this eschatological verse is God’s wrath that is poured out upon the earth, not an answer to our prayers (Rev. 8.3-5):

Another angel with a golden censer came

and stood at the altar; he was given a great

quantity of incense to offer with the prayers

of all the saints on the golden altar that is

before the throne. And the smoke of the

incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose

before God from the hand of the angel.

Then the angel took the censer and filled it

with fire from the altar and threw it on the

earth; and there were peals of thunder,

rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an

earthquake.

Human Intercession versus Intercession of saints

The fact that there is a body of Christ (“a cloud of witnesses” Heb. 12.1) is not an invitation or a request to worship them. Catholic scholars have confused the issue even further. They cite various instances in the New Testament in which Paul commands Christians to pray for him (e.g. 2 Cor. 1.11). Or they’ll cite the example of Timothy who commands Christians to pray for one another (1 Tim. 2.1). However, praying “FOR” someone and praying “TO” someone are two completely different things. To pray “for” (or on behalf of) a living person is one thing. To pray “to” a dead person is quite another. In the first case, you’re simply praying *for* the living (human intercession) and asking God to help them in their time of need. However, praying *to* a deceased saint for help is a different matter altogether. Now, you are praying not to God but *to* a dead saint (Intercession of Saints) to help a living human being. As a result, the saints have gained so much power that they have become intercessors between heaven and earth. It’s true that Paul and Timothy instructed Christians to pray for the betterment of others. But that’s not the same as praying to dead saints for help, grace, and blessings.

Although Protestant denominations accept human intercessory prayer for the living (cf. Rom. 15.30), they deny the intercession of the dead on behalf of the living. Similarly, Reformed theologians acknowledge that the “communion of saints" comprise all who are in Christ, including the departed. Nevertheless, in their view, invocations of the departed spirits of saints constitute a transgression of the First Commandment (see Deut. 5.7): “You shall have no other gods before me.”

On the Importance of Developing a Personal Relationship with Christ

The Catholic and Orthodox mindset is that God is not in competition with his creation (Robert Barron), and that although Christ is humanity’s mediator via the cross (1 Tim. 2.5), he’s not necessarily accessible as our 24-7 prayer advocate on a minute-by-minute basis. He has partners and associates that work under him, much like a high-end law firm in New York. But the so-called “managing partner” (i.e. Law firm CEO) at the top is usually inaccessible. Hence the need for the intercessory prayers. They argue that turning to the saints for help is not in competition with Jesus Christ since God has many partners and friends and is the ultimate source of all living things.

But this represents a distortion of Biblical revelation. The multiple attestations of the New Testament are all about Jesus. They feature Jesus as the leading figure, who is the hero of the story, and without whom we cannot be saved. It is the story of the creator who enters creation. He is the one “through whom he [God] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.2). John’s gospel attests of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1.1). Paul declares: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2.9). And without the shedding of his blood there can be no New Testament, much less a church (cf. Heb. 9.17, 22). Phil. 2.10-11 concludes:

so that at the name of Jesus every knee

should bend, in heaven and on earth and

under the earth, and every tongue should

confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the

glory of God the Father.

In Mt. 28.18, the Matthean Jesus exclaims:

All authority in heaven and on

earth has been given to me.

In Rev 1.8, Jesus is equated with God Almighty:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’

says the Lord God, who is and

who was and who is to come,

the Almighty.

In Isaiah chapter 42 verse 8, God says:

I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

With Jesus’ extraordinary credentials and qualifications, why should we consult the spirits of dead men? The point is that Jesus is everything to regenerated Christians. He’s constantly on their mind. Born-again Christians are madly in love because of what Jesus has done for them, namely, he has made them *fully alive,* while their cup is running over with love, peace of mind, and perpetual bliss! Hence, there’s a fire of love for Jesus that burns inside every born-again-Christian’s heart. So, your focus should not be diluted on secondary figures and causes. Rather, your attention must be concentrated on Christ alone, if you are to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2). That’s because there is only *one* mediator (not two or three) between God and humanity——“the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2.5). Therefore, when religion tries to seduce you into chasing after idols, you must run the other way.

Is the Intercession of the Saints Blasphemy?

Dr. Edward Sri——theologian, author, and prominent Catholic speaker who appears regularly on EWTN——wrote a paper entitled, “What Does the Bible Say about Praying to Saints?” The article concludes as follows:

How to Grow in Fellowship with the Saints 

1. Pick a few saints that you want to get to know. 

2. Read their writings and learn about their lives. Fill your mind with their stories and their example. 

3. Talk to those saints, every day. Share your weaknesses with them and ask them to walk with you in your difficult times. Don’t just ask them to pray for you…invite them to be with you in every part of your life.

This borders on blasphemy. The point of Sri’s exhortation is that instead of developing a personal relationship with Jesus, we are encouraged to develop an intimate relationship with a beloved saint of our choosing. In other words, the aforesaid article is strongly urging people to devote themselves to someone other than Christ (in fact, a departed spirit) and to focus all their energies on the said saint. It is a clever, if not demonic, deception to remove our focus away from Christ under cloak of religion (2 Cor. 11.14):

And no wonder! Even Satan disguises

himself as an angel of light.

——-

In the Bible, Do Past Tenses Imply Past History?

By Author Eli Kittim 📚

——-

The Past Tense Versus the Conditional Tense

If we are to see things as they really are, not as we would wish them to be, we must free ourselves from ingrained religious systems of indoctrination, which always end up in some kind of a *confirmation bias* (i.e. the inclination to interpret new evidence as verification of one's preexisting presuppositions or beliefs). That’s why this way of reading and interpreting scripture is not called “exegesis” (i.e. drawing out the meaning according to the authorial intent), but rather “eisegesis” (i.e. reading into the text). One such Biblical preconception is that past tenses *always* refer to past actions that occurred in history.

Any Bible *interpretation* of past tenses that lays primary emphasis on a historical orientation is partly due to a confusion of terms and context. Insofar as the New Testament (NT) is concerned, verbal aspect theory, which is at the cutting edge of Hellenistic Greek linguistics, demonstrates that *tense-forms* do not have any temporal implications. According to Stanley E. Porter, “Idioms of the Greek New Testament” (2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), p. 25:

Temporal values (past, present, future) are

not established in Greek by use of the

verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone. This

may come as a surprise to those who, like

most students of Greek, were taught at an

elementary level that certain tense-forms

automatically refer to certain times when an

action occurs.

In other words, we should never interpret Biblical tense-forms as if they’re corresponding ipso facto to past, present, or future events (i.e. past tense doesn’t equal (=) past action; present tense doesn’t equal (=) present action; future tense doesn’t equal (=) future action). To further complicate matters, there’s another tense in grammar called the "historical present,” which employs verb phrases in the present tense to refer to events that occurred in the past. In narrative accounts, the historical present is often used to evoke a dramatic effect of immediacy. It’s variously called the "historic present, the narrative present, or the dramatic present.” And there are also past tenses that refer to future events. For example, Revelation 7:4 uses the perfect-tense “those who were sealed” to refer to an event that has not happened yet. Bottom line, tenses serve a literary function and should not be confused with the time when an action takes place. Koine Greek, especially, relates aspect rather than time!

Many of the Bible’s tenses suggest various events taking place without specifying the precise timing of their occurrence. Some of these verses are in the “conditional mood.” The conditional mood is used in grammar to convey a statement or assertion whose validity is dependent on some specific condition, possibly a counterfactual one (e.g. what if?). The conditional mood may refer to a particular verb form that expresses a hypothetical state of affairs or an uncertain event that is contingent upon the independent clause. It is sometimes referred to as the "conditional tense.” The following examples will show you that the Biblical statements are conditional or contingent on the happening of an event. In other words, if Christ truly died (condition), then the TIMEFRAME (result) would be mentioned in the Biblical verses. But since the TIMING is not given, in these particular examples, the premise remains conditional upon the happening of this event.

Proper exegesis does not ask us to fall back on personal opinions, private interpretations, presuppositions, or conjectures when we encounter biblical difficulties, but that we pay close attention to the EXACT words of a verse, always asking ourselves WHEN did this happen. Does this or that particular verse tell us? For example, 1 Peter 3.18 (NRSV) is in the conditional mood. It says:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,

the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to

bring you to God. He was put to death in the

flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

But Does 1 Peter 3.18 tell you precisely **WHEN** Christ died? No! All of the past tenses are still in the conditional mood. The timing is still hypothetical. In other words, it’s as if the text were saying:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,

[at some point in history], the righteous for

the unrighteous, in order to bring you to

God. He was put to death in the flesh, but

made alive in the spirit [at some point in

human history].

That’s why it is conditional. It doesn’t specify when or at what point in time this took place. And 1 Pet. 3.18 employs the exact same word that is used in Hebrews 9.26b, namely, “once for all” (hapax). But Heb. 9.26b **DOES** tell you PRECISELY when he dies: “in the end of the world” (KJV). A concordance study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (“the end of the age”; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b) demonstrates that this particular time period, indicated by the aforesaid phrase, could not have possibly occurred 2,000 years ago. And 1 Peter 1.20 (NJB) confirms that Christ “was revealed [initially] at the final point of time”!

——-

Proof that Passages Set in the Past Tense Can Actually Refer to Future Prophecies

Notice that we are not speculating, here. We are using the analogy of scripture, allowing the Bible to define and interpret itself. This hermeneutical method will not be questioned by any credible expositor who has a competent knowledge of exegesis!

The notion that past tenses are not necessarily referring to the past can be proven. It can be demonstrated. The undermentioned passage from Deutero-Isaiah dates from the 6th century bce (500’s). That’s about 500 years BEFORE the purported coming of Christ. But a perfunctory reading of the Book of Isaiah would suggest that Christ ALREADY DIED in the 6th century bce. Notice that Isaiah 53.3-5 (NRSV) is saturated with *past tenses*:

He was despised and rejected by others; a

man of suffering and acquainted with

infirmity; and as one from whom others hide

their faces he was despised, and we held

him of no account. Surely he has borne our

infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we

accounted him stricken, struck down by

God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for

our transgressions, crushed for our

iniquities; upon him was the punishment

that made us whole, and by his bruises we

are healed.

Judging from the PAST TENSES that are used, it appears as if Christ already died in the 6th century bce, prior to Isaiah’s written account. That’s certainly what the past tenses imply.

What do you think? Did it happen? No! Of course not! Isaiah is not writing about a past event. He’s writing about a PROPHECY. But he sets the entire prophecy in the past tense as if it already happened. That’s EXACTLY what the NT is doing. It’s writing about a prophecy, but setting it in the past tense as if it already happened. The author of Isaiah 53 composed this work 500+ years PRIOR to Paul and the NT writings. A cursory reading of Isa. 53 would suggest that Christ died in the 6th century *before Christ* (BC). We tend to read the NT in like manner. Isaiah’s text therefore *proves* that prophecy can be set in the past tense!

Similarly, 1 Peter 2.22-24 (a NT passage) seems to be modeled on Isaiah 53, and is therefore very telling in that regard:

‘He [Christ] committed no sin, and no deceit

was found in his mouth.’ When he was

abused, he did not return abuse; when he

suffered, he did not threaten; but he

entrusted himself to the one who judges

justly. He himself bore our sins in his body

on the cross, so that, free from sins, we

might live for righteousness; by his wounds

you have been healed.

It is the same with Hebrews 1.3. It sounds as if this event already occurred. But, on closer inspection, notice that the text doesn’t explicitly say that this event took place in history. It just tells you that it took place at some unspecified time period. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to read it as follows:

When he had made purification for sins, [at

some point in human history] he sat down

at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The text just gives you the outcome. It doesn’t tell you when this event actually took place. But there are certain passages that DO tell you when. And if you run a concordance study, you’ll realize that they refer to the end of the world. I’m referring to verses like Hebrews 9.26b, 1 Peter 1.20, and all the passages that refer to the REVELATION of Jesus. Remember, if Jesus has already been manifested, he cannot be revealed again. Apokalupsis (revelation) refers to a first time disclosure. I have written extensively about these topics. They should be clear by now!

——-

The Phrase “Christ Died for Our Sins” is Almost Always Misinterpreted as Referring to a Past Event

Let’s explore another popular verse, namely, 1 Cor. 15.3, which people love to quote as proof “that Christ died for our sins”:

Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν

ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς.

All it’s saying is “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NIV). Notice, this verse is not certifying that Christ in fact died in antiquity. Rather, it’s saying that Christ died for our sins (at some unspecified time in human history, the timeframe of which is unknown and not given) according to the prophetic scriptures, or just as the Old Testament (OT) scriptures had predicted. In fact, it doesn’t say that Christ died according to the historical accounts, but rather according to the prophetic writings (γραφάς). In short, Christ died to fulfill the scriptures. But the TIMING of this event is not specified.

Let’s look at another passage that is often taken to mean that “Christ died for the ungodly” (NRSV) 2,000 years ago. Observe what the verse says, but also what it doesn’t say. Romans 5.6 suggests that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρόν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2.6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history:

Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι

κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.

So, although scripture once more reiterates that “Christ died for the ungodly”——and even though this is often uncritically assumed to refer to a past event that supposedly happened in antiquity——the text is NOT saying that this event already happened (cf. Rom. 5.8; 14.9; 1 Thess. 5.9-10). The problem is not with the text. The problem is with our *interpretation* of the text.

Similarly, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11 (see my article “First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-author-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation).

Eli of Kittim

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with t

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. Case in point, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d). For example, 1 Cor. 15.22 puts Christ’s resurrection within an eschatological timetable.

——-

Conclusion

If the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

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

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20). See my article “Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a ‘Revelation’?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

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

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, a

Due to time constraints, it is beyond the scope of this paper to illustrate either the “unhistorical” nature of the gospel genre or the scant external evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Suffice it to say that the gospels appear to be written beforehand (or before the fact) through a kind of foreknowledge or prognósis (προγνώσει; cf. Acts 2.22—23; 10.40—41; Rom. 1.2). They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a *proleptic narrative,* a means of *biographizing the eschaton* as if presently accomplished. For further details, see my article, “8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/638877875512262656/8-theses-or-disputations-on-modern-christianitys

Eli of Kittim

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

All in all, this paper has demonstrated that Biblical past tenses do not necessarily imply past history. In fact, it can be shown from various passages (e.g. Isaiah 53.3-5) that prophecies can also be set in the past tense!

——-

What is the Super-Sign of the Coming Antichrist in Revelation 13? And Is the COVID-19 Vaccine the Mark of the Beast?

By Author Eli Kittim

The First Beast of Revelation 13: The Antichrist

Given that Revelation 13 mainly features the political leader whom we call the Antichrist, and his prophesied final empire, this article will only deal with the first beast (the political figure), not the second (the religious figure). The latter subject has been treated elsewhere on my blog.

Russia is the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns

The key words of the prologue are: θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, ἔχον κέρατα δέκα, καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτά (Rev. 13.1). That’s the notorious beast with 7 heads and 10 horns. Most Biblical studies indicate that this is Russia. Based on Daniel 7.19-22 and Revelation 17.9-13 no other country except Russia can claim to be the 7th successive world-empire after Babylon, which comprised 10 rulers of the Soviet Union.

(For further details on why Russia is the 7th empire with 10 kings see my article “Nostradamus and the Bible Seemingly Predict the Coming of Putin”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the).

Eli of Kittim

Nostradamus and the Bible Seemingly Predict the Coming of Putin

Chuck Missler reviews the historical roots of the modern day Russians and the peoples to which Ezekiel referred when he prophesied about tha

The Super-Sign: Russian Ruler Will Come Back from the Dead

As we continue with Revelation 13’s account, it notes that the first beast had the feet of a bear (ἄρκου v. 2), which is the modern symbol of Russia. In verse 3 we are told in no uncertain terms that the dragon (Satan) gave the political leader of this nation (“him”; αὐτοῦ v. 1-2) his power and his throne, as well as great authority (ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην)! So, even though it speaks of an empire, Revelation 13 repeatedly talks of its leader as a person (αὐτοῦ), using the personal pronoun αὐτός, meaning “he.” Based on my extensive eschatological studies, this person will be the leader of Russia, during the Great Tribulation, who will rule a one-world government (v. 7) for 42 months (v. 5) or three and a half years!

Next, verse 3 tells us that he will die. In fact, he will be killed (ἐσφαγμένην v.3) by a sword (τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης v. 14). But he will also be miraculously resurrected, and the world will marvel at that event (ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ἐθεραπεύθη, καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ὅλη ἡ γῆ v.3). This will be the turning point or the super-sign of his rise to fame. The result is that every one on the planet will worship Satan, who gave his authority to the beast, but they will also worship the beast as well for his tremendous powers (v. 4, 12). They’ll worship him as a god, asking a rhetorical question: “Who is as great as the beast?” … “Who is able to fight against him?” (Rev. 13.4 NLT).

The Worship of Antichrist and the Tightening of his Grip on Power

He will speak of great things but will also blaspheme God, his name, his temple, as well as the heavenly host (v. 6). Then he will be successful in a sort of ethnic cleansing campaign in which he will exterminate the sacred or holy people and their religion, and will subsequently rule over every tribe, people, tongue, and nation (v. 7). In fact, all the inhabitants of the earth will worship him, at least all those who are not regenerated in Christ (v. 8). This is the same time period when imprisonments, executions, and divided loyalties (even among family members)——which Matthew 24.8-13 predicts——will occur (v. 10).

This is precisely why Matthew 24 repeatedly warns of deception, namely, of messianic figures who will claim to be the Christ, producing “great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt 24.4-5, 11, 23-26 NRSV). Let’s face it, who could resist admiring, if not worshiping, someone who just came back from the dead?

The Mark of the Beast

Revelation chapter 13 verse 16 makes clear that the beast is able to rule the whole world, and control commerce and trade, through a mandatory mark that all must receive in order to buy, or sell, or hold a job (v. 17). This mark (χάραγμα) is like an identification-marker or a “brand-mark” of a person. The word χάραγμα itself suggests something similar to a branding iron that is pressed against livestock in order to leave an identifying mark. It’s something akin to a fingerprint or a tattoo. Something along those lines was recently developed by MIT, embedding a person’s vaccination history directly into the skin, using a dye that’s invisible to the naked eye but visible with a special cell-phone filter. Similarly, a needle puncture is also said to be a “mark” made by a pointed instrument.

Government Surveillance Within YourSelf

Due to our current pandemic crisis——the worldwide lockdowns, quarantines, the emergence of new COVID-19 variants that have appeared as a result of mass vaccination, according to French virologist Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize in medicine), and the increasing government policies to vaccinate every single individual on the planet——the so-called “mark” can certainly take the form of a needle injection. Given that the COVID passports will eventually become unique individual profiles (replacing fingerprints), the vaccinations themselves will require data entries and updates, close monitoring, nanotechnology, follow-ups, and the like. In short, they will become our profiles that, hooked up to computers, will tell a government employee or a doctor all they need to know about us. Not to mention that they will have tracking devices to know exactly where you are at any given moment.

We already have nanotechnology, like scanning probe microscopes that comprise imaging, measuring, and generally manipulating matter at the smallest possible scale. For example, Lipid nanoparticles are an important component of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. They’re liposomes which employ nanotechnology and are used for the efficient delivery of various therapeutics. This technology is already available and in use! This is scary because it implies potential government surveillance not from without but rather from within your own body.

It is, first and foremost, a violation of the right to privacy, namely, that an individual’s private information must not be made public without their consent. With the emergence of technology, however, our personal information has already ended up in the databases of third parties, sold to the highest bidder, not to mention the possibility of being hacked. This nanotechnology also violates our constitutional rights. In fact, a mandatory vaccine with surveillance capability would constitute a violation of the right to a person’s privacy. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states:

[t]he right of the people to be secure in

their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and

seizures, shall not be violated …

Social Conformity Imposed By Unethical Vaccinations

Not to mention that these vaccines are essentially unethical because they do not measure up to the medical guidelines for patient safety, which are best achieved by high standards and safety protocols. Rather, they were hastily distributed on the basis of “emergency use authorizations and approvals.” Typically, it takes at least 2 years for a vaccine to go through clinical trials in order to test its efficacy and adverse reactions. In the case of the current vaccines, it was several months. Moreover, if a potential vaccine kills 25 to 50 people, at most, it is discarded as unsafe. However, the current vaccines have killed over 4,000 people already and yet people continue to propagate fake news about its successes. Despite the adverse reactions——deaths, blood-clots, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, facial swelling & paralysis, myocarditis, severe anaphylaxis, and other medical concerns and complications that have put a halt to some vaccines, at least for a time——nevertheless they are relentlessly promoted as if they are wonder drugs and super-safe. And instead of years of testing and academic peer-review, they have been authorized for use on very short notice. That’s why if you decide to get vaccinated you’ll be asked to sign a consent form (i.e. a Waiver of Liability Agreement) so that they have “in writing” your consensual participation in an experimental drug, indicating that you fully understand the risks of the vaccine, which is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

Meanwhile, other cures like hydroxychloroquine (whose side effects are very mild by comparison) have been banned in the US. The stakeholders have conveniently banned this significantly safer treatment in order that you succumb to the vaccinations that are being aggressively imposed on you. And even when credible doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough (Doctor of Internal Medicine & Board certified Cardiologist), voice their genuine concerns, they are usually censored and ostracised by the fake news media.

Vaccine Passports As a Form of Allegiance: the Initial Phase of Globalist Control

I’m not, by any means, suggesting that the COVID-19 vaccines are, in and of themselves, the mark of the beast. But I am warning that these soon-to-be-mandatory vaccines, and their associated passports, will be *used* by the Antichrist to control world commerce and trade in the near future. In other words, it’s not just social conformity and the subjugation of the masses by means of scare tactics with regard to a pandemic that is at stake, here, but, more importantly, the implantation of a digital vaccine ID that will eventually become a form of *technological allegiance* (i.e. surrendering your mind and body) to the Antichrist’s one-world government, which will ultimately seal people’s fates. The regenerated Christians, however, will be divergent! In the globalist agenda, the vaccine passports are simply the first phase of government conformity and allegiance!

Conclusion

The super-sign of the Antichrist will be the miraculous *resurrection* of a prominent figure, most probably a Russian leader! That will be the ultimate sign that will give away the identity of the Antichrist. That’s the deception that the Bible warned us about in Mt 24 and 2 Thess. 2.4, 9-12. The person that will be resurrected from the dead is not the Christ. The difference is this: whereas the Antichrist’s resurrection will propel him to world domination, Christ’s resurrection will trigger the rapture.

Moreover, if by “the mark of the beast” we mean some type of technological allegiance to the one-world government of the Antichrist, without which you can neither buy or sell (Rev. 13.17), then a vaccine passport would certainly qualify as “the mark of the beast.” And I haven’t even discussed the House of Representatives bill 6666 that would authorize COVID-19 “contact tracing [surveillance technology?], through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals' residences, and for other purposes.” (see congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666/all-info).

congress.gov

All Info - H.R.6666 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act

All Info for H.R.6666 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act

Thus, the introduction of internal surveillance technology (i.e. wireless biomedical data transmission and real-time monitoring), as well as the reprogramming of our DNA via such gene-modification technology, could certainly herald the Biblical end-times! And the Antichrist will most certainly use the dramatic advances in the “Human Vaccines Project” to his advantage in order to facilitate his primary plan for world domination!

Who Gave Satan the Authority to Become the God of this World?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Because God supposedly had given him dominion over the earth, most people assume that Adam surrendered his authority to Satan after his transgression, and therefore allowed the latter to become the god of this world. But in order for this particular *dominion theory* to work, it must impinge on *divinity* itself. However, Adam was a created being. He was not a god and could never be understood as a god in any sense of the word. The fundamental problem with the classical view is twofold. First, a mere mortal, such as Adam, does not have authority over the earth. Second, Adam doesn’t have any *divinity* to give away, much less any “divine” dominion over the earth. A close reading of Gen. 1.26 reveals that the dominion God gave to Adam was limited to the animals and creatures of the earth. In other words, Adam was not “the god of this world” (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4); God was! Adam was simply placed on earth “to till it and keep it” (Gen. 2.15). By contrast, only Christ is said to have “all authority . . . on earth” (Mt. 28.18).

What is more, Adam had not yet eaten from “the tree of life” (Gen. 3.22, 24) at the time of his transgression. So, given that Adam was a created being who was not even immortal, much less a god, how could Satan *become* the “god” of this world by taking this divinity from Adam? It’s a logical impossibility; a logical fallacy, if you will. Adam, by default, is not a divine being and therefore cannot, by definition, surrender godhood to Satan. It is both logically and ontologically impossible!

So the question remains, how then did Satan become the god of this world? Who gave him the title deed to the earth, so to speak? The only person who has full authority over the earth, and who is truly a god, is the only one who can surrender this right to Satan. And this is in fact conceivable both from a logical and an ontological perspective. Thus, by the process of elimination, the only person capable of surrendering his divine authority over the earth is none other than Christ! Without a doubt, this relinquishment would temporarily make Satan the god of this world.

This, of course, would imply that Adam could not have been anyone else but Christ. And it would help explain why “God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’ “ (Gen. 1.26). It would further imply that although the first human was created, nevertheless God breathed his own divine Spirit into him and gave him “the breath of life” (Gen. 2.7). If Christ was Adam, it would also help explain why he would have to die to pay for the sins of the world. This view would also help clarify how the transgression of one man could possibly spread biologically to his posterity, which would otherwise be inexplicable.

I’m by no means espousing the “Adam–God doctrine” of Brigham Young (Mormonism). This is a totally fictitious and bogus account based on UFOs and aliens. I do not accept this LDS *account* at all.

But why does Christ say in Rev. 22.13 (NIV) that he’s “the first and the last”?:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First

and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

We know why he is the last. But how exactly is he the first? In fact, Heb. 1.6 calls Christ “the Firstborn” (πρωτότοκον). Let us review some key Biblical points. Whereas Adam was made in the image of God, Christ is said to be “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1.15). Both Adam and Christ are said to have dominion over the earth. Both are givers of life (1 Cor. 15.45 NIV):

The first man Adam became

a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving

spirit.

Both became men. Both are called “son of God” (Lk 3.38; 1 Jn 5.10). Both were pure and holy. Both were tested by Satan. One suffered in the Garden of Eden, the other in the Garden of Gethsemane. There are far more similarities than differences. And the Biblical passages make much more sense when understood from this point of view than from the classical one. If humankind is made in the image of Christ, who was the first Man, then this special creation would refute the conclusion of evolutionary science that Adam was not a historical person. In fact, the classical perspective makes no sense whatsoever. It’s neither logically nor ontologically feasible, or even possible, that a mere mortal, who was not god, surrendered both his authority and divinity to Satan, who subsequently became the god of this world. That’s a contradiction in terms. It’s like talking about a married bachelor or a squared circle. It can never happen in any possible world!

——-

Is Jesus a Jew?

By Author Eli Kittim

The term “Jew” means one of two things: either a “Jew” by religion, irrespective of one’s race, or a “Jew” by race, irrespective of one’s religion. The only category that can properly address Jesus’ *ancestry* is the second one, namely, a Jew by race, irrespective of one’s religion!

The term “Jew” is an abbreviation of the term “Judah” (Ioudaios” in Greek), and it implies a *descendant* from the tribe of *Judah.* There were only 2 tribes in the kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking,  represent the term “Jews.” Therefore, anyone who is from a different race/region cannot be technically called a “Jew.” Case in point: Jesus is a *Galilean* (Mk 1:9; Mt. 3:13; 4:15-17; 21:11), not a Judaean! It is well known amongst Biblical scholars and archaeologists that Galilee was heavily influenced by Greek culture. The scholar & Oxford classicist G.A. Williamson states that Galilee “was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He says that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”. John’s gospel 7:41-43 confirms that Christ is from Galilee of the Gentiles, which infuriates the Jews because Jesus defies Jewish messianic expectations. John 7:52 describes the Jews’ rejection of a Gentile Messiah, when saying, “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt 4:15-16)!

The gospel genealogies prove nothing with respect to Jesus’ ethnicity. According to Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, the genealogies of Matthew & Luke are contradictory and don’t give us any historical evidence. Not to mention that both are explicitly based on Joseph, who is NOT Jesus’ biological father. As Mike Licona asserts, these genealogies are compositionally more theological than historical. Bottom line, we cannot rely on them to give us the historical pedigree of Jesus.

Thus, according to the internal & external evidence, Jesus is not a Jew; he’s a **Gentile**!

——-

What language would Jesus have spoken?

According to Bart Ehrman, studies show that only 3% of the population was literate in the land of Israel in the first century c.e. One would have to be a highly literate scholar to understand Hebrew, the language of the Scriptures. Most Bible scholars assume that the common language of the people was Aramaic. Thus, they conclude that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic.

That may have been the case in Palestine centuries earlier, but, largely due to the influences of the Hasmonaeans and the Herods, it appears as if Aramaic had entered a period of decline during the time of Jesus. The notion that Jesus spoke Aramaic has recently been challenged by Greek New Testament linguists (see Stanley E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?”, Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 [1993] 199-235 https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf Bart Ehrman himself admits that he’s not sure if Paul (Jesus’ contemporary) knew Aramaic. And there’s no archaeological evidence to support Aramaic as the dominant language in first century Palestine, especially in Galilee. The Herodian coinage is inscribed exclusively in Greek, not Aramaic. Currency is a good indicator of the language of a nation. African currencies are in African languages. Similarly, the currencies of the UK & the US are in English, and so on and so forth. In other words, you cannot have a currency in one language and a verbal communication in another (e.g. a national currency inscribed in Greek within an Aramaic speaking community is a contradiction in terms).

https://href.li/?https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30458-did-jesus-ever-teach-in-greek.pdf

What is more, only 12% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Aramaic! Remember that the community at Qumran fled the metropolitan areas that had become more or less Hellenized. So, the Essenes represent only a tiny fraction of the population that kept the traditions alive, including the Aramaic works. Moreover, the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic, signifying the widespread use of Greek in first century Palestine. There is important literary evidence to substantiate this view. For example, the historian Flavius Josephus wrote in Greek, which is also the language of the Septuagint!

The internal evidence supports this view. For example, the literary Jesus supposedly speaks Aramaic "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani?" and no one seems to understand him. They thought he was calling Elijah. If Aramaic was the everyday language of the people they would’ve understood what Jesus meant.

Which languages did Pilate write on the inscription above the cross? Was Aramaic one of them? No! In what language did Jesus converse with Pilate? How many languages did Pilate know? Greek and Latin. So was the conversation between them in Aramaic? Most definitely not! And, according to Bart Ehrman, there is no indication that they used an interpreter. Thus, the *literary narratives* of the New Testament also suggest that Jesus would have spoken Greek!

——-

How to Deal with Loneliness, Fears, Phobias, Depression, and Anxiety

By Eli Kittim (Psychologist & Biblical Researcher)

Loneliness, fears, phobias, depression, and anxiety are not so much reactions to real life situations as they are negative maladaptive thinking patterns. The cure or *remedy* lies in exposing the *falsehoods* or *false premises* that create them in the first place, thereby being able to change the negative maladaptive thinking patterns and their associated feelings and emotions. The way to apply this technique is through a process that the Buddhists call “mindfulness.” Christian mystics call it “guarding the heart.”

By constantly paying attention to your mind (i.e. being alert), you grant access to certain thoughts while refusing entry to others. Sometimes you’ll need to question the reliability and authenticity behind the premise of a thought before deciding to accept it as true or discard it as false. With practice, however, you will become successful in removing all forms of anxiety from your life by focusing on the false assumptions behind the negative thinking patterns as well as on the positive things that God has in store for you. 2 Corinthians 10.5 (NIV) explains this technique as follows:

We demolish arguments and every

pretension [or falsehood] that sets itself up

against the knowledge of God [or truth], and

we take captive every thought to make it

obedient to Christ.

Dave Jenkins, the Executive Editor of Theology for Life Magazine, and the Host of the Equipping You in Grace Podcast, put thusly the concept of the guarding of the heart:

For Christians to ‘guard their hearts and

minds’ in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7)

means for them to be alert, through Christ's

power and protection, to what enters and

dwells in their hearts, because the Bible

teaches that what we say and do, and who

we become is the result of the state of our

hearts.

To this end, Philippians 4.7 promises God’s protection:

And the peace of God, which transcends all

understanding, will guard your hearts and

your minds in Christ Jesus.

In order to stay positive and hopeful——in counteracting loneliness, fear, depression, or any other negativity we might have——Paul insists that we should train our minds to entertain only thoughts that are true and beautiful (Philippians 4.8):

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is

true, whatever is noble, whatever is right,

whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,

whatever is admirable--if anything is

excellent or praiseworthy--think about such

things.