THE NAME AND PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS WAS KNOWN AND ATTESTED BY PRE-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

THE NAME AND PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS WAS KNOWN AND ATTESTED BY PRE-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

If the New Testament (NT) was written in advance,  as I have suggested, then one could reasonably argue that the NT writers knew of Jesus before he became man by way of revelations, including Paul as well as Philo who preceded him.

Case in point. Philo of Alexandria is a Jewish mystic philosopher and theologian who is writing between 20 - 40 CE, thus predating the New Testament writings.

In his "Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47 as well as in his work entitled "On Dreams" 1.215, he attests that there existed within the Jewish Angelology of that period a belief in a celestial being - who in Zechariah 6 LXX is named Jesus - and that it is precisely this archangel who is considered to be the firstborn son of God (cf. Rom. 8.29), the celestial image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4), God's agent of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 8.6), and God's celestial high priest (cf. Heb. 2.17, 4.14).

Source credit: Richard Carrier

In fact, Philo often refers to him as the Logos (cf. John 1.1) or the highest emanation of God. Similarly, many Christian scholars consider Jesus to be the preincarnated so-called "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament!

Thus, despite vast doctrinal and philosophical differences, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the name and preexistence of Jesus was known and attested by multiple independent sources!

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, as the “revelation” of Jesus. Why do the New Testament (NT) authors refer to Christ’s coming as a “revelation”? We must first understand what this word means in Greek, and how it is used in the NT. The actual Greek word used in the NT is ἀποκάλυψις (“apokalupsis”). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The terms “revelation” or “revealed” indicate the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure.

Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. In other words, it’s not a revelation if it’s already known. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. But if it’s already known and happens to reappear a second time, it is not considered to be a “revelation.” Thus, 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.

Let’s now briefly look at some NT verses, which mention the future coming of Christ, to examine whether they are referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought:

1 Cor. 4.5; 15.23; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.3; Rev. 2.16; 22.20.

As you can see, a second coming or a return is nowhere indicated in the above-mentioned verses. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Why not? We'll explore this question a little later, but for now let’s look at the NT eschatological literature with regard to what Christians have traditionally referred to as the “second coming” of Christ. There are many references to Jesus’ future “coming” in the NT——(variously called “the day of Christ”; cf. 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; 2 Thess. 2.2)——but nowhere is it mentioned as a second coming or as a return!

Let’s examine elsewhere whether a second coming is indicated by the NT authors:

Lk. 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 1.1.

Astoundingly, if we study these verses, none of them refer to Jesus’ second coming. No return was explicitly mentioned. Many verses refer to Jesus’ “revelation,” which was previously unknown and which will become known in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the term “revelation” means something coming to light or being manifested for the very first time!

The wholesale absence of a second coming or return in all these verses must be addressed. If this is in fact the second coming of Christ, as is commonly believed, then why don’t we find appropriate terminology that is consistent with a “coming-again” or a “return”? Why don’t we find, for instance, words such as επανέρχομαι (come again), or επιστρέφω (return), or ἔρχομαι πάλιν (come again/return), etc.? Although these terms are used with some frequency in the NT, they are never applied to the revelation of Jesus Christ. There are, however, some confusing Bible mistranslations (for example, in Acts 1.11) which claim that Jesus “will return.” But Acts 1.11 never mentions Jesus’ return or his coming back to earth. These misleading translations are not faithful to the original Greek text. Some of these inaccurate translations include the NIV, NLT, BSB, CEV, GNT, ISV, AMP, GW, NET Bible, NHEB, & the WEB. All these Bible versions mistranslate the verse as if Jesus “will come back” or “will return.” However, the original Greek uses a word (ἐλεύσεται) that does not imply a “coming back” or a “return.” It simply indicates *one* single coming! The Greek text uses the word ἐλεύσεται, which simply means “will come.” Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB).

None of the NT authors referred to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. They all referred to it as a coming, a manifestation, an appearance, especially a “revelation,” but certainly not a second coming; not a coming again: neither a coming back nor a return. And given what we know about the term “revelation” and its unique meaning, the numerous references to Jesus’ “revelation” is a strong indication that these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world!

What About the Hebrews 9.28 Reference to Christ Who is Said to “appear a second time”?

The only apparent contradiction to the above-mentioned body of evidence is a single reference to Christ appearing “a second time” in Hebrews 9.28. However, I will demonstrate that it is not a contradiction and that it fits perfectly with the previous material. Let me unpack it for you.

Notice that the word in Heb. 9.28 is not παρουσία (Parousia, i.e. “presence”)——which is commonly interpreted as a “coming”——but rather ἐκ δευτέρου (“a second time”), which is a clue that v. 28 is seemingly pointing back to the previous verse (v. 26), and particularly to the term ἅπαξ (which implies “a first time”).

It’s important that we understand the temporal or eschatological timeline of Hebrews 9.26 before we interpret verse 9.28. For example, it’s clear from the textual evidence that the idiomatic expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (“at the end of the age” Heb. 9.26) is referring to the end of the world (cf. Lampe A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1340; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39–40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Keep in mind that this time period is associated with “the Day of the Lord,” “the day of Christ,” and with Judgment day.

What is more, the book of Hebrews would not explicitly state that Christ will appear ONCE in one verse (v. 26), and then say the exact opposite in the following verse——namely, that he’ll appear TWICE (v. 28). So, that’s another clue that something else is meant by the author. Notice that the term ἅπαξ (“once for all”) is used 3x, once in each verse respectively: in v. 26 to refer to the number of times Christ appears; in v. 27 with regard to how many times people die (in contradistinction to reincarnation); and in v. 28 with regard to how many times Christ dies for the sins of many.

Observe also in Hebrews 1.1-2 that God does not speak to humankind through his Son in Antiquity, but rather ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν “in the last days.” Similarly, Hebrews 9.26b tells us that Christ’s sacrifice is offered hapax “once and for all” at the end of the age (or at the end of the world; see above-mentioned citations). It tells us not only the precise time frame of his visitation but also the reason for his appearance: “to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.” That would be his DEATH!

The next verse (v. 27) tells us that all mortals (including Christ) live once and die once. But it also begins to show an important parallel or analogy between all mortals and Christ that becomes the key to understanding the meaning of the following verse (v. 28). Notice the specific language that is used to draw an analogy between all mortals and Christ: “Just as all mortals,” “so Christ,” and so on. In other words, what applies to mortals applies to Christ. It implies that just as all mortals die once——followed by the resurrection and the judgment——so Christ having DIED ONCE, “will appear a second time” for the resurrection and the judgment. Given the internal consistency and development of the passage in which Christ will die ONCE “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), the next two verses then evoke “the judgment” to signify Christ’s resurrection from the dead:

26b νυνί δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. 27 καί καθ’ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις, 28 οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. (NA28)

Translation (NRSV):

26b “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Conclusion

Just as v. 26 speaks of Christ’s demise, so vv. 27-28 imply his resurrection, which must necessarily follow his death, according to the NT story! Thus, the reference to Christ appearing “a second time” (Heb. 9.28) is referring to his resurrection from the dead, which will “bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (NIV)! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16). The notion that Christ will be the first to be resurrected in the last days is also mentioned in 1 Cor 15:22-28! Similarly, theologian Dennis McCallum writes, “No Old Testament passage indicates that Messiah will come twice.” In his book, Satan and His Kingdom (p. 38), he writes:

"In some cases, predictions about the [OT] suffering servant are immediately next to prophecies about King Messiah, without any mention of a more-than-two-thousand-year gap between them (e.g., cross-reference Isaiah 61:1 ff and Jesus’ commentary in Luke 4:21)."

Thus, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the one and only visitation of Christ will transpire in the last days. This is particularly evident in certain verses which imply that Christ has not yet been revealed (cf. Lk. 17.30)! It is reminiscent of the Epistles, in which Jesus’ long anticipated manifestation is variously referenced as “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13):

“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he [Jesus] is REVEALED we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his COMING” (1 Jn 2.28 NRSV emphasis added).

In this verse, notice that Jesus’ •revelation• is exclusively related to his future “coming.” In fact, in John 9.39, the literary Jesus says: “I came into this world for judgment.” In other words, his one and only coming is associated with judgment day!

This brief topical study therefore deserves academic consideration because it presents an original approach to the interpretation of the NT that challenges the way we study the second coming of Christ. It is a new Paradigm Shift!

Was James the Brother of Jesus?

Eli Kittim (Author)

——-

Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.

This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”

In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.

——-

The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.

——-

Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.

——-

Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.

——-

According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.

Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are

Here are the proofs:

Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.

We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).

In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.

Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).

Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.

In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.

——-

External Evidence

Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.

——-

Summary

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.

——-

Easy Believism Versus Lordship Salvation

El Kittim

Essentially, the teaching of “easy-believism” (which proponents prefer to call “free grace,” or some similar term), asserts that the faith which saves is mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, accompanied by an appeal to Christ for salvation. According to proponents of the “free grace” movement (i.e. “easy-believism”), it is not required of the one appealing for salvation that he be willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ or to stop sinning.

This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

Question:

Can a person receive Jesus as his/her Savior without receiving Him as his/her Lord?

Easy believism says, yes.

Lordship salvation says, no.

What do you say?

The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

Despite the misleading objections of Judaism and Islam to the Christian concept of the Trinity, there is compelling evidence that a multiplicity of divine persons exists in the Hebrew Bible, as we find in Prov. 30.3-4, Gen. 35.1-7, as well as in Gen. 31.10-13, in which the Angel of the Lord is identified as God, no less! Note also the multi-personal God in Eccles. 12:1 (YLT):

“Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth.”

Similarly, there are 2 YHWHs in Genesis 19.24 in the Hebrew text:

“Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”

There are actually 2 persons called YHWH in the above verse. One YHWH is on the earth, standing nearby Sodom and Gomorrah. The other YHWH is in the heavens. It is reminiscent of the two Lords in Psalm 110.1:

“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' “

In another mysterious passage, the creator of heaven and earth is speaking and surprisingly ends his speech by saying, “the Lord God has sent me." Isaiah 48.12--16 reads:

“Listen to me, O Jacob,  and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first,  and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth,  and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I summon them,  they stand at attention.

Assemble, all of you, and hear!  Who among them has declared these things?

The Lord loves him;  he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,  and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

I, even I, have spoken and called him,  I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.

Draw near to me, hear this!  From the beginning I have not spoken in secret,  from the time it came to be I have been there.

And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit.”

——-

While critics of the Triune God use Deut. 6:4 (The Shema) as a declaration of monotheism, this verse may also refer to a plurality of divine persons within the singular Godhead. The verse essentially reads:

Hear Israel, Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh is one.

It Mentions God 3 times and then declares that he [is] one (echad). Besides mentioning God 3 times, the verse also uses the plural form ĕ·lō·hê·nū to suggest numerically more than one person. It’s tantamount to saying, Israel, pay attention to my declaration about our God: one plus one plus one equals one (or 3 in 1)! Or, Yahweh, Elohenu, Yahweh = One (monotheism)! Elohenu is a noun - masculine plural construct - first person common plural.

Moreover, notice that Yahweh is not called qadosh (singular for ‘holy’) but qə·ḏō·šîm (plural) in Joshua 24.19 as well as in Prov. 9.10:

“The commencement of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, And a knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding.”

Hence the plurality in the meaning of the Hebrew term for God, which is “Elohim" (Gen. 1.1), not to mention the multiplicity of divine persons in Gen. 1.26, "Let US make man in OUR image" (emphasis added).

——-

As for the distinction of the third person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit, besides 2 Sam. 23.2-3, read Isaiah 63.10-11:

“But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them. Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his Holy Spirit . . . ?”

——-

Conclusion

Thus, the above-mentioned verses in the Hebrew Scriptures clearly support the theological concept of a multi-personal God——that is to say, a plurality of persons within the singular Godhead, otherwise known as the Trinity, which comprises three persons but one being: One God, yet three coeternal, consubstantial persons (hypostases). These three persons are said to be distinct, yet are nevertheless one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).

In other words, the Hebrew Scriptures further substantiate the theological notion of the triune God.

Gentile Authorship of the New Testament

By Author Eli Kittim

Paul forbid Gentiles from keeping the Mosaic law. He warned that if you keep the law you’ll be cut off from grace. I don’t know about you but Paul doesn’t sound like a Hellenistic Jew to me. Sounds more like a Gentile!

Paul was probably not a Pharisee. Jerome suspected this early on. In his debate with Mike Licona (“Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?” 2018), Bart Ehrman said he doubts that Paul knew Aramaic! What kind of a Jew doesn’t know Aramaic? There are many reasons why the Pauline narrative in Acts may not be factual; a) the idea that Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel is mentioned only in Acts, a book that was written much later than Paul’s letters. In Acts, we are told that Paul is a Pharisee and that he’s persecuting Christians at the behest of the high priest in Jerusalem. This cannot be possible because b) the high priest was a Sadducee, and the Sadducees (not the Pharisees) ran the temple in Jerusalem (Acts 5.17). Moreover, the Sadducees and Pharisees were bitter rivals, enemies who disagreed on a number of topics, including spiritual ones. So, it seems rather absurd that a Pharisee would be working for a Sadducee; c) the high priest in Jerusalem had no jurisdiction in Damascus, Syria. The point is that this story couldn’t have happened in the way that Acts describes it.

The same holds true for the trial of Jesus in the Gospels. Everything about the trial seems preposterous, from the notion that it was held at night to the idea that it took place on the day of Passover, and even some of the details seem rather improbable if one understood Jewish law.

If we look at the rest of the gospels, including Acts (the so-called 5th gospel), we’ll come to realize that the authors are seemingly unfamiliar with the local geography, customs, feasts, idioms, language, law, and the religion of the Jews. If we then look at the scholarly consensus as to how the NT authors copied the Hebrew Bible, it will give us some clues with regard to their ethnic identities. It is well-known among scholarly circles that the New Testament authors quoted predominantly from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible. Obviously, this indicates that they were not familiar with the Hebrew language and could not understand it. Furthermore, Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But that’s not what we find. Most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! The Jews not only couldn’t understand Greek but they forbade their own from writing in it because it stood for everything anti-Jewish. Even according to modern Jewish scholars, Jews of the first century couldn’t have been such highly literate individuals in Greek to be able to write the New Testament with such refinement and eloquence. Nevertheless, the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek. And we also know that the NT authors wrote their books from various places outside of Palestine.

All in all, from the discrepancies in the stories themselves to the authors who wrote them, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Gentile authorship of the New Testament. In other words, the authors of the New Testament were neither Jews from Judea nor Hellenistic Jews from the diaspora but rather Gentiles who were highly literate, but who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.