Eli-kittim - Eli Of Kittim

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.

Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression

By Author Eli Kittim

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).

So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!

Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).

Mark Lehman Strauss, an American biblical scholar and professor of the New Testament

Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?

—————

That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.

—————

If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).

A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:

“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).

Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.

—————

Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!

—————

Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:

“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).

—————

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.