Is Russia On The Brink Of Nuclear War?

Is Russia on the Brink of Nuclear War?

By Author Eli Kittim

Who or What is Gog?

Joseph Stalin——the Soviet Union’s longest serving ruler from 1927 until 1953 (for nearly 3 decades)——was born in Gori, Georgia. Curiously enough, in both English and Russian, the initials of Gori, Georgia would be Gog or ΓοΓ (i.e. Гори, Грузия). If the Bible wanted to symbolize the terror of Communism in the 20th century, as well as the final empire on earth, what better way to do so than by pointing to its cruelest and most infamous leader, who was born in the land of Gog and Magog.

In the Bible, Γώγ or Gog symbolically represents the final leader of the last superpower on earth. The last-days prophecy of Ezekiel 38.1-2 (LXX) reads:

ΚΑΙ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρός με λέγων·

υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου

ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ, ἄρχοντα

Ῥώς, Μοσὸχ καὶ Θοβέλ, καὶ προφήτευσον

ἐπ’ αὐτὸν.

Translation (NKJV):

Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land

of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and

Tubal, and prophesy against him.

The term Γώγ might actually be an abridged version of the word Γεωργία (Georgia), the country that has a northern border with Russia and was once part of the Soviet Union. Based on both linguistic and historical studies, the rest of the names indicate a Russian connection: prince of Ρώς (Gk. Ρωσία/Russia), Μοσόχ (Gk. Μόσχα/Moscow) and Θοβέλ (Tobolsk). In his book The Footsteps of the Messiah (p. 70), the biblical scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum provides a supplementary elaboration of Ezekiel 38:

The identification of Magog, Rosh,

Meshech, and Tubal is to be determined

from the fact that these tribes of the

ancient world occupied the areas of modern

day Russia. Magog, Meshech and Tubal

were between the Black and Caspian Seas

which today is southern Russia. The tribes

of Meshech and Tubal later gave names to

cities that today bear the names of

Moscow, the capital, and Tobolsk, a major

city in the Urals in Siberia. Rosh was in what

is now northern Russia. The name Rosh is

the basis for the modern name Russia.

Similarly, according to Wikipedia:

Josephus refers to Magog son of Japheth

as progenitor of Scythians, or peoples north

of the Black Sea [Josephus, Antiquities of

the Jews, Book I, Chapter 6]. According to

him, the Greeks called Scythia Magogia.

The Scythians were a group of nomadic warriors who lived in what is now southern Russia. More importantly, the Bible seems to point to Russia as the birthplace of the last-days Antichrist (see e.g. Ezekiel 38). In order to understand the historical reasons for tying the Ezekiel 38 narrative to Russia, see “The Magog Identity” article by Chuck Missler: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/427/print/

The Septuagint Conflates the Biblical References to Gog and Agag

In Numbers 24.7 of the Septuagint, Agag is called Gog (Γώγ), and the LSV translation of the Bible uses the two titles interchangeably in Numbers 24.7 (cf. Amos 7.1 LXX; Rev. 9.3, 7-12):

He makes water flow from his buckets,

‘And his seed [is] in many waters; And his

King [is] higher than Gog [or Agag],’

And his kingdom is exalted.

Here’s the Septuagint version of Numbers 24.7:

ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος

αὐτοῦ καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν, καὶ

ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, καὶ

αὐξηθήσεται βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.

In Hebrew, the pronunciation of Agag is Ag-awg, similar to that of Gog (gawg). Some scholars think that Agag represented a dynastic name for the kings of Amalek, much like the title Pharaoh that was used for the Egyptian kings. Interestingly enough, according to scholars, the root of the word Georgia (Γεωργία), which, as mentioned earlier, may represent the biblical Gog (Γώγ), is the Persian word gurğ (“wolf”), a possible cognate of Agag. One of Agag’s descendants is Haman the Agagite (Esther 3.1), whose cruel plot against the Jews can only be matched by those of Hitler and Stalin. Thus, the name Agag (or, alternatively, “Gog”) has become synonymous with antisemitism and with evil! It seems, then, that the titles Gog and Agag are interchangeable.

Old & New Testament Prophecies About the Same Cataclysmic Event

Even though in Ezekiel 38 the term Gog is an appellation of rank and status, notice that in Revelation 20.8 Gog and Magog (Γώγ και Μαγώγ) are references to nations (ἔθνη), not titles:

καὶ ἐξελεύσεται πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν

ταῖς τέσσαρσι γωνίαις τῆς γῆς, τὸν Γὼγ καὶ

Μαγώγ, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν

πόλεμον, ὧν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς ἡ ἄμμος

τῆς θαλάσσης.

Translation (NRSV):

and will come out to deceive the nations at

the four corners of the earth, Gog and

Magog, in order to gather them for battle;

they are as numerous as the sands of the

sea.

And the next verse (Rev. 20.9) is seemingly talking about the exact same event that Luke 21, Zechariah 14, and Ezekiel 38 are describing, namely, “Jerusalem [being] surrounded by armies” (Lk 21.20), or a gathering of “all the nations against Jerusalem to battle” (Zech. 14.2; cf. Ezek. 38.16):

καὶ ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ πλάτος τῆς γῆς, καὶ

ἐκύκλευσαν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ

τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην. καὶ κατέβη πῦρ

ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ⸃ καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτούς ·

Translation:

They marched up over the breadth of the

earth and surrounded the camp of the

saints and the beloved city [Jerusalem].

And fire came down from heaven and

consumed them.

This so-called “fire” may refer to a nuclear blast that causes the desolation of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek. 38.19-20; 39.6, 8; Dan. 11.31; 12.11; Zech. 14.11; Mt. 24.15-22).

Notice that the exact same word that is used in Revelation 20.9 to refer to the armies of Gog and Magog that “surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city [Jerusalem],” namely, the word ἐκύκλευσαν (derived from the word κυκλόω, meaning to encircle, besiege, or surround), is also used in Luke 21.20 (κυκλουμένην) to describe “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”

This is presumably the same event prophesied by Jeremiah the prophet (10.22):

Hear, a noise! Listen, it is coming— a great

commotion from the land of the north to

make the cities of Judah a desolation.

For a detailed study on the nuclear implications of the phrase, “the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15), see my article “What is the Abomination of Desolation?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/651654379241406464/what-is-the-abomination-of-desolation

Eli of Kittim

What is the Abomination of Desolation?

By Eli Kittim Given that wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences, pandemics, and increased lawlessness are not necessarily signs of the pr

If experts claim that it wouldn’t be difficult for terrorists to build and detonate an improvised nuclear device, how much easier would it be for an invading army to do likewise?

According to Wiki:

Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has

visualized how close the world is to a

nuclear war. As of 2021, the current time to

'midnight,' (midnight representing nuclear

war,) is 100 seconds.

See the following article: “Are we on the brink of nuclear war? Un researcher says yes”: https://www.google.com/amp/s/sofrep.com/amp/news/are-we-on-the-brink-of-nuclear-war-un-researcher-says-yes/

SOFREP

Are we on the brink of nuclear war? UN researcher says yes | SOFREP

Renata Dwan, the director of the United Nation's Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR),  sounded the alarm that the world has never be

Can We Discard Trinitarianism by Rejecting Hypostasis?: A Critical Review of Frank Nelte’s Article “The Facts About 'Hypostasis' “

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim

——-

Does the Worldwide Church of God Have the Corner on the Market?

The article under discussion that’s still relevant today was written a while back by Frank W Nelte of the Worldwide Church of God——a religious organization, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong——which some have referred to as a cult: https://franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=192

Armstongism refers to the teachings of

Herbert W. Armstrong, which became the

teaching of the Worldwide Church of God.

These teachings were often at odds with

traditional Christian beliefs and at times

were explicitly in contradiction to the Bible.

The most well-known of Armstrong’s

teachings is that of Anglo-Israelism.

(Gotquestions)

Always question the systematic theology behind the articles you read. For example, T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist, is a self-professed modalist (he believes that there aren’t 3 persons in the Trinity but rather 1, operating in 3 modes). So, we must be cautious of subscribing to theologies that are not grounded in cogent arguments. Many offshoots of The Worldwide Church of God also hold to tenuous and spurious doctrines, such as that of David C. Pack, which promotes Binitarianism (one deity in two persons), and the notion that the Holy Spirit is not a Person.

——-

Frank Nelte is trying to discredit Trinitarianism by showing that the language used to support it comes from outside the Bible and is based on Greek philosophy. He hopes to zero in on a defeater of the belief that the Greek term ὑπόστασις (hupostasis) is a reference to God’s essence or substance: https://biblehub.com/greek/5287.htm

Does Hypostasis Mean Title Deed?

Nelte starts off by trying to change the definition of the term hypostasis by introducing various questionable reference works, such as the “HELPS Word Studies for Greek/Hebrew.” But caution is advised because Bible dictionaries, especially those not accepted by credible scholars, tend to make theological assumptions concerning the denotative definition of words. Accordingly, Nelte declares:

the word ‘hypostasis’ meant ‘TITLE DEED’!

That’s incorrect. That explanation is based on theological “interpretations,” not on the classical meaning of the word per se, as I will show you anon. This assumption can be found in The “HELPS Word-studies” reference work, which reads:

5287 hypóstasis (from 5259 /hypó, ‘under’

and 2476 /hístēmi, ‘to stand’) – properly,

(to possess) standing under a

guaranteed agreement (‘title-deed’);

(figuratively) ‘title’ to a promise or property,

i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is,

‘under a legal-standing’) – entitling

someone to what is guaranteed under the

particular agreement. For the believer,

5287/hypóstasis (‘title of possession’) is the

Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He

inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed

we are only entitled to what God grants

faith for (Ro 14:23).

But the primary meaning of the word “hypostasis” does not mean title deed. According to the scholarly reference work of H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901) p. 1639, the Greek term ὑπόστασις (Hypostasis) means “substantial nature, substance.” It defines “hypostasis” as follows:

the real nature of a thing, as underlying and

supporting its outward form and properties,

and so = [equal to] ουσία or η υποκειμένη

ύλη, essence.

This categorically refutes Nelte’s argument completely. The only thing Nelte is willing to concede is that hypostasis refers to some sort of support. He writes:

Hupostasis refers to something we can

stand upon;

Well, yes. But actually, stand under. It’s similar to the English term “understand.” The definition from the “Online Etymology Dictionary” is as follows:

Old English understandan ‘to comprehend,

grasp the idea of, receive from a word or

words or from a sign the idea it is intended

to convey; to view in a certain way,’

probably literally ‘stand in the midst of,’

from under + standan ‘to stand’.

According to the aforesaid meaning, to “stand under” connotes a deeper understanding or comprehension. Similarly, hypostasis means to stand under (see Strong 5287 hypóstasis [from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand"]). In other words, just as the word “understand” departs from its denotative meaning and implies comprehension, so does “hypostasis,” whose connotative meaning pertains to an underlying foundation. We cannot simply bypass the latter’s historical-grammatical meaning that dates back to Ancient Greek philosophy and which is described as the underlying substance of fundamental reality. By contrast, Nelte writes:

Put in very plain terms (perhaps somewhat

oversimplified) they teach that

HYPOSTASIS refers to the SUBSTANCE

(from Hebrews 11:1) that the Godhead

consists of. Supposedly God the Father and

Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one

HUPOSTASIS, etc.. Now this interpretation

of the word ‘hupostasis’ is not in any way

supported by the five times that Paul used

this word in two different epistles in the New

Testament. Paul really meant exactly what

Webster's Dictionary understands the

English word HYPOSTASIS to mean. We

should remember that the word

‘SUBSTANCE’ (with its present meaning in

the English language) in Hebrews 11:1 is

really a mistranslation. Hypostasis simply

means: to stand under or upon, to support,

etc. It has nothing to do with ‘substance’.

As stated earlier, according to Liddell & Scott, the term hypostasis means foundation, “essence,” or “substance.” In other words, the term hypostasis can be defined as some sort of underlying support or foundation upon which something else stands or exists. So, it can certainly refer to the essence or substance of the Godhead. This interpretation of hypostasis is clearly supported in the New Testament. In Hebrews 1.3 the Greek text says ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. This means that Christ is the apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα) or “radiance” of God’s glory and character, namely, the exact representation of God’s hypostasis. What could that possibly mean? It could only mean that Christ is the exact imprint or image of God’s essence or character or substance. It is true that hypostasis doesn’t denotatively (literally) mean substance. But it does appear to suggest it connotatively!

That’s why at the outset of an argument one must always try to see where the author is going with it. That will reveal their intention and motivation, whether it is pure and genuine or whether they have an axe to grind. In this case, Nelte is trying desperately to prove that the Trinity is false. So, he attempts to manipulate the language in order to prove his point. But true scholarship follows the evidence wherever it may lead. The minute you try to manipulate the evidence, you have turned it into a confirmation bias and a private interpretation.

Is a Borrowed Concept Necessarily False?

Nelte outlines his basic criticism of the Trinity by suggesting that because many of its theological concepts are grounded in Platonic philosophy——especially “the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the nature of God”——they must therefore be inappropriate or inapplicable, at best, and erroneous or fallacious, at worst. But is this a valid argument? He writes:

It should be quite clear to anyone who takes

the time to study into this, that the religious

views of the Catholic Church, as expounded

by the Catholic ‘church fathers’ and as

discussed at the various Councils of the

Catholic Church (Nicea, Constantinople,

etc.) are STEEPED IN THE IDEAS OF PLATO!

And the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the

nature of God are central to that whole

scheme of things.

It is true that Christianity borrowed a great deal from Platonic philosophy. But philosophical and linguistic inheritance is only one aspect of New Testament theology; divine revelation is another. There are other metaphysical considerations that need to be addressed. For example, Nelte argues that since the term hypostasis is borrowed from Plato, the 3 hypostases applied to the Christian godhead must be erroneous. And the notion that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd hypostasis must equally be false. But this is a fallacious argument. All historical, cultural, and scientific endeavors have borrowed profusely from their predecessors. It’s part of the evolution of language and culture. It’s part of who we are: Standing on the shoulders of giants! All knowledge is derived from previous predecessors.

The Old Testament Flood of Noah account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia. What is more, the Hebrew name of God in the Old Testament is “El.” But this name was also borrowed from the Levant. Historically, El was a pagan deity and the supreme god of a Canaanite pantheon of gods, analogous to to the Greek god Zeus. But just because the name El was borrowed from this religious and cultural milieu (paganism) doesn’t mean that the corresponding values of the two deities are equivalent. In other words, it doesn’t follow that the Hebrew God is a false, pagan, Canaanite god. Precisely because the culture was familiar with this god, the God of the Bible chose to associate himself with this cultural icon in order to make the transition of faith smoother and far more acceptable. It’s similar to missionary work. If you’re trying to convert aborigines to Christ, you’ll try to explain certain concepts according to the existing terminology of the culture at hand. If you deviate and introduce completely foreign concepts, your theology will create cognitive dissonance with the native and local spiritual religions. Many of the New Testament narratives about Jesus are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, but they don’t have equal value in both Testaments.

So, the attempt to judge the truth value of a concept based solely on its linguistic and philosophical antecedents is not a sound argument. Besides, historical-grammatical studies alone cannot answer metaphysical questions, as, say, the existence of God and his attributes. So, it seems to me that this is a fallacious argument, namely, the attempt to invalidate certain concepts or to explain them away simply because of previously borrowed religious, philosophical, and linguistic antecedents. That type of argumentation would invalidate science itself. Current science is very different from that of the renaissance. Yet the language of modern science is borrowed directly from Greek and Latin texts. In fact, the entire scientific project has borrowed extensively from the philosophical and linguistic heritage of its predecessors. Does that invalidate its current status? I think not!

Conclusion

Frank W. Nelte tenaciously maintains his objection to the classical interpretation of “hypostasis” throughout the paper. He writes:

The truth is that the word ‘hypostasis’ has

NOTHING to do with ‘substance’ or with

‘ousia.’

Au contraire, as the scholarly work of Liddell & Scott demonstrates, “hypostasis” has everything to do with “substance” and “ousia.” For example, in Hebrews 1.3, the New International Version translates the Greek term ὑποστάσεως (hupostasis) as “the exact representation of … [God’s] being.” The New Living Translation expresses it as “the very character of God.” The English Standard Version renders it as “the exact imprint of his nature.” The Berean Literal Bible translates it as “the exact expression of His substance,” while the New American Standard Bible explicates it as “the exact representation of His nature.” What are all these translations of the word “hypostasis” getting at? Answer: they’re depicting God’s very “being,” “nature,” and “substance.” All these credible translations are talking about the very essence or substance of God. Therefore it is not inappropriate to refer to God’s innermost nature as his hypostasis. This view is supported by the New Testament! Hebrews 1.3 reads:

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα

τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ ⸃

καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ⸃

ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν

ὑψηλοῖς.

——-

Polytheism Versus Monotheism

By Biblical Researcher and Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim

——-

The First Cause

Some Bible critics have argued that there maybe other gods in the universe. However, the Bible itself claims that there’s only one God. Now, you may see that as circular reasoning but there are also valid philosophical arguments which demonstrate that there can only be one cause to the universe, to wit, a “first cause.” Philosophy does not posit a multiplicity of first causes but rather the existence of a single, first cause, just as other theosophical and spiritual traditions have also posited a single incorporeal first cause. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about a genus, a multiplicity of “contingent” beings, but about the source of everything, a “necessary” being that is beyond time and space and beyond being. If there were two such beings, then neither of them would be god. There can only be one maximally great being that can exist in every possible world.

——-

The Cosmological Argument

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), in the Timaeus dialogue, posited a "demiurge" of absolute intelligence as the creator of the universe. Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonist philosopher from Alexandria, claimed that the “One” transcendent absolute caused the cosmos to come into being as a result of its existence (creatio ex deo). Proclus (412–485 CE), his disciple, later clarified that “The One is God.”

Similarly, according to Aristotle, the “unmoved mover” (Gk. ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, lit. “that which moves without being moved”) or “prime mover” is the main cause (or first uncaused cause) of all the motion in the cosmos but is not itself moved or caused by any previous action or causation. Notice that the so-called “first cause” arguments do not entail multiplicity or diversity but rather unity and oneness.

In other words, nothing can come into being from nothing. Think about everything you see around you: your house, your car, your phone, your computer, your clothes, your food, your furniture, your TV, your parents, your friends, even yourself. Everything comes from something else. And the further back you go in time, in trying to unravel what caused what, the more you realize that everything came from something else. Someone or something either designed it, produced it, formed it, or gave it birth. If there were 2 gods, we would have to ask who came first? Who brought the second god into being?

However, the cosmological argument necessarily presupposes a single cause, which itself was never caused, namely, a timeless being, capable of creating everything (i.e. all contingent beings). Otherwise, if there was no first “unmoved mover,” there would be an infinite regress of causal dependency ad infinitum. This “first cause” can therefore be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate not only that there must be a “necessary” being that designed and sustained the universe, but also that there can only be “one” such being!

——-

The One God of the Old Testament

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony. Thus, divine revelation, which was subsequently transcribed or inscripturated, would certainly qualify as “testimony.”

There are multiple passages in both Testaments of the Bible where God declares to be without a counterpart: without an equal. Similar to the “Absolute Being” of philosophy which is logically inferred as a single, first cause, the Old Testament clearly affirms the existence of only one God. So, the uniqueness of a single God can also be attested by Divine Revelation. Scripture is therefore a witness to the reality of God’s existence as being unparalleled and unique. For example, in Isaiah 44.6-7 (NRSV), God declares that there are no other gods in the universe except him. He exclaims:

I am the first and I am the last; besides me

there is no god. Who is like me? Let them

proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth

before me.

In Isaiah 42.8, God states that he doesn’t share his glory with anyone. He alone is God without equal or rival:

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

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

Moreover, in Isaiah 43.10-11, God declares categorically and unequivocally that there were no gods formed before him, nor will there be any gods formed after him:

Before me no god was formed, nor shall

there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and

besides me there is no savior.

This truth is reiterated several times in Isaiah 45.18, 21:

For thus says the Lord, who created the

heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth

and made it (he established it; he did not

create it a chaos, he formed it to be

inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no

other.

There is no other god besides me, a

righteous God and a Savior; there is no one

besides me.

This assertion, of course, implies that there are not multiple gods that receive many different forms of religious worship but rather a single Godhead sans equal.

In Isaiah 46.9-10, God sets a unique standard against which all other theories are measured, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. That is to say, no one else can predict the future except God himself:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God,

and there is no one like me, declaring the

end from the beginning and from ancient

times things not yet done.

Similarly, 2 Sam. 7.22 seems to attest to the truth of God’s oneness by way of divine revelation (cf. 2 Pet 1.18):

You are great, O Lord God; for there is no

one like you, and there is no God besides

you, according to all that we have heard

with our ears.

——-

The One God of the New Testament

When we turn to the Christian scriptures, we find the exact same theme concerning one God who reigns supreme above humanity and the heavenly host. At no point in Scripture is there any hint that there are other gods that exist beside the God of the Old and New Testaments. John 17.3, for instance, brings to bear the authority of Scripture on the matter by calling the source of all creation “the only true God.” Critics of the Trinity (who view it as polytheistic) should be rebuffed because in the Johannine gospel Jesus clearly establishes that there’s *one essence* between himself and God. He proclaims, “The Father and I are one” (10.30).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal, consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). Paul the apostle also knows through direct revelations that “God is one” (Rom. 3.30). Paul understands that the Triune God is not equivalent to multiple gods but is rather a *monotheistic supreme deity* (1 Cor. 8.6 emphasis added):

there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom

are all things and for whom we exist, and

one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are

all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1.15-16 explains that no other god or gods created the universe except God the Father (the source) through his Son (who is his image or reflection):

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God,

the firstborn of all creation; for in him all

things in heaven and on earth were created,

things visible and invisible, whether thrones

or dominions or rulers or powers—all things

have been created through him and for him.

1 Tim. 2.5 basically reiterates the exact same concept of the ONE GOD, not as 2 or 3 separate beings, but as ONE BEING (in multiple persons):

For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human.

Similarly, Hebrews 1.2-3 reveals the exact same *truth* regarding a single God and his Son, “through whom he also created the worlds”:

in these last days he [God] has spoken to

us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all

things, through whom he also created the

worlds. He [Christ] is the reflection of God's

glory and the exact imprint of God's very

being, and he sustains all things by his

powerful word.

——-

God is Truth & Does Not Lie

The Bible repeatedly reminds us that God is truth, holiness, and veritable love itself, and therefore he does not lie. The Old Testament verifies his truthfulness by instructing us to imitate his holiness. Exodus 20.16 says,

You shall not bear false witness against

your neighbor.

Proverbs 12.22 reads:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

but those who act faithfully are his delight.

What is more, there are many Bible passages that demonstrate unlimited confidence in God’s honesty, transparency, and accountability. Titus 1.1-2 (emphasis added) is such a passage:

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of

Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of

God's elect and the knowledge of the truth

that is in accordance with godliness, in the

hope of eternal life that God, WHO NEVER

LIES, promised before the ages began—

In John 17.17 (ESV), Jesus himself says to God the Father:

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is

truth.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 65.16 (ESV) which calls the creator, “the God of truth.” He is similarly acknowledged in Deuteronomy 32.4 (NKJV) as “A God of truth and without injustice.”

In Numbers 23.19 (NRSV), God is further attested as a higher-being whose good character precludes deception and lies:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it?

Moreover, the doctrine of the Immutability of God describes an attribute of God which prevents him from changing his will or character. It implies that He will make good on all of his promises. Hebrews 6:18 (ICB) puts it thusly:

These two things cannot change. God

cannot lie when he makes a promise, and

he cannot lie when he makes an oath.

These things encourage us who came to

God for safety. They give us strength to

hold on to the hope we have been given.

Conclusion

This life has no guarantees. So, from an interdisciplinary perspective, when there are multiple lines of evidence concerning one God——coupled with cases abounding in the “religious-experience literature” down through the ages——the *testimony* becomes rather robust and trustworthy! In other words, the religious testimony is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge. And this global testimony——which goes far beyond the Judeo-Christian Bible and includes other world religions——indicates that only one God exists. If we add the philosophical arguments that also assert a first cause regarding everything that has been created in the cosmos, then we can safely say that there can only be one God that is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe!

——-

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!

——-

Why is it that both Jesus and Satan are called the “Morningstar”?

By Author Eli Kittim

In his essay, “Why is Jesus Called the ‘Morning Star’?”, author Randy Alcorn explains:

the name Morning Star is not tainted—it is

Satan who is tainted. Obviously this is the

case, or Morning Star wouldn't be used of

Christ.

Isaiah 14.12 uses the Hebrew term הֵילֵ֣ל (helel), meaning “a shining one,” to describe the great fall from heaven (Lk 10.18) of an angel who is called “ben shachar” (son of dawn or son of the morning), who is said to have weakened the nations (cf. Ezek. 28.13-17). In Christianity, this is considered to be a reference to Satan, the morning star, who at his creation possessed both great virtue and beauty but, due to pride (or ego), subsequently rebelled against God. The Septuagint (aka LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders Isa. 14.12 as follows:

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ

ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων;

The Septuagint renders the Hebrew helel (Morningstar/Venus) as ἑωσφόρος (from ἕως [“dawn”] +‎ φόρος [“bearing” or “carrying”] cf. 1 Sam. 30.17; Job 3.9; Ps. 110.3 LXX). This is obviously a reference to Satan’s original status, prior to his rebellion, as “the anointed cherub” (Ezek. 28.14 KJV). Moreover, Job 38.7 suggests that angels were created before the Big Bang and were actually present to celebrate God’s creation of the universe. In fact, all the angels prior to the creation of the world were called “Morningstars” (Job 38.4-7):

Where wast thou when I laid the

foundations of the earth? . . . When the

morning stars sang together, and

all the sons of God shouted for joy . . .

Quite appropriately, the Septuagint (Job 38.7) calls these angels (ἄγγελοί) stars (ἄστρα). Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ also calls himself ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός ὁ πρωϊνός (the bright and morning star) in Rev. 22.16. And in Rev. 2.28 Jesus promises to give the overcomers τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν (“the morning star”). What is more, Second Peter 1.19 describes regeneration or rebirth in Christ as a process in which “the morning star rises in your hearts” (NKJV). In this verse, the term Morningstar is referring to Jesus as the φωσφόρος (light-bringing; cf. John 1.4; 8.12)!

Therefore, by definition, the term Morningstar refers to a state of purity and holiness. So, it can no longer apply to Satan except insofar as it refers to his original status at the time of creation. Hence why the term Morningstar is used in the Bible as a reference to both Satan and Christ.

But there is a twist in the tale. When the King James Version of 1611 translated the Hebrew term hêylêl (Morningstar) into English, instead of using the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint, it used the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible. However, in Latin, the term Morningstar (Venus) is “Lucifer.” That’s how the word Lucifer entered our Bible and became part of Christian folklore. But because Jesus is also called “the bright Morning Star,” in Revelation 22.16, this Latin translation introduced a semantic confusion. Given that the term “Lucifer” is inextricably linked with Satan, this Latin version of Morningstar corrupted the original meaning of the term. That’s why many modern Bible versions have gone back to using the original Hebrew term “Morningstar” or “daystar” as opposed to the Latin-based “Lucifer.” The reason is obvious. The pejorative term Lucifer can neither technically refer to Jesus nor to Satan, who is no longer a morning star!

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!

——-