Science & Gods Existence

Science & God’s Existence

By Author Eli Kittim

Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?

Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.

No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!

If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!

——-

Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?

Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp

google.com

A universe of 10 dimensions

When someone mentions "different dimensions," we tend to think of things like parallel universes – alternate realities that exist parallel t

Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.

Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.

——-

Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?

Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.

——-

Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God

If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can 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 that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.

We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.

It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.

——-

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

What Can We Learn About the Antichrist?

By Author Eli Kittim

Daniel 8.23 (NRSV) reads:

At the end of their rule,

when the transgressions

have reached their full

measure, a king of bold

countenance shall arise,

skilled in intrigue.

The Westminster Leningrad Codex says that there shall arise a “king” [melek] (מֶ֥לֶךְ) of “fierce” [‘āz] (עַז־) “countenance” [panim] (פָנִים) who is “skilled” [ū·mê·ḇîn] (וּמֵבִ֥ין) in “intrigue” [ḥî·ḏō·wṯ] (חִידֽוֹת׃).

——-

The verse suggests a headstrong political leader with fierce features (cf. Dan. 7.11). Concerning his business skills, he’ll be well-versed in solving riddles and breaking codes. The only people who are professionally skilled in this line of work——deciphering veiled messages with double meanings——are spies. Much like James Bond, spies are involved in sinister plots, clandestine operations, and secret intrigues! Daniel 8.25 goes on to say:

By his cunning he shall

make deceit prosper . . .

Thus, according to Dan. 8.23, it seems highly probable that the Antichrist is a well-trained *high-level spy* who commits political espionage!

——-

What is the Abomination of Desolation?

By Author Eli Kittim

Given that wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences, pandemics, and increased lawlessness are not necessarily signs of the prophesied endtimes, since they’re arguably common in human history, there is nevertheless one sign that is unique to the imminent coming of Christ, namely, the sign of *the abomination of desolation* that is mentioned in Mark 13.14!

The Lukan “Desolation” Begins After Jerusalem Is Surrounded by Encamped Armies

The abomination of desolation is also mentioned in Matthew, but in Luke 21.20-21 (NRSV) we get additional information:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by

armies, then know that its desolation has

come near. Then those in Judea must flee

to the mountains, and those inside the city

must leave it, and those out in the country

must not enter it.

The key words of the Greek text are κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων Ἰερουσαλήμ (Lk 21.20). The term κυκλουμένην means encircled or surrounded. The word ὑπὸ means “by” or “under,” while the word στρατοπέδων is a reference to military bases, camps, or encamped armies. Thus, this verse is explicitly telling us that when you see Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ) being encircled or surrounded by encamped armies, military bases or camps, “know that its desolation has come near.”

Luke further warns that when the inhabitants first see the encircled armies, “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains.” Matthew 24.15-16 similarly says:

So when you see the desolating sacrilege

standing in the holy place, as was spoken of

by the prophet Daniel [9.27] (let the reader

understand), then those in Judea must flee

to the mountains.

So what Matthew calls “the desolating sacrilege,” Luke calls *surrounding armies* which bring about Jerusalem’s desolation. The so-called “holy place” may simply be a general reference to the Holy Land, especially since there is no Temple in Israel at present, nor is one expected in the foreseeable future, given that the erection of a Jewish Temple would necessitate the demolition of both the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqṣā Mosque.

When Daniel refers to the Antichrist, saying that “at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” (9.27), it could be a reference to a nuclear warhead that might be stored or set up on the *Temple Mount,* a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that is traditionally venerated as a holy site by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. The Temple Mount can certainly be referred to as a “holy place” (or as “the temple” for short). Continuing with the narrative, Matthew 24.21 (cf. Dan. 12.1) says:

For at that time there will be great suffering

[great tribulation], such as has not been

from the beginning of the world until now,

no, and never will be.

So, this “desolation” is an obvious reference to weapons of war and mass destruction, not to some sort of benign religious ritual that takes place inside a literal temple, as most Christian interpretations would have it. In other words, it isn’t simply offensive to religious sensibilities but rather deadly, lethal, and destructive. And this particular meaning would certainly conform to the usage of the term “desolation” in Scripture (see e.g. Ezek. 15.8; 33.29; Dan. 9.18; Zech. 7.14; Mt. 23.38). After all, the dictionary meaning of the word “desolation” is utter devastation, ruin, and destruction, or a barren wasteland.

Similarly, the definition of the word “sacrilege” is a violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred. This can certainly take the form of irreverence to sacred places. Nuclear weapons stored at a sacred site——like the Temple Mount, for example——would be a sacrilege (cf. Dan. 11.31). Such an act would be an abomination, that is to say, something that is decidedly disgraceful and horrific.

For those who are unsure as to whether the abomination of desolation already happened or not (i.e. whether it’s past or future), see my article “Preterism Debunked”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/633828381376544768/preterism-debunked

Eli of Kittim

PRETERISM DEBUNKED

By Eli Kittim ——- Was 70 CE the Worst Period Ever in the History of the Earth? In talking about the great ordeal ( aka “the great tribulat

Is Zechariah Describing a Nuclear Attack Similar to that of Ezekiel 38 & 39?

There is a passage in Zechariah 14 that explicitly refers to the end-time when God will finally reign supreme (v. 9):

the Lord will become king over all the earth;

on that day the Lord will be one and his

name one.

Zechariah 14 is seemingly talking about the same climactic time-period that Matthew & Luke are describing. For example, Zechariah 14.1-2 mentions a unique “day [that] is coming” (cf. v.4 “On that day”) when God “will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle.” It issues the same caveat that we find in Luke, including a near verbal agreement, namely, that “you shall flee by the valley of the Lord's mountain” (v. 5) at that time (cf. Lk 21.21). In other words, it’s warning people to escape the blast radius. If that is the case, then it would be appropriate to discuss the aftereffects of that war as described by Scripture itself (Zech. 14.12):

This shall be the plague [blow] with which

the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage

war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot

[or dissolve] while they are still on their feet;

their eyes shall rot [dissolve] in their

sockets, and their tongues shall rot

[dissolve] in their mouths.

These are obviously the consequences of a nuclear explosion that cannot be explained by natural disasters or physical illnesses, as, for example, when people’s flesh disintegrates instantaneously before they can even hit the floor. Something similar happened when the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No wonder this period is called the Great tribulation (Mk 13.19; cf. Mt. 24.21; Rev. 8.7), and it’s no surprise that “in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mk 13.24; cf. Joel 2.31)! Jerusalem will become a *barren wasteland,* as we’ve often seen in such post-apocalyptic films as Mad Max, The Book of Eli, & The Matrix (see 2 Pet. 3.10).

Luke’s pericope also reminds us of the Ezekiel 38 War in which many nations will come against Israel in the latter days (vv. 8-9):

in the latter years you shall go against a

land restored from war, a land where people

were gathered from many nations on the

mountains of Israel, which had long lain

waste; . . . You shall advance, coming on

like a storm; you shall be like a cloud

covering the land, you and all your troops,

and many peoples with you.

Incidentally, there are mentions in Ezekiel 38 & 39 that could be taken as references to a nuclear blast (see e.g. Ezekiel 38.19-20; 39.6-9).

For further details, see my paper “HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THE GOG MAGOG WAR AND ARMAGEDDON?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/132189853492/how-close-are-we-to-the-gog-magog-war-and

Conclusion

Most Biblical commentators view the abomination of desolation as a “religious” sacrilege, akin to the one perpetrated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 bce when he outlawed Jewish rites and desecrated the Temple by erecting an altar to Zeus, according to 2 Maccabees 6.1–12. But today there is no Temple standing in Jerusalem! And although the future *sacrilege* that the gospel writers described certainly has religious overtones——given that the entire event seems to take place on or around the Temple Mount (which is historically considered sacred)——nevertheless it causes utter destruction and devastation, so much so that people have to run for their lives.

So, the answer to our original question (what is the abomination of desolation?) is, most probably, nuclear warheads that will be placed, and subsequently detonated, on the Temple Mount. This would certainly constitute the most horrible sacrilege in history.

Therefore, it’s important to watch the war that is currently taking place in Israel. Jerusalem is said to be the epicenter of the final global conflict that initiates the Great Tribulation! It is this unique sign, then, that heralds the imminent coming of Messiah! And the *Temple Mount,* which continues to be the center of much controversy, should be the focus of attention!

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.

——-