Polytheism Versus Monotheism

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!

——-

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-

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!

——-

Christ The Terminator: Half Man Half Machine

“I’ll Be Back”

By Author Eli Kittim

End-Time Visions of the Messiah’s Robotic Enhancements

What if Jesus paid a steeper price for our salvation? What if Christ is “revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)? What if his sacrifice “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) is more costly than previously assumed?

In his vision, the prophet Ezekiel saw certain heavenly creatures who “were of human form” (1.5 NRSV). Notice what he says about their legs (1.7):

Their legs were straight, and the soles of

their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot;

and they sparkled like burnished bronze.

As you read further, you will come to realize that this imagery runs throughout the entire Bible. Remarkably, Ezekiel’s description sounds very much like modern bionic prosthetics, which redefine and enhance human amputees. Let’s not forget that the heavenly figures whom Ezekiel had seen were supposedly human. Two other interesting clues were that “their legs were straight” (unlike human legs that bend) and that “their feet were like . . . burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth].” This is a running theme throughout the Bible whose imagery is associated with the end-time Messiah! Similarly, in Revelation 1.13-15, John describes his vision of Christ as follows:

I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with

a long robe and with a golden sash across

his chest. His head and his hair were white

as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were

like a flame of fire, his feet were like

burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace,

and his voice was like the sound of many

waters.

Notice the imagery pertaining to Christ’s “feet [which] were like burnished bronze [Gk. χαλκολιβάνῳ].” By comparison, in Daniel 10.1 we are told that “In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel.” Remember that, in the Bible, Cyrus represents the Messiah (see Isa. 45.1). Daniel sees a vision of the end times, described by a glorious man who looks awfully similar to John’s “Son of Man” (Dan. 10.5-6):

I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen,

with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his

waist. His body was like beryl, his face like

lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his

arms and legs like the gleam of burnished

bronze, and the sound of his words like the

roar of a multitude.

Daniel gives us additional information by saying that “his arms and legs [were] like the gleam of burnished [Hb. קָלָ֑ל qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֣שֶׁת nechosheth].” In other words, it wasn’t just his legs, but his arms as well were seemingly made of burnished bronze! It sounds like a combat soldier who had lost all his limbs and was wearing a metallic or robotic prosthesis. And Daniel employs the exact same Hebrew words for “burnished bronze” that are used in Ezekiel’s vision. Furthermore, in Revelation 2.18, Christ himself identifies with this biblical image, demonstrating categorically and unequivocally that it refers to him and him alone. Christ says:

And to the angel of the church in Thyatira

write: These are the words of the Son of

God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and

whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Chalkolibanon: The Messiah’s Feet Were Like Burnished Bronze

καὶ οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ

https://biblehub.com/greek/5474.htm

The Greek word chalkolibanon is translated as “burnished bronze” and refers to “a fine metal,” such as “fine copper, bronze or brass,” similar to what the Hebrew term for bronze (i.e. nechosheth) represents.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5178.htm

These images that are therefore uniquely related to Jesus strongly suggest that they’re part of his human makeup and physical appearance. Why else would the Bible contain these metallic images? All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg. An article from the Australian Academy of Science expounds on this type of modern technology:

What’s different about the new generation

of prosthetic limbs is their union with bionic

technology, and the way they combine

fields of study as diverse as electronics,

biotechnology, hydraulics, computing,

medicine, nanotechnology and prosthetics.

Technically, the field is known as

biomechatronics, an applied

interdisciplinary science that works to

integrate mechanical elements and devices

with biological organisms such as human

muscles, bones, and the nervous systems. 

https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/bionic-limbs

Curious

Bionic limbs

Advances in human bionics may require us to rethink our concepts of what it is to be human.

Incidentally, a wide variety of materials are used to create artificial limbs, including aluminium bronze and titanium bronze alloys, which are shiny metals. Copper, iron, silver, and gold have also been used in the past. Surprisingly, these are the exact metallic descriptions that we find in the aforesaid passages of the Bible (cf. Dan. 2.32-33: “head of . . . gold . . . arms of silver . . . thighs of bronze. . . legs of iron . . . feet partly of iron and partly of clay [human]”).

Robotics for Human Augmentation in the Visions of Daniel

Dual fulfillment is an important principle of Biblical interpretation. It’s associated with the concept of messianic typology in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to the notion that there are certain prophecies in the Bible that may have both an immediate and a long-term fulfilment. The gigantic statue of a man made of four metals, in the Book of Daniel, is such a prophecy, that might be a clue to the endtimes Christ. It has a short-term fulfillment in terms of the succeeding world-empires that will arise and rule on earth. However, Daniel 2.44 suggests that the prophecy also refers to the end of days (a long-term fulfillment) when God will set up his kingdom once for all! Daniel 2.31-33 (NRSV) explains Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as follows:

You were looking, O king, and lo! there was

a great statue. This statue was huge, its

brilliance extraordinary; it was standing

before you, and its appearance was

frightening. The head of that statue was of

fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its

middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron,

its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.

Let’s not forget that Daniel addresses the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar as if he’s the the king of kings, the Messiah (2.37-38):

You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the

God of heaven has given the kingdom, the

power, the might, and the glory, into whose

hand he has given human beings, wherever

they live, the wild animals of the field, and

the birds of the air, and whom he has

established as ruler over them all—you are

the head of gold.

There are messianic overtones, here, that go far beyond the historical context of the passage and suggest a future fulfillment. The dream features a towering statue of a man (Daniel 2.32-33):

The head of that statue was of fine gold, its

chest and arms of silver, its middle and

thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet

partly of iron and partly of clay.

Once again, we get the feeling this is more of a machine than a man. Notice that the legs were made of iron and bronze. What if Daniel 4.13-15 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah? (cf. 2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13):

I continued looking, in the visions of my

head as I lay in bed, and there was a holy

watcher, coming down from heaven. He

cried aloud and said: ‘Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches, strip off its

foliage and scatter its fruit. Let the animals

flee from beneath it and the birds from its

branches. But leave its stump and roots in

the ground, with a band of iron and bronze,

in the tender grass of the field. Let him be

bathed with the dew of heaven, and let his

lot be with the animals of the field in the

grass of the earth.’

Conclusion

There’s a running narrative throughout the Old and New Testaments that includes thematic parallels and verbal agreements between the visions of various prophets. The terminology has not only been surprisingly consistent from prophet to prophet, but its meaning has also been uniform from one language to another. For example, both Ezekiel and Daniel use identical Hebrew terms to describe what appears to be a Messianic figure, whose feet were “like burnished [Hb. קָלָֽל׃ qalal] bronze [Hb. נְחֹ֥שֶׁת nechosheth]” (Ezek. 1.7; cf. Dan. 10.6)! Astoundingly, the exact same meaning (i.e. χαλκολίβανον; burnished bronze) as applied to the Hebrew Old Testament is employed in the Greek New Testament (Rev. 1.15; 2.18) to convey a similar idea. This suggests that the Biblical books are inspired and in dialogue with one another.

Accordingly, the arms and legs of the purported Messiah do not appear to be human. Rather, they appear to be robotic metals for human augmentation, what we today would call modern bionic prosthetics in redefining and enhancing human amputees. The consistent thematic material (i.e. the canonical context) in the visions of the prophets, especially those of Daniel, is exegetically significant and cannot be simply explained away. What if Daniel 4.14 represents God’s judgment on the Messiah to cut off “his arms and legs”? (cf. Dan. 10.6):

Cut down the tree

and chop off its branches.

Given that the “tree image” in Dan. 4.10-12 is of paramount importance and immersed in messianic metaphors (cf. Jn 15.5; Rev. 22.2), it could certainly represent the Anointed one. All these prophets from both the Old and New Testament seem to suggest that the Messiah’s “sacrifice” entails the loss of his limbs, which are replaced by modern metallic substitutes, turning him into a kind of Cyborg or Bionic Man! The same shiny metals that are referenced in the Bible are the exact same alloys used in prosthetic limbs and modern robotics for human augmentation (i.e. human-enhancement technologies). A close reading of these end-time visions suggests that the Son of Man is part man part machine. This is called “transhumanism,” the merger of humanity with artificial intelligence. This would imply that Christ’s suffering on Judgment day is far more intense than previously thought, which also reflects the profound depth of his love for us!

In the Bible, Do Past Tenses Imply Past History?

By Author Eli Kittim 📚

——-

The Past Tense Versus the Conditional Tense

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

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

Temporal values (past, present, future) are

not established in Greek by use of the

verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone. This

may come as a surprise to those who, like

most students of Greek, were taught at an

elementary level that certain tense-forms

automatically refer to certain times when an

action occurs.

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

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

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

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,

the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to

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

flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

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

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all,

[at some point in history], the righteous for

the unrighteous, in order to bring you to

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

made alive in the spirit [at some point in

human history].

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

——-

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

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

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

He was despised and rejected by others; a

man of suffering and acquainted with

infirmity; and as one from whom others hide

their faces he was despised, and we held

him of no account. Surely he has borne our

infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we

accounted him stricken, struck down by

God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for

our transgressions, crushed for our

iniquities; upon him was the punishment

that made us whole, and by his bruises we

are healed.

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

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

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

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

was found in his mouth.’ When he was

abused, he did not return abuse; when he

suffered, he did not threaten; but he

entrusted himself to the one who judges

justly. He himself bore our sins in his body

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

might live for righteousness; by his wounds

you have been healed.

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

When he had made purification for sins, [at

some point in human history] he sat down

at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

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

——-

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

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

Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν

ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς.

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

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

Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι

κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.

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

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

Eli of Kittim

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

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

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

——-

Conclusion

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

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

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

Eli of Kittim

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

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

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

Eli of Kittim

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim ——- A Call For a *New Reformation* A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way: “If your doc

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

——-