Can We Discard Trinitarianism By Rejecting Hypostasis?: A Critical Review Of Frank Neltes Article The

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.

——-

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

άρθρο του ψυχολόγου - συγγραφέα, Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Χριστιανική Ψυχοθεραπεία

Θα πρέπει να πλαισιώσω τη συζήτηση λέγοντας εξαρχής ότι ο ορισμός μου για τη χριστιανική μέθοδο ψυχοθεραπείας δεν βασίζεται στην οργανωμένη θρησκεία ή σε κάποια συγκεκριμένη χριστιανική εκκλησία. Η «χριστιανική» ψυχολογική προσέγγιση που εισάγω δεν σχετίζεται με θρησκευτικά δόγματα ή θρησκευτικές πρακτικές. Αντίθετα, βασίζεται στην προσωπική μου κατανόηση των συλλογικών βιβλικών διδασκαλιών σε συνδυασμό με τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία και την υπαρξιακή εμπειρία! Ως εκπαιδευμένος ψυχολόγος, βλέπω μια στενή σχέση μεταξύ αμαρτίας και ψυχολογικής νεύρωσης!

——-

Τι σημαινει αμαρτία;

Σύμφωνα με τους Βιβλικούς όρους, η «αμαρτία» είναι μια πράξη που παραβιάζει τον θεϊκό ηθικό νόμο και θεωρείται εξαιρετικά κατακριτέα, προκαλώντας ενοχή ή/και ντροπή για το άτομο που την διαπράττει μέσω της συνείδησης (δηλ. Superego). Χρησιμοποιώντας κοσμικούς όρους, αυτό ακριβώς αποτελείται από μια κλινική «νεύρωση», δηλαδή, συνειδητά ή ασυνείδητα συναισθήματα ενοχής ή/και ντροπής που εμφανίζονται στην προσωπικότητα ως συμβολικά συμπτώματα, όπως ανησυχίες, φοβίες, καταναγκασμοί, και τα παρόμοια. Αν και ο όρος «νεύρωση» έχει απορριφθεί από το 1980 από το Διαγνωστικό και Στατιστικό Εγχειρίδιο Ψυχικών Διαταραχών (DSM III), είναι ωστόσο διαδεδομένος στην κλινική ψυχοθεραπευτική βιβλιογραφία (π.χ. χρησιμοποιείται ακόμα στο ICD-10 Κεφάλαιο V F40–48).

Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι υπάρχει κλινική σύνδεση μεταξύ της νεύρωσης και της αμαρτίας. Ορισμένοι αξιοσημείωτοι ψυχαναλυτές, όπως ο Moshe HaLevi Spero, έχουν δημοσιεύσει ακαδημαϊκά έργα σχετικά με αυτήν τη σύνδεση (δείτε το άρθρο του «Sin as Neurosis» στο «Journal of Religion and Health» Τόμος 17, Αρ. 4 [Οκτ. 1978], σελ. 274-287).

——-

Ποια είναι η διαφορά μεταξύ χριστιανικής και κλινικής ψυχοθεραπείας;

Ενώ ο στόχος της σύγχρονης ψυχοθεραπείας είναι να σας κάνει να αισθάνεστε λιγότερο ένοχοι για τη νεύρωσή σας, ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός προσπαθεί να εξαλείψει εντελώς την πηγή της ενοχής σας μέσω της *συγχώρεσης.* Αυτές είναι δύο ριζικά διαφορετικές προσεγγίσεις. H σύγχρονη ψυχολογία στερείται σε μεγάλο βαθμό από ηθικά ζητήματα και βασικά σας ενθαρρύνει να συνεχίσετε να ασκείτε τις αμαρτίες σας (αρκεί να μην πληγώνετε τον εαυτό σας ή τους άλλους), ενώ προσπαθεί να σας πείσει να μην αισθάνεστε τόσο καταδικασμένοι για αυτές. Ζούμε στον 21ο αιώνα. Οι άνθρωποι είναι ελεύθεροι να κάνουν όπως θέλουν. Για παράδειγμα, ένας ψυχαναλυτής είπε κάποτε σε έναν ασθενή — ο οποίος ξαφνικά αποκάλυψε τη σεξουαλική του διαστροφή κατά τη διάρκεια μιας ψυχοδυναμικής θεραπείας — «καλώς ήλθατε στο κλαμπ.»

Η άλλη προσέγγιση (δηλαδή της Βίβλου) αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι είναι ηθικά λανθασμένο στην ψυχή, και υποστηρίζει ότι, ανεξάρτητα από τις προσπάθειές σας, η ενοχή και η ντροπή δεν θα εξαφανιστούν εντελώς εάν δεν *συγχωρεθείτε.* Η σύγχρονη ψυχοθεραπεία δεν προσφέρει «θεραπεία» αλλά μόνο έναν καλύτερο μηχανισμό αντιμετώπισης που βασίζεται στην καλύτερη κατανόηση των συμπτωμάτων σας. Με άλλα λόγια, στην καλύτερη περίπτωση προσφέρει ένα χάνζαπλαστ.

Ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός, από την άλλη πλευρά, προσφέρει μια «θεραπεία» που βασίζεται σε έναν «εσωτερικό μετασχηματισμό» του νου. Μπορεί να συνεπάγεται περισσότερους κινδύνους και πολύ βαθύτερη κατανόηση, αλλά σχεδόν πάντα εγγυάται μια αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, πρέπει να γίνεις ένα νέο πλάσμα: μια νέα δημιουργία. Πρέπει να ξαναγεννηθείς. Μια μέρα είσαι αυτό το άτομο. Την επόμενη μέρα είσαι ένα εντελώς διαφορετικό άτομο. Αυτό ακριβώς συνέβη στον Παύλο (στην Νέα Διαθήκη). Μια μέρα διώκει τους Χριστιανούς. Την επόμενη τους αγαπά και τους προστατεύει. Στην Β΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους (5.17 Νεοελληνικη), ο Παύλος εξηγεί αυτήν την αλλαγή ως εξής:

Όταν κάποιος ανήκει στο Χριστό είναι μια

καινούρια δημιουργία. Τα παλιά πέρασαν·

όλα έχουν γίνει καινούρια.

Η χριστιανική διαδικασία του μετασχηματισμού δεν είναι διαφορετική από εκείνες που σχετίζονται με τον βουδισμό ή τον Ινδουισμό. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι σχεδόν παρόμοια με αυτές όσον αφορά την αυτοπραγμάτωση και την υπερβατικότητα, η μόνη διαφορά είναι ότι στο κέντρο της αδιαφοροποίητης συνείδησης είναι ο θεϊκός Χριστός. Ο Ιησούς εξηγεί τον λόγο για τον οποίο υποτιμούμε τις διδασκαλίες του (Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγέλιον 3.3):

Απήντησε ο Ιησούς και είπε· ‘σε

διαβεβαιώνω, ότι εάν δεν γεννηθή κανείς από

τον ουρανόν, δεν ημπορεί να Ίδη και να

απολαύση την βασιλείαν του Θεού.’

Για αυτό η Επιστολή προς Εφεσίους (4.22-24) μας δίνει εντολή να απομακρύνουμε τον «παλιό εαυτό» μας και να φορέσουμε μια νέα ταυτότητα, που λέει ο λόγος, δηλαδή τον «νέο εαυτό» που δημιουργείται σύμφωνα με την εικόνα του Θεού:

έχετε πράγματι διδαχθή να αποβάλετε

και πετάξετε από επάνω σας τον παλαιόν

άνθρωπον της αμαρτίας όπως αυτός είχε

υπάρξει και εκδηλωθή εις την

προηγουμένην ειδωλολατρικήν ζωήν και

συμπεριφοράν σας. Αυτός ο παλαιός

άνθρωπος, εξ αιτίας των αμαρτιών και των

παθών του, φθείρεται συνεχώς και

προχωρεί στον όλεθρον από τας επιθυμίας,

που ανάπτει η απατηλή αμαρτία. Εχετε

ακόμη διδαχθή να ανανεώνεσθε συνεχώς με

τα υγιή πνευματικά φρονήματα του νου σας

και να ενδυθήτε τον νέον άνθρωπον, ο

οποίος ανεδημιουργήθη και αναγεννήθη

σύμφωνα με το θέλημα του Θεού.

Έτσι, από αυτήν την άποψη, δεν χρειάζεται να επισκέπτεστε έναν ψυχίατρο μία φορά την εβδομάδα. Αυτό που χρειάζεστε είναι μια ριζική αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, δεν χρειάζεστε ομιλίες. Χρειάζεστε συγχώρεση!

——-

Η χριστιανική ψυχοθεραπεία όχι μόνο θεραπεύει αλλά προσφέρει και σωτηρία

Εκτός από αυτό το ψυχοθεραπευτικό πλεονέκτημα που προσφέρει η Βίβλος, στο οποίο μπορεί να επιτευχθεί βαθιά εσωτερική ικανοποίηση, παρέχει επίσης κάποιες ιδέες για το ασυνείδητο κίνητρο και την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Για παράδειγμα, υπερβαίνει το προσωπικό ασυνείδητο και μας ενημερώνει για τις επιρροές του λεγόμενου «συλλογικού ασυνείδητου» στην ψυχή μας, όπως έχει δείξει το έργο του Ελβετού ψυχίατρου, Καρλ Γκούσταβ Γιουνγκ.

Φυσικά, το θέμα της υπερβατικής φιλοσοφίας είναι σημαντικό επειδή, στο Βιβλικό πλαίσιο, η υπέρβαση αναφέρεται στις μεταφυσικές πτυχές της φύσης, οι οποίες είναι πέρα ​​από όλους τους φυσικούς νόμους. Αυτά τα παραψυχολογικά φαινόμενα μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν σε διάφορες «θρησκευτικές εμπειρίες» του τύπου που μελετά ο ψυχολόγος Γουίλιαμ Τζέιμς, οι οποίες συνήθως εκδηλώνονται στην προσευχή, στην υπερηαισθητική αντίληψη, στη διόραση, στον διαλογισμό ή στα παραφυσικά «οράματα» και στις υπαρξιακές εμπειρίες. Εν ολίγοις, φαίνεται να υπάρχει σύνδεση μεταξύ φυσικών και μεταφυσικών φαινομένων που παίζονται στον ψυχολογικό τομέα του ατόμου και στον τομέα του νου.

Για το σκοπό αυτό, η Βίβλος έχει πολλά να πει σχετικά με το πώς διαγιγνώσκουμε και ως εκ τούτου αντιμετωπίζουμε ορισμένες ασθένειες. Πρέπει παραδείγματος χάρη να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλα τα ζητήματα ψυχικής υγείας ως θέματα που σχετίζονται με την αμαρτία; ή πρέπει να συμβουλευτούμε τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία; Σύμφωνα με τη Βίβλο, εάν οι ανησυχίες, οι φόβοι, οι καταθλίψεις και οι φοβίες είναι οι ρίζες των ψυχικών διαταραχών, τότε μόνο η *αγάπη* τις θεραπεύει απαραίτητα. Η Α΄ Επιστολή Ιωάννη (4.18) τονίζει το ίδιο σημείο:

Η τέλεια αγάπη εξαλείφει τον φόβο· επειδή,

ο φόβος έχει να κάνει με τιμωρία· και

εκείνος που φοβάται δεν έχει ακόμα

τελειοποιηθεί στην αγάπη.

——-

συμπέρασμα

Η πανάκεια για όλες τις μη βιολογικές ψυχικές διαταραχές είναι η *αγάπη.* Οι Μπητλς είχαν δίκιο όταν είπαν: «Το μόνο που χρειάζεστε είναι η αγάπη». Η B' Επιστολή προς Τιμόθεο (1.7) συμφωνεί με τα προαναφερθέντα:

Το Πνεύμα που μας έδωσε ο Θεός, δεν είναι

πνεύμα δειλίας αλλά πνεύμα δύναμης κι

αγάπης και σωφροσύνης.

Έτσι, από ψυχοθεραπευτική σκοπιά, η *αγάπη* και η *συγχώρεση* εξοπλίζουν ένα άτομο για να σπάσει τις αλυσίδες της νεύρωσης, του εθισμού και του φόβου, αποκαθιστώντας το μυαλό του στην υγεία!

(To read this article in English, click the following link: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/635864715577393152/is-sin-the-cause-of-mental-illness).

Eli of Kittim

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Eli Kittim ——- Christian Psychotherapy I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method

——-

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!

——-

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!

——-

The Giant Jesus in the Gospel of Peter

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Bart Ehrman dates the non-canonical Gospel of Peter to ca. 150 ce or earlier. It’s considered to be a pseudepigraphical work. However, according to John Dominic Crossan, it seems to incorporate an early source for the passion-narrative that may predate all other known passion accounts. These scholarly views suggest that this gospel may have been inspired.

From an eschatological perspective, the giant Jesus coming out of the tomb at the end of days might actually provide the most accurate resurrection narrative to date (cf. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Heb. 9.26-28). The reason for this is obvious. Revelation 1.7 claims that “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.” An average 5-foot or 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, let alone by “every eye” of all them that dwell on the face of the earth. On the other hand, a *giant* Jesus can, in fact, be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Here’s the *resurrection narrative* in the Gospel of Peter (verses 38-40):

Therefore, having seen this, the

soldiers woke up the centurions and elders,

for they were also keeping watch. And

while they were describing to them the

things they had seen, behold, they saw

three men coming out of the tomb, with the

two young men supporting the One . . . And

the head of the two reaching unto to

heaven, but the One of whom they led out

by the hand, His head reached beyond the

heavens.

Thus, there is a description, here, of a giant resurrected Jesus coming out of the tomb. The point is that Jesus will come back to life not as an average human being but rather as a giant. Of all the postmortem appearances of Jesus, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For example, it seems to fit with the Pauline Christ——who’s portrayed as a towering figure——who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8 NRSV)

with the breath of his mouth, annihilating

him by the manifestation of his coming.

It’s also congruent with another, Old Testament, verse in which the Lord appears as a massive, colossal figure: (Isa. 31.5):

Like birds hovering overhead, so the Lord of

hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect

and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it.

In another, apocalyptic, verse, only a great figure of immense proportion can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14):

On that day the Lord with his cruel and

great and strong sword will punish

Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the

twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon

that is in the sea.

That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4 KJV), much like the film characters of Godzilla and King Kong. But which days is Gen. 6.4 referring to? Given that skyscrapers began to be built only in the 20th century, it seems very likely that the “Tower of Babel” (Gen. 11.4) is representative of that same time period, and thus it may have prophetic implications with regard to the end of days. For instance, why does Dan. 9.26, within its description of the last days, declare: “Its end shall come with a flood”? Similarly, why does Lk 17.30 emphatically compare Noah’s flood to the Revelation of Jesus Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the exact same messages that we find in the later apocalyptic versions of the New Testament, especially in the Book of Revelation!

Conclusion

Given that the authors of the canonical gospels are themselves, at times, seemingly unfamiliar with the local geography, customs, feasts, idioms, language, law, and the religion of the Jews, we cannot therefore dismiss the gospel of Peter on similar grounds. The possibility that the gospel of Peter could incorporate the earliest source for the passion-narratives (Crossan), and that it is dated to the first half of the second century, based on independent oral traditions (Ehrman), means that it could have been a candidate for canonicity. In other words, it may turn out to be partly, if not wholly, inspired. Remember that many current books in the Bible were at one time highly controversial and were not given full canonical status until much later.

Finally, the giant resurrected Christ in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to validate and confirm Revelation’s image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven.” Dan. 7.13-14 reads:

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one

like a human being coming with the clouds

of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One

and was presented before him. To him was

given dominion and glory and kingship, that

all peoples, nations, and languages should

serve him. His dominion is an everlasting

dominion that shall not pass away, and his

kingship is one that shall never be

destroyed.

——-