Is There Really A Virgin Birth?

Is There Really a Virgin Birth?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman,” but the Septuagint translated it as “virgin” (ἡ παρθένος). Since the New Testament writers usually quote from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible, Matthew 1.23 follows suit and uses the word “virgin” (παρθένος) in quoting Isaiah 7.14:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm

So, that’s how we got the word “virgin” in our New Testament. Henceforth, Marian theology emerges. From here begins Mariolatry, the worship of Mary as a Goddess, otherwise known as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer) in the Greek Orthodox Church. And although it is true that Luke praises Mary for being chosen as the mother of God, in time, however, Mary’s status is elevated, so much so that she becomes almost the fourth person of the Trinity, as the dogmas of Mary gradually become intertwined with doctrines of the faith with regard to redemption, intercession, and grace. Christian Mariology became an integral part of the Catholic church as the faithful began to pray to Mary for intercession and help, such as praying the rosary or glorifying Mary as part of their daily prayer. She became like a Goddess. Of course, there is no Biblical support for these Marian dogmas, prayers, devotions, and exultations.

——-

If that’s not enough, the Catholic church then went on to devise the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was like a divine being who was born without sin. This Catholic dogma was created in 1854, declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin, which was then followed by the doctrine regarding the Assumption of Mary, the notion that Mary was taken up or raptured into heaven like Elijah. The dogma is unclear as to whether Mary died or not, only that she was taken up into heaven, perhaps imitating the ascension of Jesus.

——-

The earliest writings of Christianity are Paul’s letters, written between 48-60 AD. Paul does not mention the nativity (the birth of Jesus), or the magi, or the star of Bethlehem, or the massacre of the innocents, or the flight to Egypt, or the virgin birth! These embellishments come much later (between 70-100 AD) with the writings of the gospels, and even then the virgin birth is only recorded in Matthew and Luke. So, it appears that Paul doesn’t know anything about a virgin birth. Otherwise, he would have told us about it!

——-

Conclusion

The Greek term παρθένος can be masculine or feminine. The definite article (“the”), which precedes it, tells us the gender, whether it is male (o/ho) or female (eta/η). At any rate, the point of the Septuagint’s translation, regarding the Messianic birth, is to show that the male child (cf. Rev. 12.5) is special. He is holy: a virgin, so to speak. He is monogenēs (“the only one"; cf. Heb. 11:17-19). That’s what the Bible is trying to depict. Not that he simply appeared out of nowhere, defying the laws of nature. His birth is natural. But he himself is more than human (cf. Isa. 9.6). That’s the point! The reason Joseph is depicted as Jesus’ nonbiological father has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with THEOLOGY! The gospels are theological narratives which are trying to show that Jesus is not simply a descendant of Adam, but of God. That’s the reasoning behind the theology of the virgin birth! So, the so-called “virgin birth” has been blown out of proportion to the point that even Muslims are talking about a literal, miraculous virgin birth. This is utter nonsense. In his book “miracles,” CS Lewis says that God never breaks the laws of nature; he only transcends them. That’s why Paul tells us nothing about the virgin birth. That’s also why Galatians 4.4 doesn’t say that Jesus is *born* of a virgin but rather “of a woman” (ἐκ γυναικός). Yes, Jesus is God and he certainly has the power to do miracles. But his birth doesn’t break the laws of nature. He is born naturally, like every other human being!

Hebrews 2.17:

For this reason he [Jesus] had to be made

like them, fully human in every way.

——-

Who Are the Two Witnesses of Revelation?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Coming Elijah & the Two Witnesses: Symbols of Christ

Let’s start from the beginning so that you could understand how various Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) passages pertain to this topic. Here’s an excerpt from my book “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 1, pp. 60-63:

“. . . there are strong scriptural indications

that ‘Elijah’ prophetically signifies the

forthcoming Messiah. In the last book of

the Jewish scriptures, virtually the last

words of the entire OT are as follows [Mal.

4.5]:

‘Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the

prophet before the coming of the great

and terrible day of the Lord.’ “

“This is probably the single most

perplexing oracle in the Bible because the

only figure who is expected to arrive on

earth during ‘the day of the Lord’ is Jesus

Christ himself [cf. Lk. 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil.

1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1

Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13;

5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 1.1]. And he is not only

known as a prophet, he is also known as the

‘Lord’ . . . [Mt. 21.11]. . . . Could it be that

the earlier Elijah narratives, from the

‘books of Kings,’ were prophesying about

the time of the end? Since no ordinary

human is either qualified or prophesied to

accomplish such extraordinary feats, we

are left with only one conclusion: the last

days’ ‘Elijah’ can be none other than the

foretold God-Messiah! In that event, this

oracle regarding Elijah can be viewed as a

subtle allegorical sign of Christ’s

incarnation ‘before the coming of the

great and terrible day of the Lord.’ . . .”

“This type of symbolism is then carried

forward into the book of Revelation where

we find two ‘last days’ witnesses who

prophesy for 1,260 days (Rev. 11.2-13). In

the text, God declares, ‘I will grant

“authority” to my two witnesses’ (Rev.

11.3, emphasis added). But let us back up

for a moment. Was it not Jesus who once

said, ‘All authority has been given to Me in

heaven and on earth’? (Mt. 28.18; cf. Rev.

18.1 . . .). Thus, the biblical jargon is

suggesting an intimate relationship

between these figures and Christ.

Returning to our vignette, the two

witnesses are also capable of performing

astonishing miracles, and just like Moses

and Jesus, they even ‘have power over the

waters to turn them into blood, and to

smite the earth with every plague, as

often as they desire’ (Rev. 11.6; 14.19-20;

19.15; Exod. 7.20). At the end of their

ministry, they are killed in a ‘city which

mystically is called Sodom and Egypt,

where also their Lord was crucified’ (Rev.

11.8). So they prophesy in the same place

where Jesus lived, and they die in the

same city where he died. We think you can

guess the rest of the script: ‘And after . . .

three . . . days the breath of life from God

came into them, and they stood on their

feet [they were resurrected]’ (Rev. 11.11).”

What Exactly Is the Day of Christ?

As I will show later, the two witnesses are symbols of the messiah. But first, in chapter 3, p. 99, of my book I try to explain the pericope of 2 Thess. 2.1-3 (NKJV), where Paul says:

“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of

our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering

together to Him, we ask you, not to be

soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by

spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us,

as though the day of Christ had come. Let

no one deceive you by any means; for that

Day will not come unless the falling away

comes first, and the man of sin is

revealed, the son of perdition . . .”

“Before we begin our analysis, it is

imperative that we provide a definition for

what Paul refers to as ‘the day of Christ.’

As the preceding segment maintains, this

unique ‘day’ concerns ‘the coming of our

Lord and our gathering together to him.’

This kind of language is used consistently

throughout scripture (cf. Acts 2.1; Mt. 24.

39-42) to represent the concept of the

‘rapture’: the ascent of the living and the

dead into heaven (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1

Thess. 4.16-17). Hence, Paul is not simply

indicating the human manifestation of

Jesus on the world scene; rather, he is

emphasizing Christ’s postresurrection

activities that begin to have a real and

substantial impact on life as we know it.

By implication, ‘the day of Christ’

primarily signifies the risen Messiah.”

In fact, 2 Thess. 2.1 uses the exact same word for the rapture that Mt. 24.31 uses, namely, episunagógé. That’s precisely why Christ warns us, in Mt. 24.23-28, not to be overly concerned about the earthly messiah, but rather to focus on the risen messiah who comes like lightning in the sky. Thus, Christ’s earthly manifestation can be deemed to be his “unofficial” appearance, so to speak, whereas his postresurrection parousia is the one that’s scripturally regarded as his official coming. It is the ultimate event to which everything in scripture is pointing!

The Two Witnesses: Symbols of the OT & NT Messiah

In order to understand the identity of the two witnesses (δύο μαρτύρων) in Rev. 11.3-12, we must first trace them back to the Hebrew Bible from which they emerge. According to Judaism, there are two Messiahs: one is a high priest, the other is an anointed king of the Davidic line. This is what Zech. 4.14 is referring to when it says (cf. Rev. 11.4):

“These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.”

In an academic article (The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 52, issue 3, 1959, pp. 149-185), author J. Liver writes:

“The problem of the two Messiahs in

Apocryphal literature, especially in the

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in

the Damascus Covenant, occupied scholars

at the beginning of the present century and

has revealed new facets with the discovery

of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Especially

pertinent to this problem are some of the

texts from Qumran Cave 1, and some

fragments from Qumran Cave 4, recently

published. We shall here endeavor to make

clear the distinctive features of these

Messiahs, their status and their tasks at the

end of days, and to elucidate the historical

setting from which the doctrine of the two

Messiahs sprang.”

However, in the NT, these 2 Messiahs are morphed into one priestly/kingly figure: Jesus the Son of God (cf. Heb. 4.14 and Mt. 2.1–2). Notice the parallels between Christ and the Two Witnesses. They are killed immediately after their testimony is proclaimed; they are killed in the same place where Jesus died; and just like Christ, they arise from the dead approximately 3 days later!

There are further parallels between Christ (Rev. 12.4--5) and the 2 witnesses (Rev. 11.7--12; cf. Acts 1.9), which are stunningly similar. The mainstream view that the 2 witnesses represent Moses and Elijah (signifying the Law and the Prophets) appears to be inaccurate. According to Heb. 9:27, each person is destined to die once, which would disqualify Moses from a second human birth. As for the purported ascension of Elijah, it seems to be a theological narrative that foreshadows the ascension of Christ.

So when we trace the identity of the two witnesses back to the OT and the context in which they appear, we find that they represent the 2 Messiahs of Rabbinic Judaism. But these 2 figures later became coalesced, commingled into one, in the figure of Jesus Christ, who’s given the titles of king and high priest in the order of Melchizedek, who is also a king and priest (Heb. 7.13-17). Therefore, the 2 witnesses appear to represent the coming Messiah: Jesus Christ!

First Comes Christ; Then Comes the Antichrist

“Keep the commandment . . . until the

appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which

He [God] will bring about at the proper

time— . . . whom no man has seen” (1 Tim.

6.14-16).

On the authority of this fascinating passage, we come to realize that Jesus is not revealed according to the pseudohistorical period of the gospel narratives, but instead, he is manifested “at the proper time”: a forthcoming event frequently alluded to by the NT epistles. We know that Christ will initiate the end-time events by being the first major figure to appear on the world stage (i.e. the first horseman of Revelation). We also know that he’s born in the last days during the completion or “fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου Gal.4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; see also Rev. 12.5; Heb. 1.2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20)! For further details, see my paper “WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

Tumblr

Who is the First Horseman of the Apocalypse?

By Author Eli of Kittim There are No Counterfeit Signs in the Bible There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. So why sho

According to 2 Thess. 2.1-3, the official coming of Christ & the rapture cannot occur until the revolt takes place and the Antichrist (AC) is revealed. This refers to the AC claiming to be God with signs & wonders (vv. 4, 9). Therefore, the basic sequence is that Christ will appear first, unobserved (Lk 17.20), followed by the apostasy and the AC. Then, and only then, can the “official” postresurrection coming of Christ & the rapture take place.

Revelation 11.4 associates the two witnesses with the 2 lamp stands or 2 messiahs of Hebrew scripture. Verse 2 discusses the abomination of desolation (aka the Great Tribulation or GT) when the nations will trample underfoot the holy city (Jerusalem) for 42 months. Verse 3 says that God will give testimony to his 2 witnesses and they’ll prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth (mourning attire). Verse 5 says that they will perform great signs. And whoever tries to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies (cf. 2 Thess. 2.8: “the Lord will slay [him] with the breath of His mouth”). Verse 6 warns that these have great authority (exousian) to control the weather and to cause plagues. Verse 7 is the key. It says that when they complete their witness (testimony), the beast that arises out of the abyss* (AC) will make war with them, defeat them, and kill them (cf. 2 Thess. 2.7; Rev. 12.4b).

Verse 8 reveals that they’ll die in the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also Christ was purportedly crucified. Verse 11 announces that after 3 and a half days the spirit of God will enter them and raise them from the dead. The 3 and a half days appear to symbolize 3 and a half years, according to the day-year principle (see Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5–6). So Christ seemingly rises at the end of 3 plus years. Moreover, verse 12 tells us that they hear a loud voice from heaven saying “come up here” (anabēte hōde). And they went up in the cloud. Compare Acts 1.9 where the exact same word nephelē is used for Christ’s ascension (see also Rev. 12.5). Nowhere does it say that they prophesied during the GT, as most prophecy experts teach. In fact, the text implies that they arrived first on the scene, because later on, the beast that arose out of the abyss killed them. Since the beast is not revealed until the outset of the GT, and since the 2 witnesses precede him, it means that they must prophesy prior to the GT, during the first 3 & a half years of the supposed 7-year tribulation period.

Conclusion

Christ comes first, 42 months or 1,260 days prior to the “abomination of desolation” (aka the starting point of the GT) because that’s the allotted time given to the 2 witnesses to prophesy (Rev. 11.3). Then, the beast (aka Abaddon & Apollyon, meaning “destroyer” Rev. 9.11) that comes up out of the abyss and initiates the GT will kill him. The beast is also given authority for 42 months (Rev. 13.5). However, the beast’s time slot is equivalent to the duration of the GT. By contrast, Christ’s 42 months cannot occur at the same time, otherwise the rest of the passages would contradict this chronological time frame. How so? Well, according to 2 Thess. 2.7, Christ the restrainer must first be removed before the AC can be revealed. So, Christ must come first. Furthermore, Revelation 6.2 begins with the peacemaker or the white horseman (Christ; cf. Rev. 19.11) before it gets to the second horseman who “was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another” (Rev. 6.4). And since 42 months were also allotted to Christ, his timeline is necessarily not equivalent to that of the AC.

The phrase, “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” (Rev. 11.7) suggests either the AC’s resurrection from the dead (Rev. 13.3, 12, 14), or nuclear war (Rev 9.2-3), or both. More specifically, Rev 9.2 equates the opening of the abyss with smoke arising and darkening the sun & the air, suggestive of nuclear explosions (cf. Zech. 14.12). And given that the AC’s authority only lasts for 42 months, it seems feasible that the AC’s resurrection occurs at the beginning of the GT. After the completion of that time period he has no further authority. Which means that Christ will die sometime around the onset of the GT (or in the midst of the 7-year tribulation period as traditionally understood). It seems, then, that toward the end of the GT Christ will resurrect & initiate the rapture!

In Rev 13.3-4, the beast dies and is subsequently resurrected, and the whole earth marvels and worships him. Christ, on the other hand, will be rejected (Lk 17.25; Jn 1.11). That’s an important clue as to who is who! Rev. 13.5 says that the AC was given authority for 42 months. So, it seems as if he’s resurrected first, and then he holds sway for 42 months. Moreover, Rev. 13.7 tells us that he wages war & defeats the saints, and that authority was given to him over every tribe and tongue and nation. In fact, Rev. 13.16 is reminiscent of the passport vaccines because it says that all, rich and poor will receive a mark (charagma) on their hand so that they may not buy or sell without this mark! Seems like we’re getting close to that time period.

If the AC already controlled all the inhabitants of the earth, he wouldn’t need to start a global war. So, if the GT is his attempt to conquer the world, then his total domination must come to an end at the completion of the 42 months. Incidentally, the verse where he defeats the saints is right next to the verse about his control over every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 13.7). And everyone, except the saved, will worship him (Rev. 13.8). So it seems that all the hype starts with his resurrection. And yet we are told that his authority is limited to only 42 months. Rev 11 says that the AC will kill the witnesses (i.e. the messiah) when he comes out of the abyss (v. 7). By the way, this is the exact same time period that Christ is said to *die* as the atonement for our sins. Afterwards, he will *resurrect* and translate us to heaven (Heb. 9.26-28 NRSV):

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself. And just as it is appointed for

mortals to die once, and after that the

judgment, so Christ, having been offered

once to bear the sins of many, will appear

a second time, not to deal with sin, but to

save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Who Is Eli Kittim & What Does He Believe?

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Why Do I Write Under the Pseudonym of Eli of Kittim?

For the record, “Eli of Kittim” is my pen name, not my real name. I chose this name because it points directly to Jesus Christ himself. The name “Eli of Kittim” is a cryptic reference to Jesus, and it really means, “The God of Greece.” The idea that the Messiah’s name is Eli is mentioned in many passages of the Old and New Testaments. For instance, Matthew 27.46 defines the name “Eli” as God. It reads: “Eli, Eli ... that is, My God, my God.” Similarly, Daniel 12.1 refers to “the great [messianic] prince” named, “Michael” (Mika-el). Michael means “Who is like God?” But if you break-up the word, the prefix “Mika” means “who is like,” while “el,” the suffix, refers to God himself. The same holds in Matthew 1.23 where the author informs us that Jesus’ name is “Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." Once again, the prefix is based on the root (im) עִם, which means “with,” while the root-suffix (el) אֵל means “God” (cf. Isaiah 7.14). This is probably why God says in Malachi 4.5 (DRB), “Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” So, the common denominator in all these Biblical verses is that the Messiah is called Eli.

Moreover, Kittim is a repeated Old Testament Biblical name that represents the island of Cyprus, which was inhabited by Greeks since ancient times, and thus represents the Greeks. In Genesis 10.4 we are told that the Kittim are among the sons of Javan (Yavan), meaning Greece (see Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). Even the War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, foretells the end-time battle that will take place between Belial and the King of the Kittim. This is all in my book, chapter 9. So, accordingly, Eli of Kittim roughly means, “The God of Greece.” That’s the name’s cryptic significance. And since the name Eli of Kittim represents the main argument of my book, I use it as my pen name!

——-

Bio

I’ve been involved in the study of serious Bible scholarship for over 30 years. I’m what you might call a Bible maven! I hold an MA degree in psychology from the New School for Social Research in New York City, and I’m also a graduate of the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity and of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute. I’ve also studied Biblical criticism at both Queens College and The New School (Eugene Lang). I’m fluent in Koine Greek, and I’m also a native Greek speaker. I also read Biblical Hebrew. I read the New Testament in the original languages. Currently, I’m a Bible researcher, published writer, and an award-winning Goodreads book-author. My book is called “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” I advise all my readers to also read my *blog* because it furnishes *additional information* that usually answers most of their FAQs. I highly recommend that you read at least a few *related-articles* which flesh out certain ideas that are sometimes sparely developed in the book. It acts as a companion study-guide to “The Little Book of Revelation.” See Tumblr: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

Eli of Kittim

Eli Kittim is a Biblical Researcher and an Award-Winning Author of the Christian-Nonfiction Book,...

I have also contributed academic articles to numerous journals and magazines, such as “Rapture Ready,” the “Journal of Higher Criticism,” “The American Journal of Psychoanalysis,” and the “Aegean Review” (which has published works by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), among others.

——-

Rethinking Christianity: An Einsteinian Revolution of Theology

Just like Paul’s doctrine——which “is not of human origin; for … [he] did not receive it from a human source, … but … [he] received it through a revelation” (Gal. 1.11-12)——my doctrine was received in the exact same way! Mine is an Einsteinian revolution of theology. No one will do theology the same. I made 2 electrifying discoveries that turn historical Christianity on its head:

A) What if the crucifixion of Christ is a

future event?

B) What if Christ is Greek?

Both of these concepts were communicated to me via special revelation! Hermeneutically speaking, they involve an absolutely groundbreaking paradigm shift! Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! And most of the Biblical data, both academic and otherwise, actually supports my conclusions. The fact that it’s new doesn’t mean it’s not true. This new hermeneutic is worthy of serious consideration. No one has ever said that before. This can only be revealed by the spirit!

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote:

All truth goes through three stages:

At first it is ridiculed.

In the second, it is violently rejected

In the third, it is accepted as self-evident.

I would suggest that readers do their due diligence by investigating my extensive writings in order to examine what my view is all about and on what grounds it is established.

——-

Kittim’s Systematic Theology

I have written about my systematic theology many times before, but only vis-à-vis my evidence (i.e. in trying to prove it). But I’ve never tried to clarify its foundations. In systematic theology, a theologian seeks to establish a coherent theoretical framework that connects all the diverse doctrines within a tradition, such as Bibliology, Soteriology, Eschatology, and the like. However, one of the major problems involved in such a study is the theological bias of the researcher who might “force” the data to fit the theory in an attempt to maintain coherence and consistency.

So, where does my systematic theology come from? I’m neither Protestant, nor Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox (though I used to be Greek-Orthodox). I don’t belong to any particular church or denomination. Nor am I trying to create one. I’m rather selective, but I don’t identify with the various denominations of whose views I sometimes embrace. The reason is that——although I may agree with certain theological positions, nevertheless——I do not necessarily agree with their overall systems.

Unlike most other systematic theologies that are based on probabilities and guesswork, the starting point of my system is based on “special revelation”! This revelation, or rather these revelations (for I’ve had a number of them through the years) do not add any new content to the canon of scripture, but they do clarify it, especially in terms of chronology or the timing and sequence of certain prophetic events. So they don’t add anything new to the Biblical canon per se. The only thing they do change is *our interpretation* of the text. Incidentally, this revelation has been multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by innumerable people. Due to time constraints, I can’t go into all the details. Suffice it to say that a great multitude of people have received the exact same revelation! Essentially, this is my spiritual navigation system. But I never force it on the text. I always approach the text with impartiality in order to “test the spirits,” as it were. The last thing I want to do is to engage in confirmation bias.

And my views fit all the evidence. For example, I agree with Biblical scholarship that most of the Old Testament is not historical. I fully agree that many of the Patriarchs did not exist. I concur that the same holds true for the New Testament, but not to the same degree. What is more, I’m in full agreement that the gospels are anonymously written, and that they’re nonhistorical accounts that contain many legendary elements. I further concur that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. I also agree with many credible Bible scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, such as Robert M. Price and Kurt Aland. I admit that some of the New Testament texts involve historical fiction. And I don’t believe that in order to have a high view of scripture one has to necessarily accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter. Rudolf Bultmann was right: the Bible sometimes mythologizes the word of God!

——-

The High Quality of My Work

The truth is, I demand of my work nothing less than the highest possible quality so that it is able to withstand the rigors of modern scholarship! To that end, a solution to a particular problem must be multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by all parts of Scripture, thus eliminating the possibility of error in establishing its legitimacy. I’m very comprehensive in my work and I use a very similar quasi-scientific method when interpreting the text. In order to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation during the exegetical process, I observe exactly *what* the text says, exactly *how* it says it, without entertaining any speculations, preconceptions, or presuppositions, and without any theological agendas. This eliminates any personal predispositions toward the text while preserving the hermeneutical integrity of the method.

And then I translate it into English with the assistance of scholarly dictionaries and lexicons. After that, I cross-reference information to check for parallels and/or verbal agreements. Thus, the translation of the original biblical languages becomes the starting point of my exegesis. This type of approach is unheard of. Almost everyone comes to the text with certain theological preconceptions. I’ve been heavily influenced by my academic and scientific backgrounds in this respect, and that’s why I’m very demanding and always strive to achieve the highest possible quality of work! I take a lot of pride in my work! And it is only after this laborious process has been completed that I finally check it against my original “blueprints”——namely, my revelations——to see if they match. It’s an airtight case because it’s not guided by speculation and conjecture, as most theologies seem to be.

The best explanation of my views comes from the following work. This is the pdf of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, “The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles”:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6b2a560b-9940-4690-ad29-caf086dbdcd6

——-

Breaking News‼️

The War of Gog & Magog Has Begun❗️

Follow this Twitter list for news & live updates from multiple sources. It’s a Twitter list called “Eli Kittim Prophecy News”:

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/lists/200355615

https://href.li/?https://mobile.twitter.com/i/lists/200355615

The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Biblical Flood: Universal or Local?

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible's internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience. — Wikipedia

According to Bible scholarship, Noah is not a historical figure. And we also know that the legendary flood story of the Bible was inspired by an earlier epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, namely, “The Epic of Gilgamesh." Moreover, if we zero in on the mythical details of Noah’s Ark, the story has all the earmarks of a legendary narrative.

The Bible is an ancient eastern text that uses hyperbolic language, parables, and paradox as forms of poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call “theology.” In the absence of satellites or global networks of communication, any catastrophic events in the ancient world that were similar to our modern-day natural disasters——such as the 2004 tsunami that killed 228 thousand people off the coast of Indonesia, or Hurricane Katrina, one of the most destructive hurricanes in US history——would have been blown out of proportion and seen as global phenomena. This would explain the sundry flood myths and stories that have come down to us from ancient times. And, according to Wikipedia:

no confirmable physical proof of the Ark

has ever been found. No scientific evidence

has been found that Noah's Ark existed as

it is described in the Bible. More

significantly, there is also no evidence of a

global flood, and most scientists agree that

such a ship and natural disaster would both

be impossible. Some researchers believe

that a real (though localized) flood event in

the Middle East could potentially have

inspired the oral and later written

narratives; a Persian Gulf flood, or a Black

Sea deluge 7500 years ago has been

proposed as such a historical candidate.

Bible Exegesis: Literal versus Allegorical Interpretation

My primary task, here, is not to weigh in on the findings of science as to whether or not a historical flood took place but rather to offer an exegetical interpretation that is consistent with the Biblical data. Taking the Bible literally——as a standard method of interpretation——can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. For example, in Mark 9.50 (ESV), Jesus says:

Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its

saltiness, how will you make it salty again?

Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace

with one another.

Question: is Jesus literally commanding his disciples to carry salt with them at all times? In other words, is Jesus talking about “salt” (Gk. ἅλας) per se in a literal sense——the mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride——or is he employing the term “salt” as a metaphor to mean that his disciples should *preserve* their righteousness in this life of decay?

Obviously, Jesus is using the term “salt” as a metaphor for preserving godliness in the midst of a perishing world. This proof-text shows that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted.

The Judgment of the Flood: There’s No Judgment Where There’s No Law

If one re-examines the flood story, one would quickly see that it doesn’t square well with history, science, or even the theology of the Bible. For example, Paul says in Romans that human beings became aware of sin only when the law was given to forbid it. But there is no judgment where there is no law. Romans 5.13 says:

for sin indeed was in the world before the

law was given, but sin is not counted where

there is no law.

So, my question is, if the law was given after Noah’s epoch, and if there was no law during Noah’s time, how could “sin … [be] counted [or charged against anyone’s account] where there is no law.”?

How, then, could God “judge” the world during the Pre-Mosaic law period? It would appear to be a contradiction in terms.

What is more, if we know, in hindsight, that no one is “saved” by simply following the law (Galatians 2.16) or by sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10.1-4), how could people possibly be “saved” by entering a boat or an ark? It doesn’t make any theological sense at all. But it does have all the earmarks of a mythical story.

The Flood as Apocalyptic Judgment

There’s no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood). Moreover, the Book of Revelation predicts all sorts of future catastrophic events and natural disasters that will occur on earth, where every island and mountain will be moved from its place, coupled with earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, etc. The frequency & intensification of these climactic events is referred to as the “birth pangs” of the end times. In fact, it will be the worst period in the history of the earth! Matthew 24.21 puts it thusly:

For then there will be great tribulation,

such as has not been from the beginning of

the world until now, no, and never will be.

And since it is possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events, so the flood account may be alluding to an apocalyptic judgment. For example, if we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* with the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place: see e.g. Locusts: Exod. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3); Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Exod. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21); Pestilence: Exod. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8); Water to Blood: Exod. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.9; 16.3-4); Frogs: Exod. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13); Boils or Sores: Exod. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2); Darkness for three days: Exod. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). Apparently, the darkness lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5). All these “plagues” are seemingly associated with the Day of the Lord (Mt. 24.29):

Immediately after the suffering of those

days the sun will be darkened, and the

moon will not give its light; the stars will fall

from heaven, and the powers of heaven will

be shaken.

In the same way, the Old Testament flood narrative may be representing a type of **judgment** that is actually repeated in the New Testament as if taking place in the end-times (cf. Luke 17.26-30): “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17.26)! In the Olivet prophecy, Mt. 24.39 calls the flood “a cataclysm” (κατακλυσμὸς) or a catastrophic event. And as 1 Pet. 3.20-21 explains, Noah’s flood is a “type” of the endtimes, and we are the “antitype” (ἀντίτυπον). As a matter of fact, in reference to the end-times destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. 9.26 says “Its end shall come with a flood.” In other words, there will be utter destruction and devastation, the likes of which the world has never seen before (Gen. 6.13; Dan. 12.1; Mt. 24.21).

Creation in 6 literal 24-hour days?

In Genesis 1.5, we are told that “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” By comparison, Genesis 1.8 says “there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” What is puzzling, however, is that God made the moon & the sun on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19). How do you explain that?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a literal 24-hour day model is inexplicable and does not seem to be part of the authorial intent. How could you possibly have mornings and evenings (or 24-hour “days”) if the sun & moon were formed on day 4? Obviously, they are not meant to be literal 24-hour days (see e.g. Gen. 2.4 in which the Hebrew word “yom,” meaning “day,” refers to the entirety of creation history). The creation days are therefore symbolic or figurative in nature.

Part of the internal evidence is that there are *allegorical interpretations* that are applied to scripture from within the text, such as 2 Peter 3.8, which reminds us of the following Biblical axiom:

But do not forget this one thing, dear

friends: With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are

like a day.

Similarly, Paul instructs us to interpret certain parts of the Bible **allegorically.** For example, Paul interprets for us certain Old Testament passages **allegorically,** not literally! Paul says in Galatians 4.22-26:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons,

one by a slave woman and one by a free

woman. But the son of the slave was born

according to the flesh, while the son of the

free woman was born through promise. Now

this may be interpreted allegorically: these

women are two covenants. One is from

Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;

she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in

Arabia; she corresponds to the present

Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her

children. But the Jerusalem above is free,

and she is our mother.

So, as you can see, there are not necessarily 6 literal days of creation, or 6,000 years in earth’s history, or a global flood, nor are there any talking donkeys holding press conferences and doing podcasts, there’s no evil that is caused by eating fruits, there are no trees of immortality on earth, no human angels wielding futuristic laser guns, and there are certainly no mythological beasts with seven heads walking around on park avenue in Manhattan. Proper Biblical exegesis must be applied.

But it’s equally important to emphasize that this allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible, its inerrancy, its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3.16-17), or its truth values! The reason for that will be explained in the next two sections.

Biblical Genres Require Different Methods of Interpretation

The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **parables and metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents and talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. For example, the “beasts” in the Book of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8, are interpreted by scripture as being symbolic of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Similarly, the so-called “locusts” and “scorpions” in the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, seemingly allude to modern-day warfare. No one in their right mind would dare say that the beasts of Daniel or those of Revelation are **literal beasts.** Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Just as Ancient Philosophical Inquiry Was Discussed Through the Language of Poetry, So too Theological Truth Was Expounded Poetically in Sacred Scripture

It’s important to stress that a refutation of the historical flood narrative is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. Truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.

For example, Lucretius’ only known work is a philosophical *poem* that is translated into English as “On the Nature of Things,” in which he examines Epicurean physics through the abundant use of poetic and metaphorical language. Similarly, the single known work by the Greek philosopher Parmenides——the father of metaphysics and western philosophy——is a *poem* “On Nature” which includes the very first sustained argument in philosophical history concerning the nature of reality in “the way of truth."

What is of immense interest to me is that both of these ancient philosophers explored their “scientific” and philosophical “truths” through the richly metaphorical language of *poetry*. So, why can’t the ancient books of the Bible do the same? Is modern science and literary criticism correct in dismissing biblical “truths” on historical grounds simply because of their richly poetic or metaphorical language? Perhaps our modern methodologies can be informed by the ancient writings of Lucretius and Parmenides!

Was Jesus Born Again?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Jesus’ Baptism in the Holy Spirit

In discussing Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to John the Baptist’s water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a conversion experience where Jesus had a personal encounter with the power of God. Many Christian denominations emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3.5). From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Mt. 3.11 NRSV):

‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and

fire.’

In Mk. 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text isn’t referring to a symbolic immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit! And although Baptism is defined as a rite of admission into Christianity——by immersing in water——this ritual is *symbolic* of being cleansed from sin (1 Jn 1.7) by the death of the self. First Peter 3.21 (NIV) reads:

and this water symbolizes baptism that now

saves you also—not the removal of dirt from

the body but the pledge of a clear

conscience toward God.

In Rom. 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life.” It’s part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self & the rebirth of the new one (Eph. 4.22-24). The best example of Spirit baptism is in Acts 2.1-4! Colossians 2.12 (NIV) similarly says:

having been buried with him in baptism, in

which you were also raised with him through

your faith in the working of God.

Keep in mind that, in the gospel story, Jesus didn’t start his ministry prior to his regeneration. Nor was Jesus revealed prior to his rebirth. Mt. 3.16-17 (NRSV) suggests that Jesus’ regeneration began with John’s baptism and was followed thereafter by his encounter with the devil in the wilderness:

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as

he came up from the water, suddenly the

heavens were opened to him and he saw

the Spirit of God descending like a dove and

alighting on him. And a voice from heaven

said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with

whom I am well pleased.’

This is a symbolic account of his rebirth. Notice that it was Jesus *alone* who saw (εἶδεν), presumably for the first time, the Spirit of God (cf. Jn. 3.3) who would later indwell him. If Jesus already had the Holy Spirit, there would have been no need for a temptation in the desert. Jesus already had the fullness of the Deity within him in bodily form (Col. 2.9) but, being innocent, he still had to receive the Holy Spirit in order to energize it and be transformed. The next verse says (Mt. 4.1 NRSV):

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the

wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

This is a continuation of the earlier baptism motif in the previous chapter. If “ ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance’ “ (Acts 19.4 NIV), as “Paul said,” then Jesus would have had to necessarily confront his sin nature at some point. For those who object to the notion that Jesus had a sin nature, how could he have been “like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he were unable to be tempted? Not to mention that it would also render the temptation pericope ipso facto meaningless because how could the devil tempt someone who is unable to be tempted by sin? That’s why scripture says that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5.21 NIV)!

So, as part of his rebirth experience, Jesus had to confront the devil. That’s why the text emphasizes that he didn’t do it on his own. Rather, “he was led up [ἀνήχθη] by the Spirit.” Jesus then confronts the devil head on. He is persistently tempted in order that he may prove his loyalty to God. He faces various temptations and is put to the test. He experiences what the German Protestant theologian Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) calls the “mysterium tremendum”:

A great or profound mystery, especially the

mystery of God or of existence; the

overwhelming awe felt by a person

contemplating such a mystery (Oxford

English Dictionary).

The text shows that, by the end of his temptation experience, Jesus had been reborn in God by following the same principle as the one found in James 4.7 (NRSV):

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist

the devil, and he will flee from you.

Jesus does precisely that. Notice that the spirit of God and the angels did not minister to him prior to his rejection of Satan (Mt. 4.10-11 NIV):

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan!

For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God,

and serve him only.’ “Then the devil left him,

and angels came and attended him.

This is a clear demonstration that even Jesus himself had to be reborn in order to both see & enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3.3, 5). Given that he’s fully human (Heb. 2.17), he’s not exempt from the regeneration process, which is the necessary means by which a human being can become united with God.

This concept creates an obvious oxymoron. For example, if Christ was purportedly born-again, does this mean that Jesus got saved? Or that Jesus became a Christian? This is the kind of paradox that such an experience can suggest. In a certain sense, the answer is yes. Think about it. Being fully human, even Christ has to undergo a dangerous temptation in order to encounter God. But if that’s the case, then it means that there was a time when Jesus didn’t know God; a time when he didn’t have a personal and intimate relationship with him. Lk. 2.52 (NRSV) says:

Jesus increased in wisdom and in years,

and in divine and human favor.

If “Jesus increased in wisdom,” then this means that there was a time when he didn’t have much wisdom. The above verse also suggests that the divine favor towards him increased as Jesus got older. All these passages clearly show that Jesus grew up as a normal human being who underwent all of the spiritual experiences for regeneration and rebirth that we all encounter. He was not exempt from any of them, including that of regeneration & rebirth!

Conclusion

Scripture, then, shows that in being fully human, Jesus had to go through everything that we also face, including suffering, pain, depression, rejection, and so forth. Yet there are some pastors who teach that Jesus didn’t have a sin nature, never sinned, could not be tempted, was not reborn, and the like. Remember Isa. 53.3 (NLT)?:

He was despised and rejected— a

man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest

grief.

Yet in response to a Christian talk-show host, a famous preacher who heads a megachurch in Redding, California argued that Christ “wasn’t born again the way we’re born again.” Specifically, the Christian talk-show host posed the following question: So, “he [Christ] wasn’t born again the way we’re born again”? To which Christian minister and evangelist, Bill Johnson, replied: “No, goodness no, no. I have to be born again; he’s already God, so, absolutely not.” So much for pastoral care!