Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Hi, What Is The Difference Between The Elect And Those Who Have The Seal Of God? Or Are They The Same?
Hi, what is the difference between the Elect and those who have the Seal of God? Or are they the same? Thanks!
They are the same!
-
coolblog10601 liked this · 2 years ago
More Posts from Eli-kittim
Kittim’s Eschatology:
The Kittim Method
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.
Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels
Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”
According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!
In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.
The Epistolary View of Christ
The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!
Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method
Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”
What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.
The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!
Christ is born in the Fullness of Time
Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!
Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age
In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, 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. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”
There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!
Conclusion
Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.
——-
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods
By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚
The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits
Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).
However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.
As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.
What is more, the Bible has many different literary 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 **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 animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.
Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text
Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:
the sons of God had intercourse with the
daughters of human beings.
The NET Bible similarly says:
the sons of God were having sexual
relations with the daughters of humankind.
The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:
the sons of God had intercourse with
women.
These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:
Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,
romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons
of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the
Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian
Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in
Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of
different Jewish angelic hierarchies.
So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:
The fallen ones were in the earth in those
days, and even afterwards when sons of
God come in unto daughters of men, and
they have borne to them -- they are the
heroes, who, from of old, are the men of
name.
It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually.
The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.
But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”
But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!
The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist
In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!
Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:
The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on
the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New
King James’). These figures, which are
beyond human description, represent the
gods that have come down upon the earth
in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to
whom scripture devotes a brief but
noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who
were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).
Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:
Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the
clouds, and every eye will see Him.
From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.
The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!
Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the 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” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).
Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!
Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:
I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:
And the great dragon was thrown down, the
serpent of old who is called the devil and
Satan, who deceives the whole world; he
was thrown down to the earth, and his
angels were thrown down with him.
Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:
I saw one of his heads as if it had been
fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was
healed. And the whole earth was amazed
and followed after the beast; they
worshiped the dragon because he gave his
authority to the beast; and they worshiped
the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,
and who is able to wage war with him?’
Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be
just like the days of Noah.
It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:
And its end will come with a flood.
In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:
And there was war in heaven, Michael and
his angels waging war with the dragon. The
dragon and his angels waged war.
Conclusion
Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:
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.
——-
Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?
Eli Kittim
I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.
For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.
As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.
The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!
But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!
Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!
There are many problems with that view.
First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.
Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
The Exact Month and Year of Jesus’ Birth Are Revealed in the Bible
By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Matthew 1.17 tells us the year of Jesus’ birth
Astoundingly, the gospel of Matthew imparts a cryptic clue concerning the birth of Jesus that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, is actually a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of his birth! The key to solving this puzzle can be found in Chapter 1 and Verse 17. Notice that there is a constant repetition of 14 generations throughout the foregoing lineage. We also know from Scripture that a generation is equal to 70 years (Ps. 90.10). Matthew 1.17 reads as follows:
there were fourteen generations in all from
Abraham to David, fourteen from David to
the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the
exile to the Messiah.
One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! Do the math.
So, let’s work out the calculation. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from David to Babylon. Each generation is equal to 70 years. Thus, 14 x 70 = 980 years from David to Babylon. And there were 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah. Therefore, 14 x 70 = 980 years. So, from David to the exile are 980 years, and from the exile to the Messiah are another 980 years. Hence 980 (+) 980 = 1960, the year of the Messiah’s birth! Mind you, this is not a historical but rather an esoteric rendering, which contains a cryptic clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth!
Luke 1.26 tells us the month of Jesus’ birth
The Bible is very clear and very simple when it comes to imparting cryptic and esoteric clues. We don’t need to use overly technical, heavy-handed, and convoluted mathematical equations. For instance, in an attempt to figure out the month of Jesus’ birth, some scholars begin by applying the months pertaining to the 24 courses of the Levitical priests that rotate to minister in the Tabernacle (based on John the Baptist’s father in Luke 1.5, “Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”), and then, after figuring out the date of Elizabeth’s conception, they add 6 months to determine the timing of Mary’s conception (Luke 1.26, 36), and so on and so forth. But this calculation is far too complex and very confusing. By contrast, Luke’s gospel makes it very, very simple and very clear. Luke 1.26-27 reads thusly:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God to a city in Galilee
named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the
descendants of David; and the virgin’s
name was Mary.
In Luke 1.26, the angel was sent “in the sixth month.” That’s the clue. That’s the key! Simple and to the point. The sixth month (in the Jewish religious calendar) is called Elul. In the Gregorian calendar it falls on the month of August. Thus, that’s the month that the Messiah is born!
Conclusion
In chapter 1 verse 17, Matthews’ genealogy is theological, not historical. That’s because “historically” it doesn’t make any sense. For example, we know that the Babylonian exile took place sometime around 586 BCE. If David lived approximately 980 years earlier, that would put David’s timeline at around 1566 BCE, which is historically inaccurate. David lived around 1,000 BCE. Similarly, 980 years after the Babylonian exile would put Jesus’ birth at around 394 CE (the fourth century), making him a contemporary of Jerome. So Matthew’s genealogy is obviously crypto-theological, not historical. It is meant to impart a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of the Messiah’s birth!
But you may object and say, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was born in 4 BCE and died sometime around 30 CE, right? Well, not exactly. The gospels are theological, not historical, documents. Scholars know that the early extra-biblical references to Jesus by people like Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with (interpolations). What is more, there are no eyewitnesses and no first-hand accounts of Jesus. There are also many literary discrepancies in the New Testament. For example, the earliest New Testament writings (the Pauline letters) don’t contain the embellishments and legends we find in the later writings (the gospels). Not to mention the historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus was supposedly born in 4 BCE (Matthew) or 6 CE (Luke).
But, more importantly, the New Testament epistles themselves tell us that Jesus will actually be born during the consummation of the ages, or “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), and that he will be “revealed [for the very first time] at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB). Moreover, Hebrews 1.2 tells us that Jesus will speak to humankind in the “last days,” while Rev. 12.5 confirms that Jesus will be born in the end-times as a contemporary of the last empire on earth (the so-called “7-headed dragon with 10 horns”), during a time period just prior to *the great tribulation* that lasts 3 and a half years (see Rev. 12.5-6, 13-14). Similarly, Isaiah 2.19 says that the Lord rises (or resurrects) “to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no 2,000 year gap between Jesus’ resurrection and judgment day! Rather, they’re contemporaneous events. And Daniel 12.1-2 prophesies (in the Greek Septuagint) about a princely figure who will die and resurrect in the last days, just prior to the *general resurrection* of the dead.
So, there are many, many references to the Messiah’s one-and-only visitation in the end-times (e.g. Job 19.25; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 2.1—3; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 19.10d)! But probably the most important and explicit reference to Jesus’ *atonement* and *death* at the end of days comes from Hebrews 9.26b (KJV), which says categorically and unequivocally that the timeline of this event is in the end-times:
once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus]
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
[or death] of himself.
So, according to Hebrews 9.26b, Jesus’ death takes place “in the end of the world,” not 2,000 years ago! Therefore, the one-and-only visitation of Jesus in the end-times is well-supported and multiply attested!
——-
For further scholarly details (from the original Greek) on the future incarnation of Christ, watch the following (short) video: ⬇️
A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus
——-
I just spent some time giving you the backstory concerning the Jesus prophecy. Now that you understand the biblical timeline and context of Jesus’ one-and-only coming, let’s get back to what we were talking about earlier. So, in conclusion, Matthew 1.17 reveals the year of the Messiah’s birth (1960)! Similarly, Luke 1.26 reveals the month that the Messiah is born (in August)! Thus, Jesus the Messiah has already been born and will soon appear on the world stage. That’s precisely why the countdown to Armageddon began after the restoration of Israel in 1948. The rebirth of Israel in 1948 (Ezek. 38.8) marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations in that modern Israel becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days (cf. Mt. 24.32-34; Acts 1.6). So the idea that the Messiah would be born 12 years after the rebirth of modern Israel coincides with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. Accordingly, the so-called *restoration* of “Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9.25), in the 70 weeks of Daniel, also began during this same time period! In other words, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel also prophesies of a coming messiah after the restoration of Israel. If you do the work of modern critical scholarship, it all fits like a glove. So, are we living in the last days? You better believe it!
——-
For further details on the 70 weeks of Daniel, see the following article: ⬇️
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations
——-