eli-kittim - Eli of Kittim
Eli of Kittim

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

Eli Of Kittim Author Page On Facebook

Eli Of Kittim Author Page On Facebook

Eli of Kittim Author Page on Facebook

Log into Facebook | Facebook
Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

More Posts from Eli-kittim

1 year ago

Eli Kittim - The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days

伊莱·基蒂姆 启示录小书:耶稣在末日的第一次降临

एली किट्टिम - रहस्योद्घाटन की छोटी पुस्तक: दिनों के अंत में यीशु का पहला आगमन

Эли Киттим - Маленькая книга Откровения: Первое пришествие Иисуса в конце дней

‎אלי כטים - ספר ההתגלות הקטן: ביאתו הראשונה של ישוע באחרית הימים

إيلي كيتيم كتاب الرؤيا الصغير: المجيء الأول ليسوع في نهاية الأيام

Ελι Κιττίμ - Το Μικρό Βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης: Η Πρώτη Παρουσία του Ιησού στο τέλος των Ημερών

amazon.com
The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days - Kindle edition by Eli of Kittim. Download it once and read it
Eli Kittim - The Little Book Of Revelation: The First Coming Of Jesus At The End Of Days

Tags :
1 year ago
The Priority Of The Epistles

The Priority of the Epistles

Eli Kittim

Principles of Interpretation

Using R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines from his book, Knowing Scripture, I will argue that there is a chronological discrepancy in the New Testament (NT) in which the timeline of Jesus’ life in the gospels is not the same as the one mentioned in the epistles. Specifically, the epistles contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. So I will argue that, based on principles of interpretation, priority must be given to the epistles. According to R.C. Sproul, exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature. Accordingly, I will argue that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. According to R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines, the gospels must be interpreted by the epistles.

“The Historical Narrative Must be

Interpreted by the Didactic”

— R.C. Sproul

Case in point. The epistles——which are the clearest teachings of the NT——apparently 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)! For example, according to the NT epistles, Jesus 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 Hebrews 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) clearly sets forth the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance “at the final point of time.” Given that the epistles are the more didactic portions of Scripture, and that the gospel narratives are not considered historical by many scholars, it would therefore seem hermeneutically legitimate to interpret the narrative by the didactic!

The Explicit & the Implicit

“The implicit is to be interpreted in light of

the explicit. Not the other way around”

— R.C. Sproul

But we have it completely backwards. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of Scripture that teach with clear and explicit statements. For example, in terms of Jesus’ appearance and death, Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says directly and clearly, “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is an explicit statement that not only shows the time of his coming (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) but also the purpose of his appearance, namely, to sacrifice himself in order to put away sin (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ⸀ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ). In both the Greek and English versions, the statement is very clear. Jesus’ death takes place at the consummation of the ages. We find a parallel passage in 1 Peter 1:20 (ASV):

“[Jesus] was foreknown indeed before

the foundation of the world, but was

manifested at the end of the times.”

These are straightforward, clear, and explicit teachings. To subordinate these explicit epistolary teachings of Scripture and to argue on the basis of implications drawn from the more obscure gospel narratives is a misuse of the Scripture. If we insist on the canonical context of the Bible, namely, that each book in the Old Testament (OT) & the NT is related to all the other books and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we have to be careful not to set these two divisions——namely, the gospels and the epistles——in opposition. The problem arises when we deduce certain things from the gospels, which then bring us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches in the epistles very clearly and very plainly.

“Our implications must always be measured

by and made subordinate to what the

Scriptures explicitly teach” — R.C. Sproul

The Totality of Scripture

“Every particular passage of Scripture must

be measured and interpreted against the

whole of Scripture” — R.C. Sproul

Let’s look at the gospel narratives and the didactic literature of the epistles and compare them. The didactic literature clearly demonstrates that the NT is an Apocalypse, whereas the gospels claim to be historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ Life, Death, and Resurrection. The first problem is that Bible scholars don’t consider the gospels as historical accounts, but rather view them as theological documents. The second problem is that the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels with regard to the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ by placing them in eschatological categories.

Now, let’s take the principle that “every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture” and apply it to the Messianic timeline. And let’s ask the question: according to Scripture, does the Messiah come to earth during the time of antiquity or in the end times? In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the OT & NT is consistent with the epistles rather than with the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. This can be proved with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX Daniel 12:1) says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” while the Theodotion (Daniel 12:1) has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (Daniel 12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn):

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all

will be made alive. But each in his own

order: Christ the first fruits, after that those

who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes

the end.”

What is more, Revelation 12:5 makes it clear that the messiah is born in the end times as a contemporary of the last world empire, which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (cf. Rev. 17:9-14). In fact, chapter 12 & verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, & the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation. Likewise, Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! And Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says EXPLICITLY——categorically and unequivocally——that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Rev 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” First Peter 1:10-11 also says that the NT prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10)!


Tags :
2 years ago
The Cloths Of Christ: Holy Relics Or Fakes?

The Cloths of Christ: Holy Relics or Fakes?

Eli Kittim

Don’t be naive. Fakes, forgeries, and frauds are much more prevalent than you might think. Just as the “post-2002” Dead Sea Scrolls are fake, so are many Christian relics. For instance, take the “Titulus Crucis,” a piece of wood. Christian tradition claims that the relic contains a portion of the True Cross. Scientists, however, consider it to be a medieval forgery:

In 2002, the University of Arizona

conducted radiocarbon dating tests on the

artifact, and it was shown to have been

made between 980 and 1146 AD. The

carbon dating results were published in the

peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon.

— Wiki

The same holds true for many other relics. Yet despite these setbacks, Christian archaeologists continue to make sensational claims that they have found the burning bush, the tomb of Jesus, the house of Peter, the Veil of Veronica (which btw is never mentioned in the canonical Gospels), and the like. They’re doing a great disservice to Christianity by promoting sensationalism and fake news. By advertizing hoaxes, fakes, and forgeries, they’re setting up Christianity to be mocked and ridiculed, and ultimately rejected. Once people realize that these relics are nothing more than fakes, frauds, and forgeries, they would want nothing to do with Christianity. In other words, the veracity of the Christian message is at stake. They’re setting people up to apostatize and deconstruct their faith. This is actually an attack on——not a support of——the Christian faith!

Pious Frauds

The Sudarium of Oviedo cloth——which is believed to be the post-mortem cloth that was wrapped around Jesus’ head, as mentioned in John 20:6–7——has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating:

It’s a hoax!

The Manoppello Image of Jesus Christ’s face on a cloth is also a fake:

Most researchers state that, despite fringe

claims of divine origins, the face on the veil

at Manoppello clearly conforms in

appearance to the characteristics of an

artificially-made image and that stylistically

it is similar to images dating to the late

Middle Ages or early Renaissance.

— Wiki

The Shroud of Turin is also a 13th to 14th century hoax:

In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three

different laboratories established that the

shroud's linen material was produced

between the years 1260 and 1390 (to a

95% confidence level). Defenders of the

authenticity of the shroud have questioned

those results, usually on the basis that the

samples tested might have been

contaminated or taken from a medieval

repair to the original fabric. Such fringe

hypotheses have been refuted by carbon-

dating experts and others based on

evidence from the shroud itself, including

the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-

contamination hypothesis and the carbon

monoxide hypothesis.

— Wiki

However, there was a recent research study on the Shroud of Turin (April 2022) by Dr. Liberato De Caro’s team which used the new “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering” or WAXS method to determine the age of the shroud. They claim that they found a match with a piece of fabric from c. AD 55-74 from the siege of Masada in Israel. However, it is as yet unknown whether or not the findings are accurate. As far as I know, they have not been independently confirmed or multiply-attested by other laboratories. Dr. De Caro himself noted that his work was simply “evaluated and peer-reviewed by three other independent experts,” including the editor of the journal “Heritage,” which published his findings. But that doesn’t mean that the results were correct, multiply attested, or independently confirmed. It just means that a couple of editors thought that the experiment was worthy of publication. In fact, Dr. Liberato De Caro himself expressed the need for further research, especially “blind” tests to “avoid any possible bias in the data analysis by the authors of the research.” Bottom line, this new study has not yet conclusively refuted the 1988 radiocarbon dating findings by three different laboratories which established that the shroud is a medieval hoax.

As early as 1390, about 35 years after the

Shroud first emerged in France, Pierre

d'Arcis, the Catholic bishop in Troyes, wrote

to Pope Clement VII that the shroud was ‘a

clever sleight of hand’ by someone ‘falsely

declaring this was the actual shroud in

which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to

attract the multitude so that money might

cunningly be wrung from them.’

— NBC News

The Roman Catholic Church considers the

Shroud to be an icon, not a holy relic.

— NBC News

Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake
nbcnews.com
Scientists used blood pattern analysis research techniques to study stains on the Shroud, concluding they are inconsistent with a single pos

Now, a new study using modern forensic

techniques suggests the bloodstains on the

shroud are completely unrealistic,

supporting arguments that it is a fake.

— Livescience

‘If you look at the bloodstains as a whole,

just as you would when working at a crime

scene, you realize they contradict each

other,’ Borrini said. ‘That points to the

artificial origin of these stains.’

— Livescience

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest
livescience.com
The Shroud of Turin, said by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, is likely a fake, as a new study using modern forensics techniques finds

Enough already with the hoaxes and the

fake news!


Tags :
1 year ago
Study The Bible With The Eli Of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group (on Facebook)

Study the Bible with the “Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group” (on Facebook)

If you're interested in Bible exegesis, Biblical languages and interpretation, then join the #Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group on Facebook.

Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

Tags :