It Is Not A Coincidence That The New Testament Was Written In Greek Instead Of Hebrew. Jesus Did Not

It is not a coincidence that the New Testament was written in Greek instead of Hebrew. Jesus did not say 'I am the Aleph and the Tav,' but rather 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, ... the beginning and the end' of the Greek alphabet. Indisputably, Jesus explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks.

Eli of Kittim

Biblical Criticism: A Flawed Interpretation of the Gospels

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim

The type of Biblical criticism (or the scholarly “study and investigation of biblical writings”) that is taught today in the world’s finest seminaries is geared towards an understanding of the historical Jesus. While the Criteria of historical Authenticity are very important and untainted in and of themselves, the underlying assumption of how they should be applied is fundamentally flawed. The problem in the quest for the historical Jesus is that everything seems to be centered on the Gospels, without many cross-references between the Gospels and the Epistles, not to mention the book of Revelation. This means that these scholars, many of whom are Christ’s followers, begin their biblical investigation with the preconceived assumption that the Gospels are historical, and they therefore entirely miss the point of the Gospels as well as the overall context of the New Testament. And this is done without even the slightest thought that the Gospels might turn out to be theological renderings of future events rather than historiographical accounts!

For instance, in order to corroborate whether or not the Gospel events happened, little attention is given to the rest of the New Testament Scriptures—such as the Epistles (which tell us that Christ will appear “Once in the end of the world” Heb. 9:26), or the book of Revelation (which verifies that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” 19:10)—but turn instead to “Multiple Attestation” sources of the Gospels that are known as “Mark” (the earliest written Gospel), “Q” (shared verses between Matthew & Luke), “L” (unique material found in Luke), “M” (special material found in Matthew), and “John” (unique material found in John). In other words, the Gospels become the foundation of the subsequent study. Then they add a few more arbitrary criteria—such as “Attestation of Forms” (other genres that Gospel material may appear in, as if this proves the historicity of the Gospels), “Dissimilarity” (If it isn’t Judaic or of the Church it must be unique to Jesus), “Embarrassment” (If the gospels include embarrassing things, they must have happened), and the “Criterion of Rejection” (Events that describe Jesus’ rejection & crucifixion are assumed to be authentic)—as if these inferences are wholly reliable and conclusive. Thus, it is not inappropriate to describe these rules that scholars play by as guessing games!

The tools that scholars use to identify whether or not the Gospel events happened are not only arbitrary and presumptuous, they are also completely out of touch with the rest of the New Testament because they begin with the erroneous assumption that the Gospels are biographies. And this is NOT TRUE! This historical-Gospel inference must be checked against biblical evidence because the Epistles and the book of Revelation give us a very different version of Jesus than the Gospels.

Furthermore, these studies are probabilistic in nature, based entirely on historical reductionism. Thus, these conclusions are not only distorted and partial, but wholly unwarranted.

After a twenty-year Bible study that evolved into a book, “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days,” my conclusion is that the historical Christ is as real as the Shroud of Turin is authentic!

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

"The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days" uncovers a post-biblical conspiracy, perpetuated by the Church, that has essentially turned prophecy into history. While calling for a modern reformation, it raises some serious questions about the validity of the long-held belief in the historical Jesus. The book's unique argument is that the biblical story of Jesus is prophetic rather than historical, and it is well-supported biblically. It is based on a twenty-year study of the Bible. The author also uses the ancient works of Nostradamus and the Dead Sea Scrolls in an attempt to substantiate his claims. What is more, the book includes prophecies concerning the timing of the coming Messiah, the Antichrist, and the apocalyptic events. It takes a fresh new look at the story of Jesus through the lens of a modern biblical expert.

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a [different] nation producing the fruit of it. … And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them [the Jews].

--Matt. 21:43-45

[These] men ... have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset [confuse] the faith of some.

2 Timothy 2:18

This video is about St. Malachy and his prophecies. According to Eli of Kittim, all the prophecies concerning the coming apocalypse converge in the 2010 decade: the Mayan prophecy (their twenty-six-thousand-year calendar ended in 2012), Malachy's prophecy of the 112 Popes (according to experts, Pope Francis, who was inducted in 2013, is the 112th Pope), the Sikh prophecy (Sakhee 15th predicts the appearance of a God man in 2015), the Seventy-Week prophecy of Daniel (which foretells the date of Armageddon as occurring seventy years after the restoration of Israel, or in 2018), and many others!