The Jesus Story: History Or Prophecy?

The Jesus Story: History or Prophecy?

By Author Eli of Kittim

There is no good evidence to support that Jesus is a real historical figure. The mainstream view concerning the New Testament account of Jesus is fatally flawed. It is inconsistent, and in order for it to work, it must either ignore or gloss over many critical passages. For instance, it contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-times Messiah (cf. Zeph. 1:7, 15-18; Isa. 2:2, 19; Dan. 12:1-2; Zech. 12:9-10; Heb. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-3, 7-8; Rev. 12:1-5), and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous. The existing schema simply does not fit in with the context and content of these passages, nor does it fit into any of the Old or New Testament prophecies either.

What is more, this historical interpretation of Jesus is in error because it confuses theology with history, and tradition with scripture! Let us not forget that much of what we know about this subject is based on tradition, not scripture. And the prevailing view is largely based on a superficial, surface reading of the gospels. In retrospect, it appears that the gospels are giving us a theological outline of Christ’s life, not a purely historical one. For example, scholars now dispute that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And even if we suppose that it were true, then why doesn’t Paul mention that? Let us not forget that some of Paul’s writings predate the gospels. The idea that Jesus is born in Bethlehem is a theological statement intended to connect Jesus with the Old Testament and to assure us that he is indeed the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. Anything more than that would be reading too much into the text. Similarly, Jesus is called the King of the Jews in order to show that he is the new David, the Messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. Just as he supposedly goes to Egypt in order to show that he is the new Moses. These passages are not meant to be taken literally. They are theological statements.

But, in contrast to Christian Mythicism, I firmly believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. Hence I accept the authority of Scripture. However, I am convinced that, according to the Bible, Jesus neither existed, nor was he meant to exist during the time of Antiquity. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord (God-incarnate), who will appear on earth (for the first time) at the end of the world!

Furthermore, I believe there were eyewitness reports coming from the earliest Christian prophets, but these contained visions of Jesus, not physical encounters. The eyewitnesses saw Jesus just as Paul had seen him. And everyone knows that Paul saw visions of Christ. But Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh! There are many scriptural references to that effect. For example, 1 Peter 1:11 states that the account of Jesus was prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “As he [the Holy Spirit] predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” Revelation 19:10 further reveals that the New Testament account of Jesus is not historical: “For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.“ And Hebrews 9:26 confirms this view by issuing the following statement concerning the precise chronological timing of Christ’s appearance and sacrifice: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels because they allude to Christ’s manifestation as occurring in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question. Thus, according to my research, both the Old and New Testaments agree that the Messiah will come once at the end of time!

There is no mention of Jesus in any secular writings until about 100 AD

(The following is an excerpt from The Washington Post, “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.” Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. Religious scholar)

“The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his ‘Heavenly Jesus.’ Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12). Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitnesses or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of who are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.”

(The following is an excerpt from Valerie Tarico’s article, “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed,” published in ExChristian.net)

“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman.

No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Jesus. In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself thinks the Jesus stories were built on a historical kernel):

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

“The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the ‘Silence of Paul’ on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. 'Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.’

Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are 'signed' by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, 'I was there.' Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who … .”

Conclusion

These are Biblical Scholars who are giving us all of the critical, historical, and textual data to date. They are experts in the field (academics) who are informing us of the facts of scholarship. Even if we disagree with them, there are still certain facts that most scholars agree on that are indisputable, which give us a very clear picture of early Christianity and of Jesus. This cannot be denied.

However, this does not mean that the biblical story of Jesus is “fraudulent” or “manufactured,” as some writers have suggested. These writers got stuck on the Gospels without consulting the rest of the New Testament, namely, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, which tell us categorically and unequivocally that the biblical story of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history. In the final analysis, the Gospels are non-historical stories that foretell the prophecy of Christ’s coming!

The White Horse: Christ or Antichrist?

By Biblical Researcher Eli of Kittim

The current view holds that the first horseman of the Apocalypse represents the Antichrist (the assumption is as follows: if Christ already came, then the white horse must be referring to the Antichrist). Here's why the mainstream view is wrong:

(1) There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible.

So why should this be a precedent? That is, why would a white horse (a symbol of purity and righteousness) represent something as black as hell? Is the Deity deceiving us? Is it possible that white is really black or that good is really evil in the Bible? The mainstream view would have to reservedly admit that it's possible, only because that is the logical conclusion of a counterfeit sign found in scripture. I vehemently disagree. The white symbol of purity is consistent throughout the Bible. There are no counterfeit signs in scripture. Hence the white horse does not represent the antichrist: it symbolizes Christ!

Here is an excerpt from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days:

//"Immediately I saw a white horse appear, and its rider was holding a bow; he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory" (Rev. 6:2, NJB).

The biblical term victory is intimately associated with Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead, which ultimately results in the conquering of death itself (1 Cor. 15:54, 57), while the metaphor of the bow represents God’s covenant with the human race (see the Septuagint’s translation of Gen. 9.13, which uses the exact same Greek word for “rainbow” that’s used in Rev. 6.2, namely, “toxon”)! The background to the latter symbol can be found in the writings of the Old Testament. In the wake of the great flood, the deity declares to Noah, the apparent savior of the human species:

‘I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth’ (Gen. 9:13).

The New King James version of the Bible translates the word bow as "rainbow" (Gen. 9:13). The image of the rainbow is closely associated with the biblical story of Joseph, a savior type figure who wore “a coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3; cf. 49:22-24, KJ). For all intents and purposes, all these stories of God’s covenant with the world share many common traits and culminate in the apocalyptic Messiah who is crowned with a rainbow (bow) upon his head:

"And I saw another strong angel coming down out of heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire; and he had in his hand a little book which was open" (Rev. 10:1-2).

Therefore, the first horseman of the Apocalypse (6:2), who is in possession of a bow (the covenant), is evidently none other than Christ himself (cf. Rev. 14:14). Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141). Here is another passage that introduces the prelude to this same event; it represents a deeply unsettling episode in world history:

"And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. … And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:11-13).

The above phrase – “and behold, a white horse” – is identical to the one used in the book of Revelation chapter 6 and verse 2 concerning the first horseman of the Apocalypse. Just as the latter horseman conquered death, the former horseman (from Rev. 19:11-13) is “dipped in blood,” as both scenarios imply that he has been slain. Essentially, Revelation 6:2 and Revelation 19:11 appear to be two sides of the same coin. The composite biblical message indicates that Christ will be the first person to be revealed in the final days of the coming apocalypse. In point of fact, Revelation 19:11 provides more in-depth details into the specifics of Revelation 6:2.//

(2) Note that the white horseman is WITHOUT arrows (signifying peace, not war).

(3) Revelation 6:8—in discussing the upcoming, end times wars and famines—MAKES NO MENTION of the white horse at all, but begins with the second horse, the Red Horse:

"And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth." (Rev. 6:8, ESV).

Notice that the white horse is never mentioned. The war commences with the second horse (The Red Horse, which I believe represents the Antichrist):

"And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword [2nd horse/red horse: 'and a great sword was given to him' Rev. 6:4] and with famine [3rd horse/black horse] and with pestilence [4th horse/ashen horse] and by wild beasts of the earth."

This would strongly suggest that the white horse is NOT the Antichrist, but Jesus Christ, especially in view of Revelation 12:1-5 as well as a multitude of different verses and passages thus presented! This constitutes further proof that Jesus is the first person to be revealed in the last days, who commences the sequence of end time events...

What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not

By Author Eli of Kittim

Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.

1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.

2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:

a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.

b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!

3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).

During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).

Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).

4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!

5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.

Conclusion

Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!

The Lord’s Resurrection in the Last Days In Isaiah and Daniel

By author Eli of Kittim 🎓

According to Isaiah’s biblical account concerning “the last days” (Isa. 2:2) of mankind, “the LORD” will resurrect just prior to Judgment Day. Isaiah says the following:

“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He ARISES to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19, NASV, emphasis added).

This eschatological passage is echoed in Rev. 6:15-17. Interestingly enough, the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” with the word “αναστη,” which is derived from the Greek word ανάστασις (anástasis) and means resurrection:

Eισενεγκαντες εις τα σπηλαια και εις τας σχισμας των πετρων και εις τας τρωγλας της γης απο προσωπου του φοβου κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου οταν αναστη θραυσαι την γην. ——-Isaiah 2:19, Septuagint LXX

New American Standard Translation:

“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises [or resurrects: ‘αναστη’] to make the earth tremble.”

Scholars render the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” as resurrection. The word in Hebrew, qum (קוּם i.e., cumi in Mark 5:41), and in Greek (LXX) — anastas — means “resurrection.” The word anastas is derived from the term ἀνίστημι and is the root word of ἀνάστασις: https://biblehub.com/greek/386.htm

Similarly, in the New Testament we find the same Greek word, meaning resurrection, attached to an end-time prophecy:

“THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES [‘anistamenos,’ means resurrects in Greek] TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE.”  ——-Rom. 15:12

So what is the purpose of this brief study? We’re trying to show that according to Isaiah’s depiction, “the LORD … arises to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19) “in the last days” (בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית bə·’a·ḥă·rîṯ הַיָּמִ֗ים hay·yā·mîm Isa. 2:2), just prior to Judgment. A resurrection that had occurred two millennia ago would in fact contradict what we just read. Yet the New Testament itself doesn’t contradict this at all, but rather confirms it:

“Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. … After this the judgment” (Heb. 9:26-27 KJV).

So, as you can see, the Church’s teaching contradicts both the Old and New Testaments by telling us that this event already happened.

In Chapter 12 and verse 1, Daniel prophesies the death and resurrection of a great prince named Michael—meaning מִֽיכָאֵ֜ל “who is like God”—at the end of days. He writes:

"At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered,  Every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:1-2, NKJV).

The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “עָמַד amad” (“stand up”/arise) with the Greek word παρελευσεται, meaning to pass away:

ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται  NAS: and earth will pass away, KJV: and earth shall pass away,  INT: the earth will pass away (Mt 24:35 Strong’s Concordance)  https://biblehub.com/greek/pareleusetai_3928.htm

The Theodotion Daniel 12:1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.” The word ἀναστήσεται is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.” Accordingly, notice how the term ἀναστήσεται in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Theodotion Dan. 12:1, we have the singular form ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise"). Similarly, ἀναστήσονται (the plural form in the Old Greek Dan. 12:2) represents an explicit reference to the general resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!

So Daniel is telling us that at the time of the end, when there will be great turmoil and distress upon the earth, Michael, the great prince—after passing away (παρελεύσεται)—will arise from the dead (αναστήσεται) in order to energize the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται)! What does all this mean? Daniel 12:1-2 reaffirms the last-days-resurrection theme found in Isaiah 2:19 and Hebrews 9:26-28. Therefore, Christ’s resurrection could not have happened two thousand years ago, as most people believe:

“[These] men … have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim. 2:18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Eli Kittim'

Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus as prophetic rather than historical!