Apologistelikittim - Tumblr Posts

The Psychology of Atheism & Agnosticism

By Author Eli Kittim

Atheism is the position that there’s no God. According to Bart Ehrman, a renowned Bible scholar, atheism is a *belief system.* It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence or empirical knowledge. It’s as much a belief as Theism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. According to the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnostic in 1869:

It simply means that a man shall not say he

knows or believes that which he has no

scientific grounds for professing to know or

believe.

In other words, whereas explicit atheism refers to “the absence of theistic belief,” agnosticism refers to an *absence* of knowledge. In the former case, an individual refuses to believe in the existence of God. In the latter, the person doesn’t know whether or not God exists. In either case, the person refuses to acknowledge or accept the existence of God, let alone God’s revelation (aka the Bible).

The common thread among atheists and agnostics is their *continual denial* of any evidence for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological or ontological arguments). I’m particularly interested in the psychological *causes* (rather than the philosophical arguments) of militant atheism, which denote a defiant and persistent rejection of God. To present a valid argument against God’s existence is one thing. But the need to reject God’s existence at all costs is quite another. So, what is the prime motivating factor underlying this psychological repudiation?

Answer: 2 Corinthians 4.4 (NLT):

Satan, who is the god of this world, has

blinded the minds of those who don’t

believe. They are unable to see the glorious

light of the Good News. They don’t

understand this message about the glory of

Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

——-

Science & God’s Existence

By Author Eli Kittim

Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?

Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.

No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!

If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!

——-

Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?

Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp

google.com

A universe of 10 dimensions

When someone mentions "different dimensions," we tend to think of things like parallel universes – alternate realities that exist parallel t

Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.

Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.

——-

Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?

Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.

——-

Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God

If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.

We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.

It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.

——-

Polytheism Versus Monotheism

By Biblical Researcher and Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim

——-

The First Cause

Some Bible critics have argued that there maybe other gods in the universe. However, the Bible itself claims that there’s only one God. Now, you may see that as circular reasoning but there are also valid philosophical arguments which demonstrate that there can only be one cause to the universe, to wit, a “first cause.” Philosophy does not posit a multiplicity of first causes but rather the existence of a single, first cause, just as other theosophical and spiritual traditions have also posited a single incorporeal first cause. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about a genus, a multiplicity of “contingent” beings, but about the source of everything, a “necessary” being that is beyond time and space and beyond being. If there were two such beings, then neither of them would be god. There can only be one maximally great being that can exist in every possible world.

——-

The Cosmological Argument

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), in the Timaeus dialogue, posited a "demiurge" of absolute intelligence as the creator of the universe. Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonist philosopher from Alexandria, claimed that the “One” transcendent absolute caused the cosmos to come into being as a result of its existence (creatio ex deo). Proclus (412–485 CE), his disciple, later clarified that “The One is God.”

Similarly, according to Aristotle, the “unmoved mover” (Gk. ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, lit. “that which moves without being moved”) or “prime mover” is the main cause (or first uncaused cause) of all the motion in the cosmos but is not itself moved or caused by any previous action or causation. Notice that the so-called “first cause” arguments do not entail multiplicity or diversity but rather unity and oneness.

In other words, nothing can come into being from nothing. Think about everything you see around you: your house, your car, your phone, your computer, your clothes, your food, your furniture, your TV, your parents, your friends, even yourself. Everything comes from something else. And the further back you go in time, in trying to unravel what caused what, the more you realize that everything came from something else. Someone or something either designed it, produced it, formed it, or gave it birth. If there were 2 gods, we would have to ask who came first? Who brought the second god into being?

However, the cosmological argument necessarily presupposes a single cause, which itself was never caused, namely, a timeless being, capable of creating everything (i.e. all contingent beings). Otherwise, if there was no first “unmoved mover,” there would be an infinite regress of causal dependency ad infinitum. This “first cause” can therefore be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate not only that there must be a “necessary” being that designed and sustained the universe, but also that there can only be “one” such being!

——-

The One God of the Old Testament

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony. Thus, divine revelation, which was subsequently transcribed or inscripturated, would certainly qualify as “testimony.”

There are multiple passages in both Testaments of the Bible where God declares to be without a counterpart: without an equal. Similar to the “Absolute Being” of philosophy which is logically inferred as a single, first cause, the Old Testament clearly affirms the existence of only one God. So, the uniqueness of a single God can also be attested by Divine Revelation. Scripture is therefore a witness to the reality of God’s existence as being unparalleled and unique. For example, in Isaiah 44.6-7 (NRSV), God declares that there are no other gods in the universe except him. He exclaims:

I am the first and I am the last; besides me

there is no god. Who is like me? Let them

proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth

before me.

In Isaiah 42.8, God states that he doesn’t share his glory with anyone. He alone is God without equal or rival:

I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

Moreover, in Isaiah 43.10-11, God declares categorically and unequivocally that there were no gods formed before him, nor will there be any gods formed after him:

Before me no god was formed, nor shall

there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and

besides me there is no savior.

This truth is reiterated several times in Isaiah 45.18, 21:

For thus says the Lord, who created the

heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth

and made it (he established it; he did not

create it a chaos, he formed it to be

inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no

other.

There is no other god besides me, a

righteous God and a Savior; there is no one

besides me.

This assertion, of course, implies that there are not multiple gods that receive many different forms of religious worship but rather a single Godhead sans equal.

In Isaiah 46.9-10, God sets a unique standard against which all other theories are measured, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. That is to say, no one else can predict the future except God himself:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God,

and there is no one like me, declaring the

end from the beginning and from ancient

times things not yet done.

Similarly, 2 Sam. 7.22 seems to attest to the truth of God’s oneness by way of divine revelation (cf. 2 Pet 1.18):

You are great, O Lord God; for there is no

one like you, and there is no God besides

you, according to all that we have heard

with our ears.

——-

The One God of the New Testament

When we turn to the Christian scriptures, we find the exact same theme concerning one God who reigns supreme above humanity and the heavenly host. At no point in Scripture is there any hint that there are other gods that exist beside the God of the Old and New Testaments. John 17.3, for instance, brings to bear the authority of Scripture on the matter by calling the source of all creation “the only true God.” Critics of the Trinity (who view it as polytheistic) should be rebuffed because in the Johannine gospel Jesus clearly establishes that there’s *one essence* between himself and God. He proclaims, “The Father and I are one” (10.30).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal, consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). Paul the apostle also knows through direct revelations that “God is one” (Rom. 3.30). Paul understands that the Triune God is not equivalent to multiple gods but is rather a *monotheistic supreme deity* (1 Cor. 8.6 emphasis added):

there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom

are all things and for whom we exist, and

one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are

all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1.15-16 explains that no other god or gods created the universe except God the Father (the source) through his Son (who is his image or reflection):

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God,

the firstborn of all creation; for in him all

things in heaven and on earth were created,

things visible and invisible, whether thrones

or dominions or rulers or powers—all things

have been created through him and for him.

1 Tim. 2.5 basically reiterates the exact same concept of the ONE GOD, not as 2 or 3 separate beings, but as ONE BEING (in multiple persons):

For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human.

Similarly, Hebrews 1.2-3 reveals the exact same *truth* regarding a single God and his Son, “through whom he also created the worlds”:

in these last days he [God] has spoken to

us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all

things, through whom he also created the

worlds. He [Christ] is the reflection of God's

glory and the exact imprint of God's very

being, and he sustains all things by his

powerful word.

——-

God is Truth & Does Not Lie

The Bible repeatedly reminds us that God is truth, holiness, and veritable love itself, and therefore he does not lie. The Old Testament verifies his truthfulness by instructing us to imitate his holiness. Exodus 20.16 says,

You shall not bear false witness against

your neighbor.

Proverbs 12.22 reads:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

but those who act faithfully are his delight.

What is more, there are many Bible passages that demonstrate unlimited confidence in God’s honesty, transparency, and accountability. Titus 1.1-2 (emphasis added) is such a passage:

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of

Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of

God's elect and the knowledge of the truth

that is in accordance with godliness, in the

hope of eternal life that God, WHO NEVER

LIES, promised before the ages began—

In John 17.17 (ESV), Jesus himself says to God the Father:

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is

truth.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 65.16 (ESV) which calls the creator, “the God of truth.” He is similarly acknowledged in Deuteronomy 32.4 (NKJV) as “A God of truth and without injustice.”

In Numbers 23.19 (NRSV), God is further attested as a higher-being whose good character precludes deception and lies:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it?

Moreover, the doctrine of the Immutability of God describes an attribute of God which prevents him from changing his will or character. It implies that He will make good on all of his promises. Hebrews 6:18 (ICB) puts it thusly:

These two things cannot change. God

cannot lie when he makes a promise, and

he cannot lie when he makes an oath.

These things encourage us who came to

God for safety. They give us strength to

hold on to the hope we have been given.

Conclusion

This life has no guarantees. So, from an interdisciplinary perspective, when there are multiple lines of evidence concerning one God——coupled with cases abounding in the “religious-experience literature” down through the ages——the *testimony* becomes rather robust and trustworthy! In other words, the religious testimony is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge. And this global testimony——which goes far beyond the Judeo-Christian Bible and includes other world religions——indicates that only one God exists. If we add the philosophical arguments that also assert a first cause regarding everything that has been created in the cosmos, then we can safely say that there can only be one God that is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe!

——-

Can We Discard Trinitarianism by Rejecting Hypostasis?: A Critical Review of Frank Nelte’s Article “The Facts About 'Hypostasis' “

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim

——-

Does the Worldwide Church of God Have the Corner on the Market?

The article under discussion that’s still relevant today was written a while back by Frank W Nelte of the Worldwide Church of God——a religious organization, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong——which some have referred to as a cult: https://franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=192

Armstongism refers to the teachings of

Herbert W. Armstrong, which became the

teaching of the Worldwide Church of God.

These teachings were often at odds with

traditional Christian beliefs and at times

were explicitly in contradiction to the Bible.

The most well-known of Armstrong’s

teachings is that of Anglo-Israelism.

(Gotquestions)

Always question the systematic theology behind the articles you read. For example, T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist, is a self-professed modalist (he believes that there aren’t 3 persons in the Trinity but rather 1, operating in 3 modes). So, we must be cautious of subscribing to theologies that are not grounded in cogent arguments. Many offshoots of The Worldwide Church of God also hold to tenuous and spurious doctrines, such as that of David C. Pack, which promotes Binitarianism (one deity in two persons), and the notion that the Holy Spirit is not a Person.

——-

Frank Nelte is trying to discredit Trinitarianism by showing that the language used to support it comes from outside the Bible and is based on Greek philosophy. He hopes to zero in on a defeater of the belief that the Greek term ὑπόστασις (hupostasis) is a reference to God’s essence or substance: https://biblehub.com/greek/5287.htm

Does Hypostasis Mean Title Deed?

Nelte starts off by trying to change the definition of the term hypostasis by introducing various questionable reference works, such as the “HELPS Word Studies for Greek/Hebrew.” But caution is advised because Bible dictionaries, especially those not accepted by credible scholars, tend to make theological assumptions concerning the denotative definition of words. Accordingly, Nelte declares:

the word ‘hypostasis’ meant ‘TITLE DEED’!

That’s incorrect. That explanation is based on theological “interpretations,” not on the classical meaning of the word per se, as I will show you anon. This assumption can be found in The “HELPS Word-studies” reference work, which reads:

5287 hypóstasis (from 5259 /hypó, ‘under’

and 2476 /hístēmi, ‘to stand’) – properly,

(to possess) standing under a

guaranteed agreement (‘title-deed’);

(figuratively) ‘title’ to a promise or property,

i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is,

‘under a legal-standing’) – entitling

someone to what is guaranteed under the

particular agreement. For the believer,

5287/hypóstasis (‘title of possession’) is the

Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He

inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed

we are only entitled to what God grants

faith for (Ro 14:23).

But the primary meaning of the word “hypostasis” does not mean title deed. According to the scholarly reference work of H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901) p. 1639, the Greek term ὑπόστασις (Hypostasis) means “substantial nature, substance.” It defines “hypostasis” as follows:

the real nature of a thing, as underlying and

supporting its outward form and properties,

and so = [equal to] ουσία or η υποκειμένη

ύλη, essence.

This categorically refutes Nelte’s argument completely. The only thing Nelte is willing to concede is that hypostasis refers to some sort of support. He writes:

Hupostasis refers to something we can

stand upon;

Well, yes. But actually, stand under. It’s similar to the English term “understand.” The definition from the “Online Etymology Dictionary” is as follows:

Old English understandan ‘to comprehend,

grasp the idea of, receive from a word or

words or from a sign the idea it is intended

to convey; to view in a certain way,’

probably literally ‘stand in the midst of,’

from under + standan ‘to stand’.

According to the aforesaid meaning, to “stand under” connotes a deeper understanding or comprehension. Similarly, hypostasis means to stand under (see Strong 5287 hypóstasis [from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand"]). In other words, just as the word “understand” departs from its denotative meaning and implies comprehension, so does “hypostasis,” whose connotative meaning pertains to an underlying foundation. We cannot simply bypass the latter’s historical-grammatical meaning that dates back to Ancient Greek philosophy and which is described as the underlying substance of fundamental reality. By contrast, Nelte writes:

Put in very plain terms (perhaps somewhat

oversimplified) they teach that

HYPOSTASIS refers to the SUBSTANCE

(from Hebrews 11:1) that the Godhead

consists of. Supposedly God the Father and

Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one

HUPOSTASIS, etc.. Now this interpretation

of the word ‘hupostasis’ is not in any way

supported by the five times that Paul used

this word in two different epistles in the New

Testament. Paul really meant exactly what

Webster's Dictionary understands the

English word HYPOSTASIS to mean. We

should remember that the word

‘SUBSTANCE’ (with its present meaning in

the English language) in Hebrews 11:1 is

really a mistranslation. Hypostasis simply

means: to stand under or upon, to support,

etc. It has nothing to do with ‘substance’.

As stated earlier, according to Liddell & Scott, the term hypostasis means foundation, “essence,” or “substance.” In other words, the term hypostasis can be defined as some sort of underlying support or foundation upon which something else stands or exists. So, it can certainly refer to the essence or substance of the Godhead. This interpretation of hypostasis is clearly supported in the New Testament. In Hebrews 1.3 the Greek text says ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. This means that Christ is the apaugasma (ἀπαύγασμα) or “radiance” of God’s glory and character, namely, the exact representation of God’s hypostasis. What could that possibly mean? It could only mean that Christ is the exact imprint or image of God’s essence or character or substance. It is true that hypostasis doesn’t denotatively (literally) mean substance. But it does appear to suggest it connotatively!

That’s why at the outset of an argument one must always try to see where the author is going with it. That will reveal their intention and motivation, whether it is pure and genuine or whether they have an axe to grind. In this case, Nelte is trying desperately to prove that the Trinity is false. So, he attempts to manipulate the language in order to prove his point. But true scholarship follows the evidence wherever it may lead. The minute you try to manipulate the evidence, you have turned it into a confirmation bias and a private interpretation.

Is a Borrowed Concept Necessarily False?

Nelte outlines his basic criticism of the Trinity by suggesting that because many of its theological concepts are grounded in Platonic philosophy——especially “the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the nature of God”——they must therefore be inappropriate or inapplicable, at best, and erroneous or fallacious, at worst. But is this a valid argument? He writes:

It should be quite clear to anyone who takes

the time to study into this, that the religious

views of the Catholic Church, as expounded

by the Catholic ‘church fathers’ and as

discussed at the various Councils of the

Catholic Church (Nicea, Constantinople,

etc.) are STEEPED IN THE IDEAS OF PLATO!

And the ‘hupostasis ideas’ about the

nature of God are central to that whole

scheme of things.

It is true that Christianity borrowed a great deal from Platonic philosophy. But philosophical and linguistic inheritance is only one aspect of New Testament theology; divine revelation is another. There are other metaphysical considerations that need to be addressed. For example, Nelte argues that since the term hypostasis is borrowed from Plato, the 3 hypostases applied to the Christian godhead must be erroneous. And the notion that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd hypostasis must equally be false. But this is a fallacious argument. All historical, cultural, and scientific endeavors have borrowed profusely from their predecessors. It’s part of the evolution of language and culture. It’s part of who we are: Standing on the shoulders of giants! All knowledge is derived from previous predecessors.

The Old Testament Flood of Noah account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia. What is more, the Hebrew name of God in the Old Testament is “El.” But this name was also borrowed from the Levant. Historically, El was a pagan deity and the supreme god of a Canaanite pantheon of gods, analogous to to the Greek god Zeus. But just because the name El was borrowed from this religious and cultural milieu (paganism) doesn’t mean that the corresponding values of the two deities are equivalent. In other words, it doesn’t follow that the Hebrew God is a false, pagan, Canaanite god. Precisely because the culture was familiar with this god, the God of the Bible chose to associate himself with this cultural icon in order to make the transition of faith smoother and far more acceptable. It’s similar to missionary work. If you’re trying to convert aborigines to Christ, you’ll try to explain certain concepts according to the existing terminology of the culture at hand. If you deviate and introduce completely foreign concepts, your theology will create cognitive dissonance with the native and local spiritual religions. Many of the New Testament narratives about Jesus are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, but they don’t have equal value in both Testaments.

So, the attempt to judge the truth value of a concept based solely on its linguistic and philosophical antecedents is not a sound argument. Besides, historical-grammatical studies alone cannot answer metaphysical questions, as, say, the existence of God and his attributes. So, it seems to me that this is a fallacious argument, namely, the attempt to invalidate certain concepts or to explain them away simply because of previously borrowed religious, philosophical, and linguistic antecedents. That type of argumentation would invalidate science itself. Current science is very different from that of the renaissance. Yet the language of modern science is borrowed directly from Greek and Latin texts. In fact, the entire scientific project has borrowed extensively from the philosophical and linguistic heritage of its predecessors. Does that invalidate its current status? I think not!

Conclusion

Frank W. Nelte tenaciously maintains his objection to the classical interpretation of “hypostasis” throughout the paper. He writes:

The truth is that the word ‘hypostasis’ has

NOTHING to do with ‘substance’ or with

‘ousia.’

Au contraire, as the scholarly work of Liddell & Scott demonstrates, “hypostasis” has everything to do with “substance” and “ousia.” For example, in Hebrews 1.3, the New International Version translates the Greek term ὑποστάσεως (hupostasis) as “the exact representation of … [God’s] being.” The New Living Translation expresses it as “the very character of God.” The English Standard Version renders it as “the exact imprint of his nature.” The Berean Literal Bible translates it as “the exact expression of His substance,” while the New American Standard Bible explicates it as “the exact representation of His nature.” What are all these translations of the word “hypostasis” getting at? Answer: they’re depicting God’s very “being,” “nature,” and “substance.” All these credible translations are talking about the very essence or substance of God. Therefore it is not inappropriate to refer to God’s innermost nature as his hypostasis. This view is supported by the New Testament! Hebrews 1.3 reads:

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα

τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ ⸃

καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ⸃

ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν

ὑψηλοῖς.

——-