Gospel Of John - Tumblr Posts

In today's homily, the priest was pointing out that when Jesus is risen, and he walks into the room where the disciples were hiding - he opened the closed doors to get in.

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" (Jn. 20:19)

My priest was using this as an analogy - where in our lives do we have a closed door that we could open up, with the help of Jesus? What is a closed door we are afraid of opening, that could be healed if we just let God in? I'm still meditating on it, I need to spend the week thinking about what my closed door is.

tbh i have never seen catholic themed queer coming of age fiction. but i like that it exists as a cliche in the collective imagination

Realized Eschatology versus Future Eschatology

By Author Eli of Kittim

Realized eschatology is a term in Christian theology used to describe the belief that the end times (or latter days) have already happened during the ministry of Jesus. According to this position, all end-time events have already been “realized” (i.e., fulfilled ), including the resurrection of the dead, and the second coming of Jesus.

This view is the culmination of poor methodological considerations, misapplication of proper exegetical methods (i.e. literary context /detailed exegesis), and a confusion of terms and context. The under-mentioned examples typify this confusion:

Example A) “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).

Example B) “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Here, without a proper understanding of context, we are led to believe that John is referring to the “last days” as occurring in or around the 1st century CE. These types of verses have misled many to follow Preterism, a doctrine which holds that biblical prophecies represent incidents that have already been fulfilled at the close of the first century. Unfortunately, the same type of misappropriation of scripture has given birth to “realized eschatology.”

Notice that in Example A, John states that “it is the last hour.” The context implies that there are two possibilities within which this phrase can make scriptural sense. Either John is literally referring to the 1st century as being the last or final hour of mankind (which would include the coming of the Antichrist, since John mentions him), or the overall context of this and other texts is, strictly speaking, an eschatological one in which all these events take place in the future, and not during John’s lifetime.

As I have shown in earlier works, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, logic tells us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world. Yet there are future events that are clearly described in the past tense. For example, “He [Christ] … was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20, NJB, emphasis added). In a passage that deals exclusively with the great tribulation of the end times, we find another future event that is described in the past tense; it reads: “From the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand had been sealed” (Rev. 7:5, emphasis added). Isaiah 53 is a perfect example because we can demonstrate that Isaiah was composing a prophecy, at the time he penned this text, which was saturated with past tenses.

In Example B, we face a similar dilemma. The author of Hebrews combines the idiomatic phrase “last days” with the present tense “these,” which implies several things:

1) The phrase “in these last days” gives us the impression that the “last days” may have started or occurred during the author’s lifetime.

2) It implies that Jesus not only appeared, but he appeared specifically “in these last days.”

3) The phrase “in these last days” might simply be an allusion to the days just mentioned. It’s like saying, concerning the days in question, or with regard to the days that we are describing, rather than a reference to the present time.

So, at first sight, there seems to be some basis (biblical support) for a realized-eschatology interpretation. However, upon further scrutiny, we find many outright logical fallacies (a logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning) that cannot possibly be true. For example, how can the last days of the world occur in the 1st century CE if nineteen plus centuries have since come and gone? It would be a contradiction in terms!

Moreover, these positions flatly contradict not only the broad scriptural context of the term “last days” and its cognates (i.e., “the time of the end” Dan. 12:4), but also certain definite future events, such as the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; cf. Daniel 12:1-2) and the coming of the “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Rev. 13), which clearly have yet to occur. Therefore, the so-called “realized” eschatological interpretations involve logical fallacies, blatant misappropriation of future events, methodological errors, misapplication of proper exegetical methods, and misinterpretation of tenses with regard to proper eschatological context.

Contradiction notwithstanding, many have endorsed these false teachings. Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 are two examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the time of the end” is radically different than what these interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first-century occurrence. These views (regarding the last days as eschatological events that occurred in the 1st century CE) display, for lack of a better term, an eccentric doctrine. They are patently ridiculous!

The same holds true in the gospel of John. Jesus says:

“Truly, Truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25).

The phrase “and now is” implies that this particular time period is happening now. However, notice a clear distinction between the hour that is here and “the hour that is coming” when the dead will rise again (in the under mentioned verse). These two time periods are clearly not identical because the events to which the latter prophecy points have yet to happen:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come forth, … those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

The context of John 5:25 ff. is ultimately based on future history (i.e., history written in advance), but the author reinterprets it through a theology. On what basis am I making these claims? Since I concluded that “realized eschatology” is seemingly erroneous, we now have to consider its opposite, namely, the view that the last days are really referring to literal future events, and not to the time of Antiquity.

One illustration of this view is in the context in which Jesus’ earthly appearance is contemporaneous with Judgment Day. Jesus uses the present tense “now” to indicate that his manifestation on earth is for the purpose of Judgment, and the overthrow of Satan:

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).

Jesus’ use of the word “now,” in connection with the removal of Satan and Judgment, would indicate that his earthly appearance (as described in the gospels) is a reference to a future event, one that could not have possibly happened in Antiquity.

Another example shows that Christ’s generation (as described in the gospels) is the last generation on earth. During his eschatological discourse, Christ uses the words “this generation” to refer to his audience. He says,

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34).

In the following verse, Jesus uses the words “some who are standing here” to signify his audience. Interestingly enough, Jesus implies that his audience (or generation) is the one related to the end times. The idea that Jesus’ audience (as described in the gospels) represents the last generation on earth that would see Jesus coming in the clouds is furnished in the gospel of Matthew:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).

The notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory cannot be attributed to the 1st century CE. It can only be ascribed to a future event, since Jesus has yet to come in his glory! These verses would strongly suggest that the account of Jesus (as described in the gospels) is really in the context of a future event rather than one that occurred in the 1st century of the Common Era.

In conclusion, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, both scripture and logic tell us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world, and therefore this “end time” period could not have possibly happened during the 1st century CE.

There are also gospel materials, which indicate not only that Jesus’ audience represents the last generation on earth, but that Jesus’ manifestation on earth signifies the immediate removal of Satan and the commencement of Judgment. Add to this material the original Greek texts—with multiple references to Jesus appearing “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26; cf. Luke 17:30; Heb. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:5, 20; Rev. 12:1-5) or at the end of human history—and the eschatological context of the “last days” finally comes into view as a future reference!

Isaiah 9:6 Weighs Whether the Messiah is God (Christian Position) or a Mere Mortal (Judaic View)

By Author Eli of Kittim

I will present three examples from Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6 (which illustrate the Messiah’s Divinity) to demonstrate that the Hebrew text is not referring to a person of mere human origin, as Judaism suggests.

Let me introduce the first point of my argument. In Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6, the Hebrew word פֶלֶא “pele” (Strong’s H6382) is derived from the term “pala’,” which means “a miracle”– a marvellous wonder; as in the phrase “signs and wonders" (cf. Exod 15:11; Psalm 77:11, 14; Psalm 78:12; Psalm 88:10). Therefore, the standard English translation of the Hebrew term פֶלֶא “pele” as merely “wonderful” (in Isaiah 9:6) is not entirely accurate or adequate because it fails to address the nuances of this expression, which suggest that this child is associated with miracles and wonders! In other words, the term “pele” (Hb. פֶלֶא “Wonder”) implies that this is no ordinary child (not your typical human being), thereby suggesting the possibility of his divine or supernatural origin.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 says that this “son” (Hb. בֵּ֚ן “ben”; Strong’s H1121 i.e., “messianic child”) is called “mighty” (Hb. גִּבּוֹר “gibbor” Strong’s H1368) “God” (Hb. אֵ֣ל “el” Strong’s H410). The attribution of the phrase “mighty God” to the Messiah confirms the previous allusion regarding his ability to work wonders while admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding that this appellation of Messiah implies he is indeed God incarnate!

Thirdly, in Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called “the Prince” (Hb. שַׂר־ “sar” Strong’s H8269), “the everlasting” (Hb. עַד “ad” derived from “adah,” which means “perpetuity,” “continually,” or “eternally” Strong’s H5703). In other words, this “son” that “is given” to us as a gift (Hb. נִתַּן־ “nit·tān” Strong’s H5414) is from everlasting! As a supplemental observation, compare Micah 5:2 regarding the Messiah, “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”

Similarly, in Daniel 7:14 it is said that the Messiah’s kingdom is “everlasting” (Hb. עָלַם֙ “alam” Strong’s H5957), thus presumably reinforcing the notion that the Messiah (Hb. בַּר אֱנָשׁ “bar enash” i.e., “son of man” Dan 7:13) is himself everlasting. That’s why Isaiah 2:19 and Zephaniah 1:7 seemingly refer to the Messiah as “Lord” (Hb. יְהוָה֙ “Yhvh”), and why Zechariah 12:10 suggests that God (Hb. אֵלַ֖י “El”) himself  is looked upon by those who pierce him, followed by a world-wide mourning in the last days.

No wonder John 1:1-2 tells us categorically that the “Word” (Gk. Λόγος “Logos” i.e., Christ) is God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”

The author of Colossians contributes to this discussion by stating that Christ (i.e., “Messiah” or the Anointed One) “is the image of the invisible God” (1:15).

This is precisely why the great messianic prince named Michael is likened to God in Daniel 12:1 (Hb. מִיכָאֵל “Mikael” i.e., “Who is like God?” Strong’s H4317), and why the name of the messianic child in Isaiah 7:14 is “Immanuel” (עִמָּנוּאֵל i.e., God is with us).

Conclusion

Isaiah 9:6 in the original Hebrew text paints a divine picture of the Messiah, unlike the one erroniously drawn by traditional Judaism of a mere human being!

🔎 Bible Contradictions: In Using the Term “Arnion,” Does the Book of Revelation Contradict John’s Gospel Which Uses the Word “Amnos” Instead? 🔍

By Award-Winning Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

This short essay is a brief reply to a question that was posed by a member of my “Eli Kittim Theology” group on MeWe.

——-

The member’s name is Marlo Bliss. This was his Question:

The writer of the Book of Revelation used

the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON <G721> for

Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S <>

(lambkins require feeding). He did so 26

times. Why this contradiction to John 1.29

and 1.36?

Thanks for any reply.

*I use the DLT (Dabhar Literal Translation)

software in hebrew, greek, english and

german.*

——-

He’s basically asking the following question: if John’s Gospel uses the Greek term Ἀμνὸς twice to refer to Jesus, then why does the Book of Revelation repeatedly use the word ἀρνίον instead? Isn’t that a deviation from the canonical context? Doesn’t that constitute a Biblical contradiction? The implication is that the Book of Revelation appears to be wrong and contradictory in its terminological usage.

First of all, it is important to establish at the outset that both ἀμνός (amnós) and ἀρνίον (arníon) mean the same thing. These terms are not self-contradictory, but rather interchangeable and complementary. Whereas **ἀμνός** (amnós) has the connotation of a consecrated or sacrificial lamb, especially a one-year old lamb, **ἀρνίον** refers to a “little lamb,” under a year old (Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940). According to J. Thayer, the connotation of ἀρνίον (arníon) is that of pure innocence, with virgin-like (gentle) intentions.

Second, John’s Gospel uses both amnós and arníon. It’s true that John chapter 1 and verses 29 & 36 use the term Ἀμνὸς (lamb) to refer to Jesus Christ. But this term occurs only twice. And yet, the exact same gospel of John uses the alternative ἀρνία (lambs) in chapter 21 verse 15—-which is the plural form of the singular term ἀρνίον (lamb)——to refer to the *Christ-like* followers, namely, the saints of God who are becoming like Christ.

Third, the use of the word ἀρνίον (arníon) in a “messianic canonical context” is in fact scriptural, as can be seen, for example, in the Book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 11.19, the Septuagint (LXX) uses the Greek term ἀρνίον in an overtly messianic context:

ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ

θύεσθαι οὐκ ἔγνων ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο

λογισμὸν πονηρὸν λέγοντες δεῦτε καὶ

ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ

ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων καὶ τὸ

ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ ἔτι.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

But I as an innocent lamb led to the

slaughter, knew not: against me they

devised an evil device, saying, Come and let

us put wood into his bread, and let us

utterly destroy him from off the land of the

living, and let his name not be remembered

any more.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 53. In fact, Jeremiah’s aforementioned verse is a parallel to——and presents a near-verbal agreement with——Isaiah 53.7 (LXX):

καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει

τὸ στόμα· ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη

καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν

ἄφωνος οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα

αὐτοῦ.

Translation (NRSV):

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb

that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep

that before its shearers is silent, so he did

not open his mouth.

In Jeremiah 11.19, the L.C.L. Brenton translates ἀρνίον “as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter,” while the NRSV similarly renders it as a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter.” The theological idea in Jeremiah 11.19 is consistent with that of Isaiah 53.7—-which says “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter”——even though Isaiah employs the terms πρόβατον (lamb) and ἀμνὸς (sheep) instead of Jeremiah’s use of the word ἀρνίον (lamb). These thematic parallels demonstrate that the above terms are interchangeable.

Thus, the Septuagint (LXX) uses 3 alternative terms to refer to this so-called messianic “lamb” of God who “was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; … and by his bruises we are healed” (Isaiah 53.5). Two of the three terms that the LXX uses for this *slaughtered messiah* are found in Isaiah 53.7, namely, πρόβατον and ἀμνὸς. Incidentally, πρόβατον (probaton) means ἀρνίον, which comes from ἀρήν (meaning “lamb”). Thus, ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable terms.

The word πρόβατον (probaton), which means ἀρνίον, is also used in Gen 22.8 by the LXX to refer to the sacrificial lamb of God:

Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the

lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ (NRSV)

The Septuagint also uses the Greek term πρόβατον (which means ἀρνίον) to refer to the sheep which is slaughtered as a “sin offering” in Lev 4.32.

Therefore, the Book of Revelation uses the exact same term that is found not only within the Biblical canonical-context itself (Jn 21.15), but also within the writings of the Septuagint as well. So how is it contradictory? It is not!

Conclusion

As you can see, the way in which the Koine Greek language has been used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament clearly shows that the words ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable and complementary terms. These 3 words have all been used in terms of a “messianic sin offering,” that is, in reference to an innocent lamb that is led to the slaughter (cf. Rev. 5.6 ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον/“a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered”). Although these terms have slightly different nuances, nevertheless they have been used consistently within a “messianic scriptural context” across the board. This is based on the principle of expositional constancy, the idea that similar terms and images are used consistently throughout scripture.

Since most scholars don’t think that John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation were written by the same author, this would explain why they don't use the exact same terminology. Different biblical authors use different vocabularies. This fact alone doesn’t preclude their books from being seen as authoritative or inspired. On the contrary, if we look at the 27 New Testament books, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception!

Thus, Mr. Marlo Bliss’ accusation——that “the writer of the Book of Revelation [who] used the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON … for Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S” was contradicting “John 1.29 and 1.36”——is unwarranted and without merit!

Incidentally, I looked at the so-called “DLT” (Dabhar Literal Translation) that Mr. Bliss uses, but unfortunately it is not faithful to the original Greek New Testament text. Besides, there is no disclosure or commentary about which text-types were used or if there even was a committee of scholars who edited it, which I seriously doubt, given the poor quality of the translation. I’ve also come across some YouTube videos, that are put out by the same sect, which endorse the Dabhar Literal Translation. Unfortunately, this English translation is of an inferior quality. Adherents of this cult further claim that the Book of Revelation is a “spurious” book. This sounds like a sect that has drifted away from sound Bible teaching!

——-

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1 (SBLGNT):

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1, which is a throwback to Genesis 1.1, aims to define the primordial relationship of “the Word” (i.e. Christ) to God. But certain skeptics have challenged the idea that the fullness of the godhead was in Christ (Col. 2.9), who is said to be “the Word” (i.e. ὁ λόγος). Specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the argument of “a god” in John 1.1, implying that Christ is a lesser and inferior god that was created. Let’s explore that assertion. John 1.1 is traditionally broken up into three phrases that are separated by commas:

1st phrase: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,

2nd phrase: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν,

3rd phrase: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

First, to suppose that John is talking about many gods, or more than one god, is a theological speculation and a grammatical imposition that is going beyond what is written in the text or what we know about the theology of the Gospel of John.

Second, John *did* mention the definite article τόν in the second phrase, and so he is not obligated to repeat it in the third phrase, as that would be redundant and tautological.

Third, another reason why the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t require the definite article (before the term θεός) is because it was already *used* in the second phrase, and therefore it necessarily *carries over.* For example, if I were to write, “I have a pretty good temper, and a very amiable disposition,” I would not be required to repeat the first part of the phrase. In other words, I wouldn’t be required grammatically to write “I have a pretty good temper, and [I have] a very amiable disposition.” The “I have” is *carried over* and doesn’t need to be repeated. It would be considered redundant. Similarly, in addressing τόν Θεόν with a definite article in the second phrase, John doesn’t have to repeat τόν Θεόν in the third phrase, since it is *carried over.* Here’s another example. I could write “God is one being, not two beings.” But that’s redundant. Now, if I were to rewrite the same sentence correctly and say “God is one being, not two,” would anyone argue that the term “two” may not necessarily refer to the concept of being because the word “being” is not mentioned? That’s the same kind of argument that skeptics are raising here in John 1.1.

Since John has already established (as a monotheist) that he’s talking about one (and-only-one) particular God (namely, τόν Θεόν) in the second phrase, then this syntactical construction must necessarily *carry over* into the third phrase. In other words, the term Θεός in the third phrase grammatically refers back to “the God” (τόν Θεόν) mentioned in the second phrase. Therefore, when John writes——… τὸν θεόν (second phrase), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (third phrase)——the “God” of the third phrase is a direct reference to “the God” of the second phrase. It’s obviously the same “God” in both phrases, not a different one. And given that God is one being, not two, which other god could John be possibly referring to?

In Greek, the third phrase in John 1.1 is actually read in two different ways, not only as “the Word was God,” but also as “God was the Word.” In the third phrase, there’s no ontological distinction between God and the Word——after all, they share one being: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)——because John already made the distinction (of persons) in the second phrase.

Thus, the “a god” argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses——which is raised in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)——is totally bogus and unwarranted both grammatically and theologically!

Ian in The Gospel of John. He is fantastic in this film. It is definitely one of our favorites. He is such a talented actor…