#EliofKittim

[eli-kittim]

Eli Kittim: New Testament Exegete

Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method

Eli of Kittim is the author of the award-winning book The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days, and a former contributor to the Journal of Higher Criticism, and Rapture Ready, which has published work by Billy Crone, David Reagan, Jan Markell, Thomas Ice, Thomas Horn, Bill Salus, Jonathan Cahn, Randall Price, John McTernan, Tim LaHaye, Ron Rhodes, Renald Showers, & Paul McGuire.

Eli of Kittim’s work is grounded on the original language of the New Testament. It pulls the rug from under a great deal of what passes for scholarship these days. But his work is also based on a revelation from Mount Sinai! So, it is both inspired and scholarly. According to Kittim, a view must be based on revelation, with scholarship added. Otherwise it is grounded on guesswork and conjecture.

Eli Kittim’s conclusion that the New Testament is essentially a collection of prophecies which will culminate in the last days, rather than a record of past events, is groundbreaking, challenging the hermeneutical assumptions of the status quo! It deserves serious consideration, otherwise we’re either dealing with consensus theology or downright academic dishonesty.

To examine his evidence (The Kittim Method), see the following materials:

1). What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event? (Video)

This is based on translation and exegesis of the Greek New Testament

2). When is the end of the age? (Article)

This is based on word studies of parallel passages and verbal agreements in the New Testament

[elikittim]

Author Eli Kittim- YouTube Channel

__________________________

Author Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus!

__________________________

[eli-kittim]

🎥 Eli Kittim on TikTok 🎥

🎓 For Bible Prophecy & Bible Exegesis, Follow Eli Kittim on TikTok 📚:

[eli-kittim]

📖 Scripture Quotes by Bible Teacher Eli Kittim 📚

[eli-kittim]

The Apocalyptic New Testament: The Greek Jesus

by Eli of Kittim

Apocalypticism is the view that God will eventually defeat the heavenly forces of evil and establish an eternal kingdom of righteousness at the end of days. Christianity is an apocalyptic messianic movement, and Jesus is considered to be an apocalyptic prophet or eschatological teacher. The apocalyptic visions and revelations about Jesus fill the pages of the New Testament (see e.g. Lk 24:23–24; Acts 10:40-41; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 1:7; Gal. 1:11–12; 1 Pet. 1:10-13; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 1:1; 22:18-19).

That’s why Jesus’ resurrection has always been seen as an eschatological event, which will signal the beginning of the end times and the fulfillment of bible prophecy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22-24)! This view is actually in line with the New Testament epistles, which demonstrate that all these events will occur at the end of the world (see e.g. Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 12:5). So, if the apocalyptic New Testament is presenting a future story, then why have we placed it in the past? It's no wonder why Philo, the most prolific commentator on the Bible, and a contemporary of Jesus, who visited Jerusalem, had no knowledge of Jesus and didn’t write about him.

Throughout history, bible scholars have created a variety of portraits for Jesus. Some have constructed the profile of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet. Other portraits include the Jewish messiah, the magician, the exorcist, the insurrectionist, the zealot, the cynic philosopher, the charismatic healer, the politician, the social justice advocate, the liberator of the oppressed and disenfranchised, and so on. We’ve seen all these portraits. But how about Jesus the Greek messiah of the endtimes? This has never been proposed, let alone studied, in academia, even though it meets scholarly and academic parameters.

That’s why in the gospel of John (8:48) the Jews categorically call Jesus a “Samaritan” (i.e. a Gentile) in order to demonstrate that he is not a Jew (cf. Matt. 4:15-16; 26:69)! And this explains why all the messianic figures in the Bible are essentially depicted as Gentiles, including Cyrus the Persian and King David the Moabite! That’s exactly why God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land” (Isa. 46:11). In fact, there were quite a few early 20th century scholars——including Oxford classicist G. A. Williamson and New Testament scholar Walter Bauer——who argued that Christ was not a Jew!

But there is more. From early on, the Church fathers translated the Hebrew Name of God into Greek as Ἰαὼ and even thought that it had something to do with the name of Jesus (aka as Ἰωσουὲ). The name Ἰαὼ can also be found in the universal history of Diodorus of Sicily as well as in the Dead Sea scrolls, among other places. But here’s the catch. The Greek name of God (IAO) also represents the ancient Greeks (known as IAONES), the first literary depictions of which are found in the works of Homer (Ἰάονες) and Hesiod (Ἰάων).

Not only that but the Hebrew name of God (Yahva) is also the Hebrew name for Greece (Yavan). This verbal agreement is not coincidental. Therefore, the secret name of God in both Greek and Hebrew apparently represents Greece! This is precisely why the New Testament was written in Greek and why Christ constantly uses Greek letters to denote his identity (Ἐγώ εἰμι; Rev. 1:8):

“I am the Alpha and the Omega.”

That is also why Paul presents Jesus as a Greek God in Acts 17! According to his own statement, this is precisely why John of Patmos is in Greece. It’s not by accident. He’s there to symbolically proclaim the revelation of the Greek Jesus according to the word of God (Rev. 1:9):

“I, John, … was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.”

This explains the New Testament's linguistic and theological shift from Israel to Greece (see Matt. 21:43):

“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to [another] people who will produce the fruit of it.”

If you want to explore these themes in greater detail, I highly recommend reading The Little Book of Revelation, which covers all these topics and more:

[eli-kittim]

Have you read this book? It’s the most important book for our time! 🇬🇷 🇺🇸

It presents a new revelation about Jesus that the Holy Spirit has disclosed to many believers, but which most people don’t know about. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that this revelation is not of human origin. The author did not invent it. He did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it; rather, he received it by revelation from God.

We must enlighten those who have no connection to the Holy Spirit——who are constantly being brainwashed by the media——and pull them out of the Matrix.

So Grab your copy now! Read it and share it with as many people as possible!

“The book is beautifully written.”

— Blueink Review

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

Available on Xlibris Bookstore

[eli-kittim]

The Greek Jesus

Eli Kittim

We know by revelation that Jesus is Greek. But we can also confirm it through Scripture. In the New Testament there are several ways by which Jesus is portrayed as a Greek (i.e. as a non-Jew). One of these portrayals is found in the Gospel of Matthew (4.15-16), which tells us that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; see also Luke 1.26). Ever since the 10th century BC, Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Already by the 8th century BC the prophet Isaiah referred to this region as "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 9.1). In addition, in John 8.48 the Jews categorically call Jesus a “Samaritan” (i.e. a Gentile) in order to demonstrate that he is not a Jew. Not to mention that Jesus' sentence was not death by stoning, which was the standard form of execution for Jews, but crucifixion, a Roman method of capital punishment. And he was tried in a Roman court of Law that was reserved only for Roman or Greek citizens, thereby demonstrating that Jesus was not a Jew. In fact, there were quite a few early 20th century scholars——including Oxford classicist G. A. Williamson and New Testament scholar Walter Bauer——who also held the view that Christ was not a Jew!

The notion that people protested against Jesus because he did not come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles is especially emphasized in the Gospel of John (7.41-43):

“Others said, This is the Christ; but others said, Does the Christ come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the town where David was? There was a division among the people because of him.”

In John 7.52, Jesus defies Jewish messianic expectations:

“Look, and see, for out of Galilee no prophet arises.”

What is more, most of the books of the New Testament were written in Greece: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the book of Revelation. None of the books of the New Testament were written in Palestine. And most of the letters are addressed to Greek communities: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians! Is this a coincidence or does it have something to do with Jesus?

It’s also important to note that when the New Testament writers quote from the Scriptures they often quote from the Greek Old Testament rather than from the Hebrew writings. This indicates that the New Testament writers were not familiar with the Hebrew language. And given that they were fluent and highly articulate in the Greek language, their exclusive use of Koine Greek shows that the writers of the New Testament were not Jews but Greeks. So why would the New Testament be written in Greek rather than Hebrew?

Most people are under the impression that the New Testament was written in Greek because Greek was the lingua franca (or the common language of the day). But if that was so, then we would expect to find all the Scriptures to be written predominantly in Greek. But that’s not what we find. In fact, most of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which were written around the same time period) were written in Hebrew, not Greek. This demonstrates that the lingua franca hypothesis is wrong.

So why didn’t the New Testament writers complete God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to convince the Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture than to write it in Hebrew? But they didn’t do that! Why? The reason is Jesus. He’s not Jewish but Greek! So the narrative must be written in Greek to reflect the Greek protagonist. This is precisely why the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. And this explains why all the messianic figures in the Bible are essentially depicted as Gentiles. From Abraham (Chaldea) to Noah (Mesopotamia) to Job (Uz) to Joseph and Moses (who are portrayed as Egyptians, members of Egyptian families/Egyptian Royalty), all the messianic figures in the Old Testament are basically depicted as Gentiles. That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46.11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land.” This would certainly drive home the idea that the Messiah is a non-Jew!

Furthermore, if Christ were a Jew he would have said that he was the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, Christ constantly uses Greek letters to denote his identity and to designate the divine “I am” (Ἐγώ εἰμι; Revelation 1.8):

“I am the Alpha and the Omega.”

Besides, it’s important to emphasize that the Hebrew name of God (Yahva, pronounced as Yava) is also the Hebrew name for Greece (namely, Yavan). This verbal agreement is not coincidental. There is further evidence regarding the Greek name of God. In some rare Septuagint manuscripts the Tetragrammaton is translated as Ιαω (known as the Greek trigram). That is, the divine name Yahva is translated into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see e.g. Lev. 4.27 Septuagint manuscript [LXX] 4Q120). This fragment comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found at Qumran, and dates to the 1st century BC.

What is of great importance is the fact that the name IAO seemingly represents the ancient Greeks (known as IAONES), the first literary depictions of which are found in the epics of Homer (Ἰάονες) and also in the works of Hesiod (Ἰάων). Bible scholars agree that the Hebrew name Yavan represents the Iaones, i.e. the ancient Greeks. Moreover, there are independent attestations that come from the Patristic writings about the Tetragrammaton. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B. D. Eerdmans: Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BC) translates the name of God as Ἰαῶ. Irenaeus (d. c. 202) states that the Valentinians use the divine name Ἰαῶ. Origen of Alexandria (c. 254) writes Ἰαω. Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – c. 458) also writes Ἰαω. Therefore, the secret name of God in both the Greek Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible seems to represent Greece! This is why John of Patmos is not in Greece by accident. He is there to proclaim the revelation of Jesus and the word of God (Revelation 1.9):

“I, John, … was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.”

[eli-kittim]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Debunked

Eli Kittim

The Latter Day Saint movement is a Christian Restorationist movement that was founded by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century. Currently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka “LDS Church”) boasts 17 million members.

There is a theme in the Old Testament that is echoed in the New Testament's Book of Revelation 22:18-19. It effectively nullifies all extra-biblical sources of interpretation or additions to scripture, including Talmudic hermeneutics and 3 out of the 4 Standard Works of the LDS Church. Deuteronomy 4:2 reads:

“You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.”

Yet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have added additional material, such as the noncanonical Book of Mormon, which is neither authorized nor accepted by mainstream Christian Churches. According to Latter Day Saint tradition, the so-called golden plates are the original source from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (which is now called Another Testament of Jesus Christ). Paul writes in Galatians 1:8:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

As the story goes, Smith allegedly found these plates in the 1820s after an angel named Moroni directed him to a buried stone box. He claimed that the angel instructed him not to show the plates to anyone until they had been properly translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language.

However, there are several problems with these claims. The notion of “reformed Egyptian” comes from a narrative in the Book of Mormon, in which it is described as the language employed to inscribe the text on golden plates. And yet, historians, linguists, archaeologists, and egyptologists have not found any substantiated examples of such a language in the historical or archaeological record. In other words, the claim that the golden plates were written in a language called "reformed Egyptian” is bogus because such a language is basically unknown to linguists and egyptologists. Besides, there’s no linguistic, historical, or archaeological evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in Pre-Columbian America!

There are many other problems with Joseph Smith’s claims. He mentioned that he received his revelation from an Angel named Moroni. The said angel is mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, another LDS book, but not in the Bible. According to the Book of Mormon, the said angel added information to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, the Book of Mormon is more about Moroni than Jesus because the word "Mormon" itself is actually derived from the name of the angel Moroni! The fact that this angel substitutes itself for Christ by giving its name to a book——and given that the name Moroni is never once mentioned in the 66 canonical books of Holy Scripture——suggests that it is probably not on God’s payroll. Joseph Smith’s account reminds us of another so-called prophetess and channeler, namely, Esther Hicks, who currently claims to receive revelations from a non-physical spirit named Abraham. Thus, the LDS movement——featuring a spirit-guide who offers a new or alternative teaching THAT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE—��has all the hallmarks of a cult!

It is important to note that Joseph Smith and his close associates were practicing folk magic, scrying, second sight, and divination, practices that are strictly forbidden in the Old Testament (Lev 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10-12)! Both Smith and another seer named Samuel T. Lawrence reportedly used a seer stone to view the golden plates. What is more, eyewitnesses reported that Smith translated the golden plates not by looking directly at them but by looking through a transparent seer stone in the bottom of his hat! So, Smith allegedly translated the Egyptian not based on any scholarly knowledge or expertise but rather on psychic messages that were channeled to him.

There were allegedly 11 men who claimed to have seen the plates, aka the so-called Book of Mormon Witnesses. Then, after the translation process was completed, Smith claimed that he returned the plates to the angel Moroni, thereby conveniently making them magically disappear from sight so that they could not be investigated or re-examined.

However, there are various discrepancies and contradictory accounts. Some of Joseph Smith’s close associates accused him of being a fraud and of having “filthy” adulterous relationships. Moreover, Martin Harris, one of the alleged Three Witnesses to the golden plates, recounted his witness as a visionary experience. John Gilbert, the printer of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, asked Harris if he had seen the plates with his own eyes, to which Harris replied "No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In 1837, Joseph Smith excommunicated 28 members. A year later, in 1838, Smith said the following about the Three Witnesses (Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer): “too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." So much for the eyewitness reports!

In the same year (1838), Harris publicly confessed that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." In fact, Harris openly denied that any of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates. As a result, Harris's announcement convinced several key members to leave the church. Over 30 years later, Harris’ account never changed. He gave another interview in which he admitted "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state."

The Pearl of Great Price is part of the canonical books of the LDS Church. It was originally written as a pamphlet published in England in 1851, and was later revised and canonized by the LDS Church. The current version of the Pearl of Great Price contains several sections. One section is called the Book of Moses, which includes Smith's own revisions (i.e. the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible, aka JST) regarding the first 6 chapters of the Book of Genesis, which include two extraneous chapters of "extracts from the prophecy of Enoch.” So, Joseph Smith is essentially rewriting the Bible according to his own private interpretations.

Another section in the Pearl of Great Price is the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith produced it in 1835, and claimed that it was based on Egyptian papyri that were purchased from a traveling mummy exhibition. According to Joseph Smith himself, the book was "a translation of some ancient records... purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus". What a story! It has all the earmarks of occultism! This book also maintains that God did not create the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing) but rather through a reorganization of eternal, pre-existing elements. Not to mention that Joseph Smith retranslated portions of Matthew’s gospel, a work which contains significant changes and additions to the original biblical text.

In summary, Joseph Smith added another book to the Bible which was based on a discovery of certain golden plates that no one ever saw. This was a book translated from a supposed reformed Egyptian language that doesn’t exist in the historical or archaeological record, let alone in ancient America. And later, it magically disappeared so that it could not be examined. The witnesses themselves did not actually see the plates with their own eyes. And some of the them even called Smith a fraud. Joseph Smith and his companions were all involved in divination and magic, which often attracts demonic spirits. As a matter of fact, the Spirit who introduced Smith to these extra bible additions is a suspicious familiar spirit who is never once mentioned in the Bible. Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that the LDS Church is a heretical cult that has very little to do with Christianity! Not to mention their theology which is completely bogus (e.g. that God has a physical body of flesh and bones, that God was once a man on another planet, that just like him we can all become gods, that there exist many gods, that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer/Satan, etc.)!

[eli-kittim]

💠 Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com (Christian Texts and History) 💠

On the academic website Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com, scholars are quoting Eli Kittim and exploring his thesis that the crucifixion of Christ is a future event!

[eli-kittim]

Eli Kittim on Instagram

Eli Kittim’s Unique Interpretation of Jesus

Eli Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all in the end-times (see Heb. 9:26b; 1 Pet. 1:20). Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

[eli-kittim]

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

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

[eli-kittim]

The Little Book of Revelation (Xlibris):

By Eli Of Kittim 🎓📚

A Study of the Sequence of EndTime Events

Eli Kittim – Das kleine Buch der Offenbarung: Das erste Kommen Jesu in den letzten Tagen

엘리 킷팀(Eli Kittim) - 작은 요한계시록: 마지막 날에 예수님의 초림

Eli Kittim - Mica carte a Apocalipsei: Prima venire a lui Isus la sfârșitul zilelor

Eli Kittim - Ang Munting Aklat ng Pahayag: Ang Unang Pagdating ni Hesus sa Katapusan ng mga Araw

イーライ・キティム - 小さな黙示録: 終わりの日のイエスの初臨

‎ایلی کٹیم - مکاشفہ کی چھوٹی کتاب: آخری دنوں میں یسوع کی پہلی آمد

[eli-kittim]

Kittim’s Eschatology:

The Kittim Method

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futurist eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”

According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!

In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.

The Epistolary View of Christ

The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!

Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method

Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”

What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.

The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!

Christ is born in the Fullness of Time

Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!

Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age

In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”

There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!

Conclusion

Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

——-

[eli-kittim]

Who Is Eli Kittim & What Does He Believe?

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Why Do I Write Under the Pseudonym of Eli of Kittim?

For the record, “Eli of Kittim” is my pen name, not my real name. I chose this name because it points directly to Jesus Christ himself. The name “Eli of Kittim” is a cryptic reference to Jesus, and it really means, “The God of Greece.” The idea that the Messiah’s name is Eli is mentioned in many passages of the Old and New Testaments. For instance, Matthew 27.46 defines the name “Eli” as God. It reads: “Eli, Eli ... that is, My God, my God.” Similarly, Daniel 12.1 refers to “the great [messianic] prince” named, “Michael” (Mika-el). Michael means “Who is like God?” But if you break-up the word, the prefix “Mika” means “who is like,” while “el,” the suffix, refers to God himself. The same holds in Matthew 1.23 where the author informs us that Jesus’ name is “Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." Once again, the prefix is based on the root (im) עִם, which means “with,” while the root-suffix (el) אֵל means “God” (cf. Isaiah 7.14). This is probably why God says in Malachi 4.5 (DRB), “Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” So, the common denominator in all these Biblical verses is that the Messiah is called Eli.

Moreover, Kittim is a repeated Old Testament Biblical name that represents the island of Cyprus, which was inhabited by Greeks since ancient times, and thus represents the Greeks. In Genesis 10.4 we are told that the Kittim are among the sons of Javan (Yavan), meaning Greece (see Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). Even the War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, foretells the end-time battle that will take place between Belial and the King of the Kittim. This is all in my book, chapter 9. So, accordingly, Eli of Kittim roughly means, “The God of Greece.” That’s the name’s cryptic significance. And since the name Eli of Kittim represents the main argument of my book, I use it as my pen name!

——-

Bio

I’ve been involved in the study of serious Bible scholarship for over 30 years. I’m what you might call a Bible maven! I hold an MA degree in psychology from the New School for Social Research in New York City, and I’m also a graduate of the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity and of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute. I’ve also studied Biblical criticism at both Queens College and The New School (Eugene Lang). I’m fluent in Koine Greek, and I’m also a native Greek speaker. I also read Biblical Hebrew. I read the New Testament in the original language. Currently, I’m a Bible researcher, published writer, and an award-winning Goodreads book-author. My book is called “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” I advise all my readers to also read my *blog* because it furnishes *additional information* that usually answers most of their FAQs. I highly recommend that you read at least a few *related-articles* which flesh out certain ideas that are sometimes sparely developed in the book. It acts as a companion study-guide to “The Little Book of Revelation.” See Tumblr: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

I have also contributed academic articles to numerous journals and magazines, such as “Rapture Ready,” the “Journal of Higher Criticism,” “The American Journal of Psychoanalysis,” and the “Aegean Review” (which has published works by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), among others.

——-

Rethinking Christianity: An Einsteinian Revolution of Theology

Just like Paul’s doctrine——which “is not of human origin; for … [he] did not receive it from a human source, … but … [he] received it through a revelation” (Gal. 1.11-12)——my doctrine was received in the exact same way! Mine is an Einsteinian revolution of theology. No one will do theology the same. I made 2 electrifying discoveries that turn historical Christianity on its head:

A) What if the crucifixion of Christ is a

future event?

B) What if Christ is Greek?

Both of these concepts were communicated to me via special revelation! Hermeneutically speaking, they involve an absolutely groundbreaking paradigm shift! Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! And most of the Biblical data, both academic and otherwise, actually supports my conclusions. The fact that it’s new doesn’t mean it’s not true. This new hermeneutic is worthy of serious consideration. No one has ever said that before. This can only be revealed by the spirit!

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote:

All truth goes through three stages:

At first it is ridiculed.

In the second, it is violently rejected

In the third, it is accepted as self-evident.

I would suggest that readers do their due diligence by investigating my extensive writings in order to examine what my view is all about and on what grounds it is established.

——-

Kittim’s Systematic Theology

I have written about my systematic theology (aka Kittimism) many times before, but only vis-à-vis my evidence (i.e. in trying to prove it). But I’ve never tried to clarify its foundations. In systematic theology, a theologian seeks to establish a coherent theoretical framework that connects all the diverse doctrines within a tradition, such as Bibliology, Soteriology, Eschatology, and the like. However, one of the major problems involved in such a study is the theological bias of the researcher who might “force” the data to fit the theory in an attempt to maintain coherence and consistency.

So, where does my systematic theology come from? I’m neither Protestant, nor Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox (though I used to be Greek-Orthodox). I don’t belong to any particular church or denomination. Nor am I trying to create one. I’m rather selective, but I don’t identify with the various denominations of whose views I sometimes embrace. The reason is that——although I may agree with certain theological positions, nevertheless——I do not necessarily agree with their overall systems.

Unlike most other systematic theologies that are based on probabilities and guesswork, the starting point of my system is based on “special revelation”! This revelation, or rather these revelations (for I’ve had a number of them through the years) do not add any new content to the canon of scripture, but they do clarify it, especially in terms of chronology or the timing and sequence of certain prophetic events. So they don’t add anything new to the Biblical canon per se. The only thing they do change is *our interpretation* of the text. Incidentally, this revelation has been multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by innumerable people. Due to time constraints, I can’t go into all the details. Suffice it to say that a great multitude of people have received the exact same revelation! Essentially, this is my spiritual navigation system. But I never force it on the text. I always approach the text with impartiality in order to “test the spirits,” as it were. The last thing I want to do is to engage in confirmation bias.

And my views fit all the evidence. For example, I agree with Biblical scholarship that most of the Old Testament is not historical. I fully agree that many of the Patriarchs did not exist. I concur that the same holds true for the New Testament, but not to the same degree. What is more, I’m in full agreement that the gospels are anonymously written, and that they’re nonhistorical accounts that contain many legendary elements. I further concur that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. I also agree with many credible Bible scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, such as Robert M. Price and Kurt Aland. I admit that some of the New Testament texts involve historical fiction. And I don’t believe that in order to have a high view of scripture one has to necessarily accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter. Rudolf Bultmann was right: the Bible sometimes mythologizes the word of God!

——-

The High Quality of My Work

The truth is, I demand of my work nothing less than the highest possible quality so that it is able to withstand the rigors of modern scholarship! To that end, a solution to a particular problem must be multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by all parts of Scripture, thus eliminating the possibility of error in establishing its legitimacy. I’m very comprehensive in my work and I use a very similar quasi-scientific method when interpreting the text. In order to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation during the exegetical process, I observe exactly *what* the text says, exactly *how* it says it, without entertaining any speculations, preconceptions, or presuppositions, and without any theological agendas. This eliminates any personal predispositions toward the text while preserving the hermeneutical integrity of the method.

And then I translate it into English with the assistance of scholarly dictionaries and lexicons. After that, I cross-reference information to check for parallels and/or verbal agreements. Thus, the translation of the original biblical languages becomes the starting point of my exegesis. This type of approach is unheard of. Almost everyone comes to the text with certain theological preconceptions. I’ve been heavily influenced by my academic and scientific backgrounds in this respect, and that’s why I’m very demanding and always strive to achieve the highest possible quality of work! I take a lot of pride in my work! And it is only after this laborious process has been completed that I finally check it against my original “blueprints”——namely, my revelations——to see if they match. It’s an airtight case because it’s not guided by speculation and conjecture, as most theologies seem to be.

The best explanation of my views comes from the following work. This is the pdf of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, “The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles”:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6b2a560b-9940-4690-ad29-caf086dbdcd6

——-

[eli-kittim]

#Interview_with_Eli_Kittim #Author_of_The_Little_Book_of_Revelation https://rhondapattonauthor.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/welcome-author-eli-of-kittim/