Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Maybe The Wedding Feast isn't in Heaven like we assume?

I was watching this Sermon of Peter Hiett.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3NX-XG6dgA

Now he and I don't agree on Revelation, he isn't a Futurist and so he's not likely to agree with the title of this post.  But he and I agree on the subject of Universal Salvation and because of that common ground I'm still able to gain many spiritual insights watching his Sermons.

Technically this Sermon may not actually say anything to help what I'm arguing at here all.  But it was on the Wedding Banquette parable from Matthew 22 so it had me thinking about this subject.  And it brought up what I'd already heard before of Jewish Wedding Feasts sometimes lasting seven days.

In the context of what I've argued about The Bride of Christ, and my conviction that the Seven Years that Revelation 6-19 will play out over is Nisan-Nisan years, including suggesting Jesus will have a second Triumphal Entry on the 10th of Nisan.  It has me thinking about the Wedding Feast being the Seven Days of Unleavened bread.

When tend to think Revelation 19 is placing The Wedding Feast in heaven, including me talking this subject in the past.  But ti doesn't say that, verses 7-9 say the time for the Wedding is at come, then in verse 11 Heaven is opened and the Rider on the White Horse invades The Earth.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Jacob Fathered Two Sets of Twins

Read Genesis 29 and 30 carefully and and you'll notice most of the time each child's birth is preceded by an account of that child's conception.  But Chapter 30 has two exceptions to this, Asher in verses 12-13 and Dinah in verse 21.

Now with Dinah it's be tempting to say the patriarchal bias of the culture was less interested in detailing her birth, but why record her birth at all given I feel there is later evidence she wasn't Jacob's only daughter?  It could be because she's important later to chapter 34 but David's daughter Tamar didn't need a prior account of her birth.

So I think Gad and Asher the sons of Zilpah were twins, and later so were Zebulun and Dinah who borne by Leah.

Why not detail their twin births the way Jacob and Esau or Pharez and Zarah were?  Those are narratives about issues complicating who would qualify as the first born.  None of these were eligible to be a paternal first born.  With Zebuln and Dinah we're dealing with possibly Leah's last children, and Zilaph's were going to be kind of counted among Leah's so wouldn't have likely had even a Maternal first born status.  The significance of being a Maternal firstborn isn't about any kind of inheritance.  And regardless if there was no ambiguity it wasn't an issue.

Similar logic to what I just argued can be used to say Cain and Abel were twins.  Which of course is a claim that gets used by Serpent Seed theorists but with the intent of saying they didn't have the same father.  The text of Genesis 4:1-2 is if anything the opposite of them on who was definitely fathered by Adam, it directly attributed Cain to Adam more then it does Abel.  I'm certain Abel was also Adam's son however.  I've already refuted the Two Seedline theory.

The birth of Joseph's sons, Manasseh and Ephraim are not recorded in a similar manner to these two chapters at all.

Apparently the odds of conceiving twins if you are a twin are not higher for identical twins but are for fraternal twins.  Jacob was a Fraternal Twin.  And some rabbinic traditions suggest Leah and Rachel were also twins.

When Mazzaroth theorists are trying to align the Zodiac constellations to the Tribes of Israel, different models get proposed.

The first version I stumbled upon identified Levi and Simeon with Gemini not because of any evidence they were twins but because their role in Genesis 34 can be compared to Castor and Pollux killing Theseus over his abduction of Helen, and because of that Levi and Simeon are grouped together in Genesis 49, and Levi had no land allotment or camp surrounding the Tabernacle since Levi had The Tabernacle itself (and Simeon is mysteriously absent from Deuteronomy 33).  If it's Dinah who was a twin that would be interesting, given how Helen is said to be a twin of Clytemnestra.  I have argued for possibly linking Clytemnestra to Athaliah who was a daughter of the house of Omri.  The Tribal identity of the Omrids is never clearly stated in Scripture, but Jezreel was in land originally allotted to Issachar who's often grouped with Zebulun.  Also Omri first appears in the narrative as an army commander of the Issacharite House of Baasha.

I have not seen a version make any of the three sons I have argued could be Twins the Gemini, it seems sometimes Benjamin is Gemeni which I don't get at all.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Genesis 24:60 destroys Preterism and Amillennialism.

Or at least many forms of them.

You see I've seen common argument that all Bible Prophecy must have been fulfilled by 70 AD.  And well that's just not workable with this verse.
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, "Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them."
A Thousand Millions is a Billion.  The entire world's Population didn't reach even 1 Billion till the 1800s.  And Human population tends to reproduce exponentially, meaning it doubles about every 50-70 years, or broadly speaking a generation.  Which means there is certainly no way descendants of just Rebekah (Israelites and Edomites) reached at least 2 Billion before 70 AD.

Another factor to point out about population growth is how both Genesis 48 and Deuteronomy 33 foretell Ephraim to dwarf Manasseh in population.  This never happened in the recorded Biblical History of Israel, every census had Manasseh significantly larger in population then Ephraim.  These Prophecies clearly expand into the post exile history of the House of Joseph.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

The Flood did not Destroy The Earth, it Saved The Earth.

The Last verse of the First Chapter of Genesis.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
The Hebrew word for "good" there also gets translated works like bountiful, prosperity and welfare.  I've seen one scholar say that the Hebrew of this verse can be translated as saying the Earth was Good for Man to live in, that it was Habitable.

In the blog post where I explained why I now support the Sethite view of Genesis 6.  The last part of it is me emphasizing how Genesis 6 interprets itself and explains the reason for the Flood was the Earth being filled with Violence.  Among other things I mentioned Tubal-Cain briefly which I want to elaborate on.

Genesis 4:22.
And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
The word translated "instructor" is no where else translated something implying a type of teacher, elsewhere the KJV translated the word sharp, sharpen, sharpeneth and whet. in Psalm 7:12 "If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready."  In this context it would be actuate to translate it sharpener.

The word for artificer here is very similar to the Hebrew word usually translated artificer but different, it appears only in this verse.  And it has me wondering if this word doesn't refer to persons but to objects and perhaps should be "artifice".

The word for Brass is again similar to other words for Brass but distinct mainly in that it ends with a t/th.  The word Iron is the standard Hebrew word for Iron (Daniel uses the Aramaic word in chapters 2 and 7 however).  But it's notably that in a few places it's clearly used directly of some type of weapon being translated in the KJV as "ax head".

Genesis 6 verses 11-12 use in the KJV Corrupt twice and Corrupted once, all three are the same Hebrew word.  A Hebrew word that is also translated waste/waster, spoiler, perish, spill and destroy/destroyer/destruction.   That means, the text is arguably saying The Earth was already destroyed before God even sent The Flood.

Genesis 6:12 is a parallel to what's said at the end of Genesis 1.  Except now instead of being "very good' the earth is "Corrupt".  I used to read "corrupted his way upon the earth" as referring to God's way, including when I made that Sethite view post last December.  But I now realize it's man's way on the earth that has been spoiled or destroyed.  The Earth has become Uninhabitable.

Verse 13 uses "destroy" in the KJV but it's in the Hebrew the same word used for Corrupt/Corrupted in verses 11-12.  God is saying what Man has done to the Earth, He will do to Man using the Earth.

What God says to Noah is that the End of All flesh is already come, it's already inevitable, Man's Violence has rendered the Earth no longer inhabitable for organic life.  Mankind was already dying off.

The Flood didn't destroy The Earth, it was The Earth's Mikveh, it cleansed and purified The Earth of it's corruption.

This pretty plain reading of Genesis is not a common interpretation of Genesis.  Because in the ancient world men could use violence to destroy each other and other flesh, but not The Earth itself.  But we have no clue what the Antediluvian world was like.  And today it is possible, the potential to render the Earth uninhabitable totally exists, just watch the historical fiction movie Barefoot Gen.

Jesus said in Matthew 24, "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be".  But before that He had said "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.".

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Was Jesus Crucified in Gehenna?

So my last post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model was Bethany and the Mount of Olives, a follow up to my first post on the subject.

I've since learned that there is technically more then one Mount of Olives or East of Jerusalem model.  The person who runs the website Golgotha.eu support a hill way up north, just outside what we now know as the Lion Gate.  This person is obsessed with arguing that Baptism is necessary for Salvation, which I strongly disagree with, and it's annoying he can't leave that out of even an article that's just supposed to be about figuring out where the Crucifixion happened.  But my Soterology will be subtly alluded to in this post so I guess I can't judge, but it has much more of a direct relevance.

Bob Cornuke however seems to be proposing a location much further south, east of the Old City, what we today incorrectly call the City of David, where he believes The Temple was.  The implications of what I shall propose here favor a more southern location, though maybe not exactly where Cornuke has proposed, I haven't looked enough into his specifics enough yet.

First off, in my view what we today call the City of David was the Jebus that David captured (but the Biblical City of David is Bethlehem) and was all of Jerusalem until the Babylonian captivity.  So I do think that's where Solomon's Temple was, but probably not Zerubabel or Herod's Temple.  I lean towards the second Temple being where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos.

The Valley of Hinnom in the Hebrew Bible, which is commonly rendered Gehenna in Greek Texts and misleadingly translated Hell in some English and Latin Bibles.  Is traditionally identified with the valley located south and west of the Old City.  But Jeremiah 19:2-6 says the Valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.  Which would then place it at the foot of the Mount of Olives.

Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 seem to be the source of thinking it would be west and south of Jebus/Jerusalem, but there are a number of ways the intended geography of those verses could be misunderstood.

Hinnom's unique reputation began with Ahaz building the Tophet there as a part of a cult of worship to Moloch/Milcom that included child sacrifice in II Chronicles 28, II Chronicles 33 tells us Manasseh also used this same Tophet.  Isaiah mentions the Tophet in chapter 30 verse 33, Jeremiah mentions it in chapters 7, 19 and 32.

Ahaz was not the first King of the House of David to build an Idol of Moloch/Milcom, Solomon built Idols for that deity and Chemosh on the Mount of Olives that is east of Jerusalem in 1 Kings 11.  Some scholars think Chemosh and Moloch were different names for the same deity, Moloch is just a variant spelling of the Hebrew word for King.  So perhaps when Ahaz set up his Tophet he was merely expanding on the site Solomon set up.  Solomon's Idol on the Mount overlooking the Valley where the Tophet was the site of the Sacrifices.

In II Kings 23:10-14 tells us that Josiah tore down the Tophet and the Idols Solomon set up.  These events could be the origin of Hinnom being associated with a site of Yahuah's Judgment.  But it was no Solomon and Ahaz immortal Souls that were destroyed in the Valley of Hinnom, it was their Sins.  Paul tells us in II Corinthians 5 that Jesus was Made Sin for us.

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model involves a lot of talking about how what was done "Without the Camp" in the Torah equates to the Mount of Olives when The Camp is Jerusalem.  It's where the Red Heifer was Sacrificed in Numbers 19, and where the bodies of Sacrificial Animals were to be burned.  It was where Executions happened according to Leviticus 24:14, Numbers 15:35-36 and 31:13-19.  But in Joshua 6:23 it is where Rahab the Harlot and her family were brought to safety.

But without the camp is also where lepers and other unclean people are to stay until they are made clean in places like Numbers 5.  And Jesus will make all things clean.  The purpose of the Ashes of the Red Heifer are are purification.  And Perhaps that's also relevant to understanding being without New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22.

This same place where in Sin Israelites sacrificed their Children to false idols, could be the same place where God gave His Only Begotten Son for the Whole World.

Monday, July 30, 2018

God's Unconditional Covenant with Israel

Pre-Trib Dispensationalist and Zionist Christians love to emphasize the Unconditionality of God's Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And I agree with that even though I don't entirely agree with them on issues like the timing of the Rapture or how Israel relates to The Church.  Nor do I agree that America needs to blindly support Modern Israel no matter what, depending on foreign allies was something God told Israel not to do throughout the Old Testament.

The thing is, because most of them support a doctrine of Eternal Endless Torment, they don't apply this Undontionality to every individual Jew, just to Israel as a nation. But Malachi 3:6 says "For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."  That verse isn't about Israel as a unit, it's about plural sons of Jacob.  Earlier Malachi 3 talked about how the Fire of God is a purifying fire used to refine the sons of Levi and purge them like Gold and Silver.

Romans 11 says "All Israel shall be Saved".  In the common Preterist/Post-Trib view that in Romans 9-11 only the already Saved truly count as Israel, that is nonsensical.  However Dispensationalsits are not taking that declaration truly literally either.  They believe by "All Israel" it mean all Israelites still alive when this prophecy is fulfilled.  They don't believe it will save Dathan and Kore and the followers of their Rebellion, or Judas, Ciaphas and Ananias.  In fact most Dispsenationists as much as they may politically support Israel still think on an individual basis only Jews who believe in Jesus are saved on this side of the Cross, so therefore they believe the 6 Million Jews who perished in the Holocaust will not take part in Israel's final restoration.

Now I do believe there is a future terrestrial mass conversion event that will play a role in the fulfillment of Romans 11 and other Prophecies.  But that event proceeds the beginning of the Millennium, which is both proceeded by and followed by phases of The Resurrection.  And Ezekiel 37 clearly associates the future restoration of Israel with the Resurrection of The Dead.

I disagree with certain aspects of Two House Theology, but I do think they have a point on some things.  And if Genesis 48 is foretelling that Ephraim shall become the fullness of the gentiles, and all Israel shall be Saved, then logically all the Gentiles shall be saved as well.  In fact Romans 11 seems say All Israel won't be Saved till the Fullness of the Gentiles are brought into Israel first.

God's unconditional Covenant with Abraham was I think to begin with a picture of His unconditional Love for all of us.  From the beginning God's promise to Abraham was that through him All the Nations and Families of the Earth would be Blessed.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Universal Salvation in The Book of Revelation

The most common proof texts for Universal Salvation I cite are not from Revelation, I focus on Sayings of Jesus and Teachings from The Epistles.  But Revelation is the final chapter of The Bible, so it must help reinforce that message if it is true.  And I believe it does.

If you search for the phrase "Kings of The Earth" in Revelation, you'll find that from Chapter 6 Verse 15 to Chapter 19 Verse 19, they are consistently the bad guys, committing whoredom with the whore of Babylon and marching into battle alongside The Beast and False Prophet.  But suddenly in Revelation 21:24, after the last time the Lake of Fire is mentioned, we read.
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Now one could easily object that these are different kings, but Believers being fulfilled in our promise to Reign with Christ.  But I believe our Kingship exists within New Jerusalem (the "it" of this verse) while these are nations without it.  And in chapter 1 Jesus calls Himself the Prince of the Kings of The Earth, so this was foreshadowed.

It's also the implication of my Bride of Christ doctrine.  I feel I have shown that the Whore of Babylon is the same Woman as the Bride of Christ.

I've already talked about how to translate the Greek Phrase that becomes in the KJV "Forever and Ever", it should be "Age of Ages".  But I've also rhetorically argued for Universal Salvation being consistent with the KJV readings of these passages.

I also have a post on The Second Resurrection.

The last verse of Revelation 21, verse 27, also challenges our assumptions of what the New Heaven and New Earth is like.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
It implies things that theoretically could defile New Jerusalem do still exist.  Revelation 22:15 again clarified that sinners do still exist outside New Jerusalem, the Lake of Fire can't be located there, chapter 14 clarified it comes from the Throne of God.

But I also like to emphasize that the Gates of New Jerusalem are open according to 21:25, and that the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the Healing of the Nations.  So those too Unclean to enter the City when this condition starts may still become clean, that may also be the purpose of The River.

So in conclusion, a plain simple reading of Revelation on it's own does infer a message of Universal Salvation.  It's just that only those who believed in this life are eligible to be Citizens of The Kingdom.