Sunday, March 5, 2017

The First Ressurection

Post-Tribbers like to insist that Revelation 20 tells us when the First Resurrection happens.  It does not, it refers to these Saints as already Resurrected. 

The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14, and Resurrected victims of The Image of The Beast in chapter 15.  It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium.

But I should also point out that the first Resurrection is a classification more so then a Sequence.  Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence.  Or saying something is First Class.

It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did.  Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" right after they are Martyred.  This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Those who receive The Mark of The Beast will have been deceived

Revelation 19:20.
"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."
I had completely overlooked this in many past studies on this Blog where I was adamant in saying the deception is over when The Abomination of Desolation happens.

This was something that was a product of Chuck Missler's influence.  How he said those who took the Mark were making a conscious decision to knowingly choose The Beast over Jesus.

This however strengthens another premise on this Blog.  The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume.  Where I suggested the possibly that The Beast's system may be a form of Torah observance.  Because as far as The Bible is concerned the only Deception it's worried about is something masquerading as true Biblical Worship.

The question however remains.  How is this Compatible with II Thessalonians 2, and part of Revelation 13, describing The Beast as speaking against The God of The Bible?  I don't know exactly.  Maybe they're not as literal as I took them, claiming to be God is speaking against God.  Maybe it's a heresy with a Gnostic aspect of separating Elohim from Yahuah to it.  There are a few aspects to consider.

But the big thing about taking The Mark being defined as a deception.  Is how that fits in the context of Revelation 14 guaranteeing all who take The Mark go into the Lake of Fire.

I finally noticed what I overlooked here well before I made this post.  Because you see I was uncomfortable with this before I became a Universalist.  That these people are defined as not fully knowing exactly what they were doing, yet are eternally damned anyway.

But now that I no longer view the Lake of Fire as Eternal Damnation, but merely a purging fire that will not be the same for all who enter it.  It no longer feels as inherently illogical.

Monday, February 27, 2017

The shape of The Tabernacle, YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem

Project314.org is a website arguing that The Tabernacle was not shaped how we usually assume it was, but was rather a Dome.  I've also listened to the author of the site interviewed by Rob Skiba.  I've become pretty convinced of the theory, (but people like Skiba want to make it also an argument for their Flat Earth Model, which I do not agree with).

They haven't done much yet in terms of trying to see if this means The Temples of Solomon or Zerubabel were also a Dome rather then the shape we usually assume.  But I have an observation to make.

The Popularity of Domes in the design of Islamic Mosques actually comes from them later taking over and copying Byzantine/Eastern Roman Churches that were centered around Domes.  And this being a fixture of Byzantine architecture primarily goes back to the building projects of Emperor Jusitnian.

The Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos was one of Jusitnian's major projects.  It was built in Jerusalem.  Procopius’s account of Justinian's building projects deliberately makes the account of this Church echo the Biblical Account of the construction of Solomon's Temple.  And it was a Church dedicated to Mary, who Catholic and Orthodox theology often viewed The Ark, Tabernacle and Temple to be types of.  

So is it possible that that church had a Dome because of a deliberate attempt to model it after Solomon's Temple?  And that influenced other Byzantine architecture?  And is indirectly the reason we have Domes on The Temple Mount today?

I've made much on my Blog before about how Yahuah-Shammah of Ezekiel 48 and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 have the same shape.  And back then went along with the usual assumption it was a Cube.   But the thing is others talking about their shape being a Cube are also assuming that was the shape of The Holy of Holies.

Many people including Rob Skiba and Chuck Missler (last I checked) seem to think the description of these two cities (which I view as the same) can only be either a Cube or a Pyramid.  Basically something Squared at the bottom.  But I think that is a flawed assumption.  It's based on referring to there being three gates on each side.  

But a Circle with 12 evenly distributed gates could also be described that way.  Just use what a clock looks like as your frame of reference, the 3 is the central eastern gate, the 6 the central southern gate, the 9 the central western gate, and the 12 the central northern gate.

The last verse of the Book of Ezekiel says in the KJV "It was round about eighteen 6240 thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there".   Well the reason the word "round" is there is because the Hebrew word Cabyib (Strong Number 5439) is used.  That word is often translated things like Circuit and Compass.  It is inherently terminology of a round shape.

Revelation 21 uses the term "foursquared" which in the Greek is related to the terminology that refers to Four Corners.  You might think that rules out a Circular shape, but not really.  Remember these Flat Earthers think The Bible is describing a Flat Circle shaped Earth as having Four Corners.  The gist of the description is that it's the same size in all three directions.  And that can fit a Dome as well as it can a Cube or Pyramid.  In fact it can fit a Dome best, as it would be the same distance from the central grounded spot it's built around in every possible direction.

Here is a site arguing New Jerusalem is shaped like a Mountain

I've heard of an interesting book that deals with Geometry and New Jerusalem that may be useful to this topic.   The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order on Earth by John Mitchell.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model

I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations.  I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that.  But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html

https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/

It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price. 

Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location.  It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple.  And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's.  I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.

John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified.  We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem?  Well let's get into that.

Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives.  I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse.  But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives.  (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.)  And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ.  So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.

I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD.  What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?

That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after.  Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.

The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)

Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.".  That would be the Mount of Olives.

Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah.  That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.
And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet.  Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Is The White Horseman of Revelation 19 The Church rather than Jesus?

I realize this suggestion is going to be very controversial.  There is a phrase we think of as a Title of Christ mainly because of it's usage in this passage, and yet under that assumption has been the title of two Hollywood films.  "King of Kings and Lord of Lords".  That title is also clearly applied to The Lamb in Revelation 17:14.  But in Revelation 19 the person being described has that name written on their vesture and thigh, making their relation to that name perhaps more complicated.

First of all this does not change that I think The Arnion (Lamb in the KJV) mentioned as getting married just before this is Jesus.
Second of all regardless of if this is Jesus or not, this is not the Parusia, I've already noted the significance of how that word does not appear in this passage and it has nothing in common with the passages that define the Parusia.  The defining traits of the Parusia occurred in chapters 11-14.

In Revelation 19:12 we read "and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."  I can understand why that sounds like it could be a title of Jesus at first.  But in Revelation 2:17 that is a promise Jesus makes to faithful Church believers.  "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."

Another promise to the Faithful in the messages to the Seven Churches is also used here.  The promise to rule with a Rod of Iron.  In 2:27 and 19:15.  That is also said of The Man-Child in 12:5.  I've already argued strongly that The Man-Child is The Church citing 2:27 (But the biggest Proof Text of that is Isaiah 65), yet people retort that Revelation 19 makes that clearly of Jesus.  

The only appearance of this phrase outside Revelation is Psalm 2.  Chuck Missler likes to argue Psalm 2 is a dialogue between the Trinity, but an argument can also be made that Psalm 2 is about the same thing as Psalm 8, God's promised Dominion of The Earth to the faithful of mankind.  Also like most Psalms it's probably Davidic and so Yahuah's Anointed here could be David.  David anticipates some promises generally unique to New Testament believers, like being promised The Holy Spirit wouldn't leave him.

But, the term "Faithful and True" is used only three times in all of Scripture, all of them in Revelation.  Revelation 19:11 is the second of them.  The third is at the end not being used of a personage.  And Revelation 3:14 is clearly using it as a Title of Christ.

As I was pondering these conflicting clues, I noticed something in verse 11 of chapter 19.  The Horse itself is described as a Him.  
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."
So I started wondering, is it possible that verses 12-16 are describing The Horse rather than The Rider?  And then there is 19:11’s parallel to 6:2, and how that White Horseman is viewed as possibly a False Christ.  Could it be chapter 6 is the Church or Israel being lead astray by a false Messiah, and then 19 is the true Messiah back in control?

Isaiah 63 is a passage often taken as being the main Hebrew Bible counterpart to this part of Revelation 19.  In Isaiah 63:13, Israel is symbolically described as a Horse.  Zechariah 10:3 repeats this analogy in a more positive context, representing Judah as Yahuah's goodly Horse.  And I should note that Rabbinic Jews who accept the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine would probably view Isaiah 63 as about Messiah Ben Joseph rather than Ben David.

Certain things are applicable potentially to both Jesus and Faithful Believers.  Being called “Faithful and True” could work as one of those.  As well as the imagery of a Two Edged Sword coming out of his Mouth, referencing the idea of the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit from Ephesians 6.  And as I’ve considered that I’m leaving the argument that the Rider is Jesus and the Horse the Church.

Many assume it’s the armies following in 19:14 that are Believers.  But Rob Skiba believes those are the Angels and maybe I should now consider him more right on that then I used to (but still not how he ties that into his Flat Earth arguments).

Maybe the Rider is the most Faithful of the Church and the Horse are those who lacked rewards, or Old Testament believers?

I’m not sure entirely what to make of these observations.  

But it has the potential to totally destroy Post-Trib, as even if a version of Post-Trib could be formed that interprets Revelation chronologically, it is dependent on the assumption that Revelation 19 clearly places a Return of Jesus after the Bowls of God’s Wrath.  I believe The Second Coming already happened 3 and a Half years before that.

And again on my Man-Child argument, this removes the only solid counter argument, and seals the deal on The Man-Child being The Church.

Update March 4th 2017:

One more layer I could add here is how The Hebrew Bible uses Messiah meaning Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, of more then just The Messiah.  It's used of Kings, Priests and Prophets, and sometimes seemingly calls all Believers God's Anointed.

The New Testament is generally assumed to have phased that out (though Believers being called Christians could reflect it).  But Revelation is again often viewed as more Old Testament in style.  Twice the word Christ appears in Revelation 20, in verses 4 and 6, neither uses the Greek definite article before the word.  How the KJV translated verse 6 leaves out the word "his".  It should read "of God and of His Christ".

Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah.  And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium.  From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.

Maybe I'm reading too much into that.  But it's not a question I feel we can ignore.

Monday, January 30, 2017

The 7 Year Covenant is not a Peace Treaty

I think Chris is Right and Wrong about much of this.

I now view the 70th Week of Daniel as fulfilled in the first Advent of Jesus, and that The Antichrist is mentioned in Daniel 9 only possibly in being the Abomination alluded to.  Which contrary to many translations is not set up by the same person who confirms the Covenant and stops the Daily Sacrifice.

But I think maybe the 70th Week has End Times relevance only in that an Antichrist will seek to claim he's The Messiah.  Though I do not view that scenario the same way Chris White does.  Though that could just be me seeking an excuse to not do all the work that changing the URL of this Blog would entail.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Misconceptions about the Magi and the Census

Matthew 2:1 clearly says.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem
And yet today the notion is constantly being promoted that the Magi arrived 2 years later, or at least over a year.

The first argument for this presented is often the easiest to refute, saying that Jesus was called a "child" not a "baby".  However the same Greek word translated "child" in Matthew 2:8, Luke uses in the same form in 2:17 to refer to the newborn Jesus.  And the form of the word used in Matthew 2:9 is used in Luke 2:21 of Jesus at his Circumcision.  So that whole argument is based on ignorance of the Greek.

That Herod ordered everyone under two years old to be killed was probably him grossly rounding up.  But that he asked the Magi how long ago they saw the Star may have been a factor.  And at the time they had that discussion it may be both the Magi and Herod thought the birth happened when they saw the star.  But they were Human. 

God's inspired Word in Matthew 2:1 clearly and unambiguously synchronizes the Birth of Jesus to when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem, not when the Star was first seen.  God used the Star to bring them to where he wanted them when he wanted them.  And I think even if the Magi told Herod the King was probably born now not then, Herod would not have wanted to take a chance on it.

I also personally have come to feel it makes most sense if Jesus presentation in The Temple was after Herod was already dead.  Many who support the September 11th 3 BC birth-date (that I used to support) and a January 1 BC death for Herod, have Herod dying less then 40 days from when they have the Magi arrive in Jerusalem anyway.  Since some variations of that have the Magi arrive in Jerusalem on the 25th of December 2 BC.

But the main reason I feel that way is, why would these foreigners proclaiming the Birth of a King of the Jews upset and surprise him so much, if Simeon and Anna had already given their very public declarations of The Messiah's birth?  Why wouldn't he have a similar reaction to that?

But there is one last argument against The Magi being in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, and I saved that for last cause I want to use it to transition into something else.

That argument is that in Matthew 2 Jesus and his parents are living in a House not an Inn.  The problem is much of how we picture the Birth of Jess is indeed not Biblical.  There is no Biblical account of them seeking room in an Inn and finding none.  Nor does it anywhere say he was born in a stable or a cave.

The one occurrence of the word "inn" in the KJV of Luke 2:7 is mistranslated.  The Greek word is Katalumati.  The other two times it is used it is translated in the KJV "guestchamber".  It means a guest room of sorts usually located on the upper floor of a house.  It is used of the Upper Room of the Last Supper, in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11.  One of those is the same author.

So there is in fact nothing in Luke's account to contradict a theory that Jesus was born in a house Joseph owned.  Yet I myself was still clouded by these misconceptions when I made all my previous Christmas posts.

Which is why I want to move on to the Census now.

When refuting the common assertion that a Roman census would never require such traveling, on message boards I would copy/paste the following which I no longer remember where I got it from.
First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they matchup with the Bible:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that
all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D.which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:

"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.
The response I got (that at the time I wasn't ready to respond to) was that the point of these was to bring land owners to where they owned their land.  Not the hometown of a distant ancestor from a thousand years ago.  (Another objection is that these were Egyptian customs, but it's logical similar ones were done in neighboring provinces).

That notion is inconsistent with the Nativity narrative only because of the extra-Biblcal assumptions I just addressed.  The reason these Census instructions were needed is because clearly many people were living somewhere other then where they actually owned their property.

Remember, the word translated "Carpenter" in reference to Joseph could also very likely imply he was actually an Architect.  He may have been in Galilee because of a construction project, perhaps one of Herod's many.  And of course those insisting Nazareth is to young a city to be the Biblical one suggest it was at most brand new when Jesus was born.  Maybe Joseph was helping build Nazareth?

This Census, (whichever one it was, I'll try to tackle that in the future), then required him to return home sooner then originally planned.

And if my theory (that I admit still has a potential hole in it) that Bethlehem is "Zion, which is the City of David" is true. Then that adds a lot to the above observations.  As we now see that David's family never stopped being linked to Bethlehem after they became Royalty.