Tuesday, March 31, 2015

What did Paul mean by revealing a Mystery?

Pre-Tribbers will use that Paul said he was revealing a Mystery when he spoke of The Rapture to try and refute the notion that Jesus could possibly have been talking about it in Matthew 24.  Of course they think Jesus was referring to The Rapture when it suits them, for verses that sound like imminence to them.

First of all Mystery or Mysterion in Greek means what was before hidden, not necessarily something that was never there at all.

The passage in question is not I Thessalonians 4, but 1 Corinthians 15.  1 Corinthians 15 does not actually describe the Rapture (us being Caught Up) at all.  It's about The Resurrection.  Also 1 Thessalonians was written before either Corinthian Epistle.

The Resurrection was not a mystery, that was well known in both Jewish and Christian teachings.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.  Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."
There are technically two, but they're both linked, ideas here that are at least not directly stated in any prior Old or New Testament passages on The Resurrection, including I Thessalonians.

1. That when The Resurrection of Church Age Believers happens, those Believers alive at that time will be Resurrected without needing to die first.

2. That the Resurrection we are promised is more then just being raised again to how we are now, we'll be changed incorruptible, restored to Adam and Eve's Pre-Fall state.

Both are conclusions one could deduce would be the case from earlier information, but this is the clearest teaching on those matters.

We know the Resurrection being discussed there is the one that happens at Jesus Coming because Paul mentions that elsewhere in the chapter.  And because the timing of The Trump is also used in I Thessalonians 4.

Matthew 24 does not mention The Resurrection.  Pre-Tribbers will also use that fact against it possibly being about The Rapture.  Meanwhile 1 Corinthians 15 is indisputably a Rapture relevant passage when it doesn't actually mention The Rapture.

No Rapture passage covers everything that happens at that event.  Including I Thessalonians 4 which for starters doesn't cover what I just discussed about 1 Corinthians 15.

Matthew 24 does indisputably cover what the word Rapture refers to.  No one is gathered to Him when he comes for Israel, He goes where they already are.

I feel it can be firmly demonstrated that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2 were essentially a commentary on Matthew 24.  Overall Matthew 24 has more in common with 1 Thessalonians 4 then 1 Corinthians 15 does.

Meanwhile The Rapture is in The Old Testament, in passages like Isaiah 26 and Joel 2:15-16.

In Romans 16:25-26 he seems to refer to the Gospel he preaches as something that was a concealed secret until his own time.  Yet earlier in that book he used The Torah to prove his Gospel (justification by Faith Alone), he uses Genesis 15 to prove it in both Romans and Galatians.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Some Calculations for the 70th Week of Daniel

Drawing on theories I laid out in the 1290 days post and Messiah The Prince post.

Jewish tradition says Elijah will return on Passover, that is part of the reason for the Elijah Cup.  I would never build doctrine on Rabbinic tradition, but that happens to correspond towith many reasons I have for believing the 70th Week begins in Nisan.

Ezekiel 45 makes the 7th of Nisan important for some reason.  Interpretations of the Chronology of Joshua often put the entry of the two spies into Jericho on the 7th of Nisan.  If that is the day the Witnesses begin their ministry, then the 25th or 26th of Elul could be the day they're martyred, depending on if we count them inclusively.  Placing their Resurrection on the Feast of Trumpets or the eve of it, and then the Seventh Trumpet probably that same day or the next.

If it does start on Passover, either the 14th of 15 of Nisan they begin their ministry on.  Which could be the same day the White Horseman is formally crowned.  Then their martyrdom could be the third of Tishri, which is the fast of the seventh month.

I also have a feeling The Image of Revelation 13 (which I don't view as linked to The Temple), could be set up on the 15th of Cheshvan.  1290 days before that could fall if they're counted inclusively on the 26nd of Nisan.  That day is considered by Jewish Tradition the day Joshua died.  If The Antichrist claims to be or is claimed to be Messiah Ben-Joseph, then Joshua  is one of the people he'll be claimed as a type of him.  And I now think it's possible his mortal wounding could be the same day the 1290 days begins.

That is assuming no Second Adar during the period, if there is a Second Adar, then that moves either the start of the 1290 days up to Iyar or the end of it down to Tabernacles.

If the Beast's resurrection (when I begin the 42 months he's allowed to continue) is in Tishri, 42 New Moons latter could put his demise probably in Adar.

If the 1260 days Israel is in the wilderness begins on the 25th or 26th of Elul it could end on the 17th of Adar.  The last of the days affiliated with Purim.  If it starts on the third of Tishrei then the 25th of Adar could be it's end.  Jeremiah 52:31 makes that date potentially significant, many interpret that as also being the day Nebuchadnezzar died.

If we start the 1335 days with The Rapture, and it happens on the First of Tishri.  Their end would be around the 10th of Sivan.  If that day happens to fall on a Sunday, then it would probably be the day that Biblically Pentecost is supposed to fall on.  Sounds like a pretty good day to start The Millennium.

My theory is that the 70th week formally begins on the 1st of Nisan, but the actual events that will make clear we've entered it will happen latter in that same Nisan.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Gnostic Eschatology

A lot of the things you first think of when you think of Gnosticism are merely cosmetic elements that were not universal (not even all Gnostics were pretending to be Christian).

It is not actually required for Gnostics to view the Yahweh of the Old Testament as an Evil Demiurge, or that there are other gods above him.  Nor to make the Serpent good.  But such things certainly were and even still are common.

It's not too hard to turn Biblical Christianity into Gnosticism with only a few key heresies.  The Greek New Testament uses many of the same key words and phrases the Gnostics later used.  Just like modern JWs and Mormons and other cults uses the same terminology Evangelicals use, but they mean different things by them.

Logos and Sophia are used largely because they are accurate Greek translations of Old Testament concepts, The Word and Wisdom.  Both the terms "Archon of the Kosmos" and "God of this World" used of Satan by Jesus in John and Paul respectively, are used in Gnosticism for the Ialdobath.

The core tenet of Gnosticism is disdain for the physical world.  The Bible tells us the Earthly realm has been corrupted by The Fall.  But it will be Restored in the End in Revelation 21-22.  And those who are Saved will be perfected in The Resurrection.

Gnosticism however views the Physical world as inherently Evil, and our Physical bodies as a prison.  So denying a literal Bodily Resurrection of all Believers is key to them.

This is of course what Amillenial and Full Preterist eschatology requires.  Denying a literal Resurrection.

One Preterist website I had studied talks about how the Resurrection is only spiritual, it's about freeing the Souls of the Saved from Sheol only.

And they tied into that a belief in either The Gap Theory or the Extended Day Theory, I don't recall which one.  They insisted physical Death was always Adam's destiny, the Fall only caused spiritual death.  And some Christians even consider theories that Adam didn't have a physical Body before the Fall.  That idea is refuted to me by him saying Eve was made of his Flesh and Bone, but I do think it's possible Blood (as we currently define it) didn't exist before The Fall.

Augustine of Hippo was both the key popularizer of Amillenial eschatology within the Church, and one of the first to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis.  He came out of Gnosticism, and was open about still revering the Platonic Philosophy from which Gnosticism was derived.

I should add of course you can be Futurist and Premillennial and still hold a Gnostic outlook, if you Believe the Resurrection is only Spiritual, which I have seen examples of.

It's funny how Dan Brown in The DaVincci Code sought to create a narrative of modern Roman Catholicism and the Gnostics as arch rivals.  Brown did not comprehend Gnosticism at all, his version of them was the opposite on this very key defining trait.  (The hardcore ancient Gnostics denied Jesus had a physical body, so their Jesus certainly didn't have sex or have children).  The Vatican meanwhile is pretty Gnostic thanks to how much of Augustine they canonized.

Thursday, March 5, 2015

The Seven Millenniums of Human History Theory

It's a very popular hypothesis, it makes sense in light of the thematic importance of the number 7 in Scripture.  But I feel the foundation of it is rather shaky.  Yet most people who aren't entirely against Date Setting base their calculations almost solely on this theory, or some variant of the This Generation shall not pass theory, or some contrived view of Revelation 12.

2 Peter 3 draws on a statement from one of the Psalms to say "A day is like a Thousand years and a Thousand years like a day".  The intent of this statement is merely a poetic idiom of God's Timelessness.

But it's popular from there to build a doctrine of the 7 days of Creation representing 7 Millennium of Human History.

It is interesting that this 7 Millenniums theory is expressed in The Talmud and other Rabbinic sources, and Christian supporters of these views keep pointing to the Rabbinic and Kabbalistic support of the idea to prop it up, since it lacks direct Biblical support.  Still Christian support for the idea goes back to Ireaneus.  But the Church Fathers who held this view believed Jesus first advent was around 5500 AM because they used the Septuagint, so they predicted about 500-5030 AD for the Millennium to start.

The core thing that makes it seem credible to Christians is the doctrine of The Millennium from Revelation 20., which becomes viewed as the Sabbath millennium.

One problem is the Revelation 20 Millennium is never Biblically defined as a period of rest or even of peace.  1 Corinthians 15, the only place outside Revelation that clearly addresses there being a period between the Second Coming and the full New Creation, says in verses 24-28.
"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.  The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.  For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
It's defined sort of as a period of Conquest.  Zechariah 14 also seems to show it as a time when Jesus is ruling, but people are obeying him out of fear not love.  I've explained elsewhere how lots of passages people think are The Millennium are really the New Heaven and New Earth.  Those include Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 40-48 and Psalm 48.

But the greater death nail to the theory is that in fact there is more then a Thousand years between the destruction of The Beast and the Descent of New Jerusalem..

Revelation 20 has many conditions, but only one is defined as ending "when the Thousand years are over", Satan being bound in The Abyss.  The Beheaded Saints reign with Christ a thousand years, but it doesn't say their reign ends then.  The "rest of the dead" are not raised till after the Thousand years, but it doesn't say that happens immediately either.

Satan has to deceive the Nations before the Gog and Magog invasion can happen.  We have no idea how long he'll do that, it certainly could be very quickly, but maybe it could be a long time, years, centuries, maybe even another thousand years.

More important then that however is that I do agree with Chris White that the Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20 is the same as Ezekiel 38-39.  In which case we know their dead bodies will be buried for 7 years before being raised for the White Throne Judgment.  And the burying will take 7 months.

So I certainly think roughly 7 Thousand years is possible.  But I would highly advise against making needing exactly 6000 years pivotal to your chronology.  Though I have suggested one such theory in the past, but I had other reasons for that theory also, and now no longer support that chronology at all.

A stronger Biblical argument can be made for using the "Day like a Thousand years" idea with Hosea 5:15-6:2 for Two Thousand years from the Ascension.  Which refers to YHWH returning to His place for two days and coming back on the third day when Israel acknowledges their offense.  Hosea 5:15 is God talking.  Chapter 6 records what Israel will pray in their repentance, 6:2 has the time reference in mind.

Which based on my 30 AD date for the Crucifixion can back up a 2030-2037 model with a 2033 Rapture.

Because Hosea's statement was a Prophecy, that works better then looking at 7 literal days that did literally happen and saying that tells how long history will be when no Bible passage directly tells us that.

But it could be Hosea is also talking about literal 24 hour days.  Perhaps events that will transpire during the end times.

So I see Hosea as possibly implying about 2000 years from the Ascension to the Second Coming, but not necessarily exactly to the day or even exact year.

But I'm not gonna be dogmatic on that either, since I hate the Day=Year theory of historicists, I feel considering Day=Millennium definitive when the scriptural support for both is about equal is quite hypocritical.  The Day=Year theory does have a precedent in Ezekiel 4, but that is Ezekiel doing something for days he's told represents years, it does not justify saying every reference to days in Daniel and Revelation is really years.

Many people arguing for the 7 Millenniums theory incorporate the Hosea reference into it.  They argue Jesus was Crucified in the 4000th year from Adam, they provide no proper chronology to back that up, only asserting symbolic reasons it would make sense.  Then cite Hosea to support 2000 years from the first advent to the second.

Another argument for 6000 years is trying to say the 120 years of Genesis 6 refers to 120 Jubilees and 50x120=6000.  1. That is clearly about 120 years before the Flood, no mention of Jubilees, a second application to human life spans/what a generation is possible but not solid.  2. A Jubilee is actually 49 years, the 50th year is the first year of the next cycle.  3. The Jubliee was given to Moses to be instituted by Joshua, it's not relevant to any pre-Mosaic history.

I lay out a possible opinion on when the year 6000 was here.

Genesis 5-6 don't have anything happen on exactly the year 1000, Genesis 11-12 has nothing happen on exactly the year 2000 though there is a rabbinic tradition based on the wrong 1948 AM birth-date for Abraham that he first became a Believer at 52.  Ussher had the completion of The Temple in the year 3000 AM but if he was wrong on anything then that doesn't work.  Ussher's Creation date could also be used to make the proposed 3 BC Birth of Jesus date 4000 AM, but I no longer consider that date valid.

So I see no reason to think the year 6000 was or will be important.

Monday, March 2, 2015

Chris White addresses the Alexi Tsipras hype


I agree this guy is probably unlikely to be The Antichrist, and a lot of the arguments for this guy are based on many misconceptions.

But I'm annoyed that again he presumes something about what the Religious affiliation of The Antichrist will be when he first rises based on the Abomination of Desolation which happens after his resurrection.

Even if your not as certain as I am that it is different from what he taught before, you can't deny that it could be.

He talks a lot about the wars in Daniel 11, which I've made a big deal of before too, but I'm gonna do a post in the future about how I think that maybe be already fulfilled and only topologically relevant to The Antichrist.

He concedes a belief that he must come from one of the Kingdoms of Alexander, which I've said before is an error.  I also think that the confederacy he's in must be limited to 10 is wrong too.

Like with his thing on Obama he has this idea it must happen before his current term is over, I also disagree with the Obama theory but that is silly on several levels.  Mainly that they will not cease to exist when their terms are over.