Was Muhammad a valid Prophet

I want here to advise Christians on how to argue against the Prophethood of Muhammad without diverging into a debate about his moral character.  That's a legitimate issue to look into, but irrelevant to if he was a Prophet.

I'm going to argue that Muhammad can't even qualify as a False Prophet.  Now yes I know the literal definition is any fake prophet, so once you claim to be a Prophet you either are one or you're a false prophet.

But the Pseudophophetes that The Bible is concerned with both contemporary with itself and eschatologically.  Were individuals just as capable of performing genuine supernatural miracles, and having genuine supernatural revelations as a legit Prophet.  Balaam even had legit revelations from the Biblical God, The Holy Spirit sometimes uses unsaved people, likewise John's Gospel records Caiaphas giving a legit Prophecy.

So Biblically someone has to be proven a Prophet before we can even get into if they're a False Prophet or not.  Joseph Smith did prove himself a Prophet by predicting The Civil War, but Muhammad couldn't even do that, yet the modern world takes Joseph Smith's Prophethood less seriously then Muhammad's, I find that funny.

Now there are different kinds of Prophets in The Bible.  In a sense a Prophet is anyone who declares the Word of God, which is why Evangelists and Preachers and Pastors are considered New Testament successors to the office of Prophet.

But in order for someone to be able to add to the Canon, to say their Revelations are God's Word and Authoritative just as much if not more so then The Bible.  They need to be able to prove the Supernatural origin of their revelations.  No amount of discrediting the preservation of The Bible used by Jews and Christians will matter if you can't prove a Supernatural origin for the Koran, you're then only arguing against anything being God's Word.

The Koran itself says Muhammad never performed miracles and gives it's own justification for why.

They say, 'We will not believe thee till thou makest a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or till thou possessest a garden of plants and vines, and thou makest rivers to gush forth abundantly all amongst it, or till thou makest heaven to fall, as thou assertest, on us in fragments, or thou bringest God and the angels as a surety, or till thou possessest a house of gold ornament, or till thou goest up into heaven; and we will not believe thy going up till thou bringest down on us a book that we may read. Say: 'Glory be to my Lord. Am I aught BUT A MORTAL, a Messenger?' S. 17:90-93 

Yet when the truth came to them from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We disbelieve both.' S. 28:48

 And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2:118

Jesus performed Miracles which The Koran agrees with but gives a different account of what miracles.

Jesus' Disciples/Apostles including Paul performed miracles.  The only place the New Testament tells us to expect any new Prophets in the future it tells us what miracles they'll perform, in Revelation 11.  John The Baptist performed no miracles but he was only the forerunner, Jesus whom he spoke of appeared and performed miracles overlapping with John's ministry.  The Baptist didn't author any Scripture.

Muslims don't consider any of that valid.  But Muslim apologists constantly want to claim the "Prophet like unto Moses" of Deuteronomy 18 is Muhammad.  The problem is first the context of that Prophecy clearly defines this Prophet as an Israelite, as coming from among the children of Israel to whom Moses was speaking.

Muslims will argue all kinds of superficial parallels between Muhammad and Moses, but Deuteronomy 34 when the book ends tells us what "like unto Moses" means and it includes performing miracles.

There are major differences between the miracles of Jesus and the miracles of Moses.  But both turned water into another liquid, Moses blood and Jesus wine.  And wine is called the "Blood of The Grape" in The Torah.

Deuteronomy 34 also tells us it requires knowing God face to face like Moses did.  Muhammad only claimed to have met Gabriel not Allah himself.

Muhammad gave no testable Prophecies.

Most of his statements about the future were all about the Second Coming and the End Times.  And I will concede that he said nothing to prove he meant it would happen in the lifetime of his companions.  The same kinds of arguments get used against Jesus which I gave my own take on recently.  Since there are Muslims who will use the same tactics Atheists use to attack the Prophet hood of the New Testament version of Jesus, only then would I consider it valid to bring up that issue to show their hypocrisy.  But I will not consider it part of my main argument against Muhammad being a Prophet.

Besides the End Times.  He said Aisha would be important to passing on his history and teachings.  1. It seems we only know he said this because Aisha said so. 2. It only proves him being perceptive about Aisha's talents, nothing truly supernatural.

The only even possibly testable Prophecy Muhammad gave was when he said exactly how God would kill him if he said anything false.  In which case his credibility depends on it not coming true.

I. QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta). (Hilali-Khan)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery. (Pickthall)

Qur’an 69:44-46—Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart’s vein. (Dawood)

Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. (Shakir)

II. MUSLIM COMMENTARIES

Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Qur’an 69:44-46—(And if he had invented) and had Muhammad invented (false sayings concerning Us) lies against Us and attributed to Us that which We did not say, (We assuredly had taken him) We assuredly had taken revenge against him (by the right hand) by means of truth and proofs; it is also said this means: We assuredly had vehemently taken him. (And then severed his life artery) the life artery of Muhammad (pbuh).

Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur’an 69:44-46—And had he, namely, the Prophet (s), fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of the heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person’s death.

He said God would sever his Arota or Life-Artery. Generally it's only a fraud who would even go around making a claim like that, like God would even bother personally striking down everyone who claims to be a Prophet.  In fact it's generally people who don't think there is a real God that would make that claim.

But still it's worth looking into the most trusted Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life to see if this ever happened.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428—The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Sahih Muslim 5430—A Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. 

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498—A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449—Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622—Aishah said: “I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.”

What do you know, it did happen, or at least Muhammad the supposed Prophet thought it did.

He also declared to his poisoner that Allah would not allow this to kill him.  But all the sources agree (except Shiites slandering Aisha) his Death was the inevitable result of this poison.  So he did make at least one failed Prophecy failing the test of Deuteronomy 18:22.

He also claimed to have a supernatural revelation that the food was poisoned after he'd already eaten some, not in time to save anyone's life.  And his companion said he tasted the poison instantly, he it seems could tell it was poisoned before Allah bothered to warn Muhammad.  The logical conclusion is Muhammad tasted it too but couldn't figure out what he tasted as quickly.

I'm not going to include the issue of the Satanic Verses here because it's historical reliability is in doubt.  I feel above a strong enough case has been made against his Prophet-hood.

Now among Muslim attempts to find Muhammad in Bible Prophecy.  There is Deuteronomy 18 which I've dealt with already.

Some have appealed to Isaiah 29:11 because Muhammad couldn't read.  In context this person is clearly being condemned.  So that is ill advised.

The Comforter passage has been a go to method of many would be Prophets from Mani to Bahi.  In the case of Muslims that they keep trying it is really funny.  It's one thing to say our Bible is corrupt but pick and choose passages that you think support your views.  But in the case of the Comforter prophecy it's not even a separate passage, the doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God is right in those same verses.

The Koran and early Islamic tradition claims you can even find Muhammad by name in The Bible (The Torah and The Gospel), and in some extra Biblical prophecies of Arabic folklore.  But I find it funny that Muhammad or Ahmed is the name they look for because that wasn't Muhammad's birth name.  He was born Amim.

Muhammad means "praise worthy" in Arabic so it makes sense as a name that might be used in made up Prophecies, being related in meaning to Yahuda/Judah.  And so Al-Amim changing his name to Muhammad proved nothing.

The attempts to find his name in the Hebrew Scriptures involve Strong number 4261 in Song of Solomon 5:16.  And Strong number 2532 in Haggai 2:7.  Both variations of the same root.

Only the latter example makes sense in context to view as a prophecy of a future individual.  It is grammatically feminine, which I'm fine with for viewing it as a title of Christ, but if you want to argue it's someone's personal name then that person better be a woman or man with a woman's name.

Leaving aside that the obvious context of Song of Solomon 5:16 is Shulamith describing her Beloved as "altogether lovely". David Wood likes to point out this same word is used in other contexts where it would outright make Muhammad look bad to interpret it as Muhammad.  But one Muslim he debated said here (in SoS, he didn't use the Haggai one) and only here is it used in that precise form.

That form he admits in grammatically plural (Mahamadim), but he defends that by siding with the Rabbinic Jewish view on why Eliohim is grammatically plural.  Problem is even if we agree with that interpretation for why a singular individual can be described with a plural title, it's NEVER done that way of a personal name.  YHWH never had an -im at the end, and that not Elohim is God's personal name.  The two known examples of an individual person being foretold by name in advance likewise don't put an -im at the end, Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2 and Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.

But the bigger problem with seeing Strong Number 4261 as Muhammad is that these Muslims pronounce it as if it has a Heh but it doesn't, it has a Het, which actually makes more of a ch sound.  The pronunciations of Muhammad and Ahmed would both use a Heh in Hebrew, how Ahmadinejad is pronounced would use a Het in Hebrew.

This same Muslim challenged David Wood to find Jesus by name in the Hebrew Bible. By the same standard he's used it's all over the Hebrew Scriptures, far closer then this flawed Muhammad argument.  Strong number 3444 is exactly the spelling of Yeshua except with a Heh on the end making it grammatically feminine.  So if 2532 can count as close enough to Ahmed then this noun is far closer to Yeshua.  It's used in many verses that can work as Messianic Prophecies far better then this Song of Solomon verse can.  Just look em over.

The name of Jeshua in the Hebrew is the exact same name, and Joshua is very close.  Jeshua's name is used in some Zechariah prophecies that seem pretty epic for being just a High Priest, in fact he's crowned a King which is strictly not allowed of Aaronic Priests, clearly foreshadowing Jesus as the Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

And I've already done a post on the direct connection I see between the names Yeshua and Yahuah.

I do agree that Ishmael still has his Firstborn Inheritance.  Still I do not yet see any evidence of The Hebrew Bible foretelling an Ishmaelite Prophet.

If there is however, I'd consider the possibility of that being fulfilled in Agabus who's name isn't Hebrew but possibly could be Arabic from an Arabic root that means "to Burn".  Also Agabus has been theorized to be similar to the name Agbarus/Abgarus/Abgar, but I would not agree with any theory making Agabus and King Abgar the same person.  Abgar was of Nabatean descent.

And if you could convince me of a Prophet being foretold to come geographically from Paran/Arabia.  Mt Sinai is arguably part of Paran as Muslims define it.  Elijah spent time in Sinai, and so did Paul according to Galatians 1:17.

Muslims have tried to make Deuteronomy 33:2 about Muhammad.  That is clearly about what just happened, the wandering in the wilderness, and is about Yahuah himself not a Prophet.  But if it does have an Eschatological second application, it's to Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63, since I believe at that time Israel will be in the same wilderness they were back then.

Did Jesus and the New Testament authors think the End Times would happen in their lifetime

The claim that Jesus taught that is important to both Preterists and Bible Skeptics.  But, I've never seen a preterist try to debate a Bible skeptic, to try and convince a non believer that Jesus clear Prophecy of every eye seeing Him was fulfilled in 70 AD.

The strongest argument is when Jesus said "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27.

The argument that this was fulfilled by the Transfiguration I could accept being written off as a silly cop out if The Transfiguration directly followed this in only one of the accounts.  Often the different Gospels will at face value seem to contradict each other's chronologies, and I believe there are answers for all of those issues.  But the point here is, all 3 times this was said the Transfiguration immediately follows.  Even if I thought the Gospels were fiction, as a writer myself I'd see the clear connection there.

Now the Olivite discourse saying "This Generation shall not pass" has been discussed in depth by many.  The context clearly says the generation seeing the signs he just described.  Others have gone in detail of why the Greek grammar allows no room for the preterist view.  I'm not sure exactly which previous online discussion of it I want to link to here yet.  But what I'll say below puts the greater testimony of The New Testament in favor of the futurist view.

In Acts 1:6-7 Jesus deliberately discourages the Disciples from thinking he would return in the near future.

In 2 Peter 3, the Apostle Simon Peter speaks of the Last Days in a sense that clearly implies days different from the then present.  He foretells the world rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis when Christianity hadn't even become the mainstream religion of The World yet.

Paul in Second Thessalonians 2 assures his readers certain things must happen first, and gives no indication they should expect it to happen anytime soon, quite the contrary he's telling them not to worry about it.

I also like pointing out here that there are Prophecies in the New Testament that did come true.  All three Synoptics but especially Luke foretell what happened in 70 AD.  And I've argued that the Bar-Kochba revolt is in Mark.  Skeptics of course insist on late dating those Gospels, but I firmly believe all 3 Synoptics predate 70 AD.  But even among skeptical scholars only the most extreme try to place Mark later then 90 AD.

In the Kingdom Parables in Matthew 13, the implication of at least 1 parable, the Mustard Seed, is that Christianity will become the world's largest religion someday.  And there is no way with even the youngest possible dates for the Gospels they were written at a time when that seemed remotely plausible.

And as I just alluded to, 2 Peter 3 foretells the theory of Uniformitarianism and Christians rejecting the idea of a literal Second Coming because they've rejected a literal understanding of The Creation and The Flood.  Even if you are an Atheist who thinks those Peter is criticizing are correct, there is no denying that Peter could not have expected that in either the first or second century.

So The New Testament has proven itself to be Prophetic.

How could Jesus be the Seed of Abraham without a Human Father?

I was watching on Youtube a few days ago a debate between David Wood and a Muslim named Zakir Hussain about Isaac or Ishmael.  In it Zakir Hussain criticizes the Christian view of how Jesus relates to the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15 by saying Jesus couldn't be the Seed of Abraham without a human father (Muslims do believe in The Virgin Birth) since Seed strictly speaking refer to pater-lineal descent.

While normally Seed refers to pater-lineal ancestry being most literally a Hebrew word for Semen/Sperm.  The very beginning of Messianic Prophecy from the Christian POV at least is Genesis 3:15 making a very abnormal reference to "The Seed of the Woman".

I could also say the Koran does call Jesus the Messiah (Al-Maish) of Israel, and He couldn't have been that without being of the Seed of David.  So he is not actually helping the Muslim case.

Zakir Hussain did make one comment during the debate about the Y-Chromosome, implying he could accept that as an acceptable literal interpretation of what Seed refers to.

Which leads me to bring up something I thought about a long time ago, but was hesitant to go public with it precisely because a statement in the Koran played a role in my coming up with it.  But since a Muslim broached the issue.

Sura 3 verse 36.

And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.

The Koran defines Mary the mother of Jesus as inter-sex.  Well, the terminology it uses is actually exactly the modern politically correct terminology for a Trans Man, saying she was mistakenly labeled the wrong gender at birth based on how she looked.  But the intent was to say Mary internally has some biological maleness to her and that is how she could give birth as a Virgin.  This is the Islamic explanation for how the Virgin Birth was possible without Jesus being Divine.

There are examples of women being born with a Y-Chromosome.  Often these women aren't able to reproduce but there is at least one documented exception to that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
[Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development]

Since the discovery of modern DNA and how the Y-Chromosome works, the traditional Christian view of how Jesus could be male even though his only Biological parent was a Female has been that God supernaturally gave Jesus a distinct Y-Chromosome.  Especially with the idea related to genetic memory theory that the Y-Chromosome carries a memory of the first Man, naturally it became popular to see that as scientific confirmation of Original Sin.

But I do not hold the Catholic or Calvinist view of original Sin which both derive from Augustine.  To me it is just a genetic Pre-Disposition to Sin.  Paul said in Hebrews 2:18 that Jesus was tempted by all the same Temptations we are.  So I don't think Jesus was born without that pre-disposition, he simply was alone in being able to overcome it.

So I'm very open to the possibility that Mary was inter-sex and Jesus was able to through her carry the Y-Chromosome of David and Abraham and Adam.  And maybe that is the full explanation of what the Seed of The Woman means.

But regardless of my willingness to think the Koran might have been onto something there.  I firmly believe Jesus was The Son of God, The Word made Flesh.  And I have before argued for the Deity of The Messiah from The TNAK.

The Biblical basis for this theory is the doctrine of the Seed of the Woman.

This same debate also mentioned Isaiah 53.  Zakir Hussain objected to the Christian view of this being Jesus since it refers to him having Seed in verse 10.  David Wood responded that Christians are spiritually of Jesus Seed.  And the Zakir said in the Hebrew it's Zerah so can only mean physical.

A word having a literal meaning does not mean a spiritual or symbolic application is impossible.  If you're gonna take that logic there is no need to cite the Hebrew, the literal meaning of Seed is more strict then Zerah, we are being figurative when we use it of Sperm in modern English, literally it refers only to plant seeds.

The plain reading is that people become His seed after His Resurrection.  If Muslims believe (like I do) biological reproduction will go on after the Resurrection then they can't rule out that Jesus could literally fulfill that.  It is an error BTW that the Koran teaches Jesus didn't die, it actually clearly says Jesus did die.

If you're going to agree with the common view of Rabbinic Jews that the Servant is not an individual then you're not taking it literally at all and can't object to a non-literal interpretation of the Seed.

For the record there are a few things in that debate I'm willing to agree with Zakir Hussain over David on.  I plan to do a post or two on Ishmael and Firstborn Inheritance in the near future.  

But his insistence that begotten can be read into Genesis 22:2 is not supported by any Hebrew text I know.  And the abuse of what Genesis 21 says to make it sound like Hagar carried Ishmael not her luggage on her shoulder just made me laugh.

And the Genealogies of Jesus came up.  I have addressed Luke being Mary's genealogy before.

Maometis al-Mahdi and Islamic Eschatology

This somewhat spins off from my Seventh Day Adventist post.

If you really want to twist the text of Revelation 13 to allude to a day of the week, the Sixth Day is what makes sense, 666 being a multiple of 6.  And I've observed reasons before to thematically link this part of Revelation 13 to Genesis 2 and Adam's creation.

The Antichrist would presumably be taking titles of Christ for himself.  One of those is The Last Adam.  Gnosticism and Kabbalah have given the Last Adam concept their own special meanings.

Islam interestingly does call for weekly observance on Friday to commemorate the creation of Adam.  Because Islam has actually canonized the Apocryphal legend that God ordered The Angels to worship Adam.

Main article: Jumu'ah

The Quran acknowledges a six-part Creation period (32:4, 50:38) and the Biblical Sabbath as the seventh-day (yaum as-Sabt: 2:65, 4:47, 154, 7:163, 16:124), but Allah's mounting the throne after Creation is taken in contradistinction to Elohim's concluding and resting from his labors, and so Muslims replace Sabbath rest with jumu'ah (Arabic جمعة ). Also known as "Friday prayer", jumu'ah is a congregational prayer (salat) held every Friday (the Day of Assembly), just after midday, in place of the otherwise daily dhuhr prayer; it commemorates the creation of Adam on the sixth day, as a loving gathering of Adam's sons. The Quran states: "When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business: That is best for you if ye but knew" (62:9). The next verse ("When the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land ...") leads many Muslims not to consider Friday a rest day, as in Indonesia, which regards the seventh-day Sabbath as unchanged; but many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bangladesh, do consider Friday a nonwork day, a holiday or a weekend; and other Muslim countries, likePakistan, count it as half a rest day (after the Friday prayer is over). Jumu'ah attendance is strictly incumbent upon all free adult males who are legal residents of the locality.

I remain highly skeptical of the Islamic Antichrist theory, but this is an interesting observation.

What has become the standard way of making the Mark of the Beast point to Islam Chris White has thoroughly debunked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQkcFOPuvIg

http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-thoughts-on-walid-shoebats-mark-of-the-beast-theory/

The proper interpretation of the Number of The Beast has been applied to Muhammad.  Maometis being a Greek rendering of his name that has a Gemetria value of 666.

Mu	Alpha	Omicron	Mu	Epsilon	Tau	Iota	Sigma	TOTAL
40	1	70	40	5	300	10	200	666

Critics of that theory say the proper Greek rendering of Muhammad should be Maometh or Mouchoumet.  But those were contemporary Byzantine Greek transliterations.  A NT era Greek rendering in the rules of Koine Greek would have to end with a Sigma being a male proper name of foreign origin.  This rule of Koine Greek is the reason we are used to having an S at the end of Jesus and Moses.  David Thorn should have remembered this.

The concept of The Mahdi is not in The Koran.  During his lifetime Muhammad saw himself as the last awaited Prophet besides the return of Jesus.  While much is often made of that the Koran and traditional Islamic doctrine don't call Muhammad a Messiah and give that title only to Jesus.  The fact is early on when he was trying to appeal to Jews he did play up to their Messianic Expectations which were very high following the death of Nehemiah Ben-Hushiel who they were convinced at that time was Messiah Ben-Joseph, and so next in line must be Elijah The Prophet and then Ben-David.

Muhammad was definitely an antichrist because he denied the deity of Christ and the relationship of The Father and The Son.

The Mahdi concept began developing in Islam after the Second Civil War from 680-692 AD.

In the Hadiths the only Mahdi Prophecy attributed directly to Muhammad, and thus arguably the most important, if only one detail is accurate it must be that one.  Is...

His name will be my name, and his father’s name my father’s name^[6]

Even if the entire duration of the world’s existence has already been exhausted and only one day is left before Doomsday, Allah will expand that day to such length of time as to accommodate the kingdom of a person from my Ahlul-Bayt who will be called by my name. He will fill out the earth with peace and justice as it will have been full of injustice and tyranny (by then).^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]}

So the most important fact about the Mahdi is him having Muhammad's name.  I don't think that has to be someone's birth name for them to successfully convince people they're The Mahdi, he'd probably just change his name to make it fit him.

The Twelver doctrine of Shia Islam believes the Mahdi is Muhammad ibin Hassan who was born in 869 AD and they believe entered Occultation in 874 AD.  So that further links the name of Muhammad to the Mahdi.

Even back when I leaned heavily towards a version of the Mahdi view, I disliked many aspects of how many Christians like Perry Stone promoted it.  Especially making ad-Dajjal a good guy, (Chris White in his criticisms seems familiar only with people making Dajjal Jesus, but Stone and most I read made him Elijah/Two Witnesses)  The Bible foretells many Antichrists, and indeed plenty of people who'd be an Antichrist to Christians would be to Muslims as well, especially if he claims to be Messiah Ben-Joseph.  I also generally suspected it would be a Sunni claimant not the Shia Twelfth Imam fixation.

I even went back and forth on the Isa=False Prophet connection.  On the one hand I have argued independent of the Mahdi theory that the False Prophet will claim to be Jesus and right now think that's most likely who he'll claim to be.  But on the other hand in the Koran Duhl-Qarnayn which means "two horned" kinda fits the Second Beast's description.  Among the theories of those rejecting the traditional Alexander The Great identification are that he was Cyrus and also Messiah Ben-Joseph.  Britam has argued Cyrus was a type of Messiah Ben-Joseph, and Yair Davidy told me personally in an email many Rabbinic Jews are open to Ben-Joseph and Elijah being the same, since Elijah was of Manasseh.  In the same Sura is the story of Al-Khadir which some view as linked.  Al-Khadir is clearly based on a Rabbinic story about Elijah.

I now, still, even after all I feel compelled to observe here do not think the Mahdi model is the most likely.  What I do believe is all the messianic exceptions of false religions (including heretical Judeo-Christian traditions) are potential seeds for The Antichrist planted by Satan who I think himself doesn't know exactly how things will play out.  And obviously does not necessarily want them to play out how The Bible says anyway.  None of these false Prophecies account for the Abomination of Desolation event because that is when the deception ends and things become open Satanism.

I likewise even now as a critic of the Mahdi theory have issues with many common arguments against it including Chris White's.

I enjoy Chris White's video on the origins of Islamic Eschatology.  But I disagree with the idea that this natural development of the idea contradicts a Satanic subconscious influence.  Especially since The Last Roman Emperor tradition is EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY based on The Antichrist.  And there is another factor to the figure's origin he leaves out, it was probably originally about the Third Abbasid Caliph, predictions made by people then who felt they were in the End Times. 

Biblically The Antichrist is the Last Roman Emperor (I know that White disagrees with that).  And he's also said to be Greek fitting how Chris White interprets Daniel 8.

Chris White also obsesses over seeing Daniel 11:40 as the key to recognizing The Antichrist.  I have come to reject that Prophecy being Antichrist relevant at all.  But even so as White was describing The Last Roman Emperor he records how he's supposed to conquer Syria and Egypt and doesn't even stop to comment on that similarity.

Meanwhile White elsewhere tries to use Daniel 11:40 against an Islamic Antichrist by saying "why would he be waging war with all these Islamic countries".  It comes off as ignorant of contemporary geo-politics where they're at war with each other all the time.  But also the Mahdi prophecies include statements that...

• The vast majority of people who profess to be Muslim will be so only in name despite their practice of Islamic rites and it will be they who make war with the Mahdi.

Sunnis and Shiites both include the other in this fake Muslim category.  And there is also the figure of Sufyani who will rule much of Syria and possibly some of Iraq fitting the King of The North.  Who is said to be the first enemy The Mahdi will defeat.

And White's logic here hurts his own theory, because the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition entered it's modern form in that exact same cultural context, largely inspired by Nehemiah Ben-Hushiel.

Another thing White could have mentioned is how The Antichrist having a darkened right eye probably has it's roots in Zechariah 11:17.

I used to be confused by how the traditional Jewish Messiah aspect of Al-Maish ad-Dajja fits with the Koran and other oldest sources saying he'll first emerge in Iraq (between Syria and Persia).  But as I've learned more about the historical context of Muhammad's life, I've learned there were attempts by the Davidic Jewish Exilarchs in Babylon to rebel against the Sasanian Empire and create an independent Jewish state in Mesopotamia.

Dajjal leading a migration of Jews from Persian territory to Israel has me thinking the best parallel for him in the Book of Revelation is the Kings of The East.

Perry Stone thinks all Muslims expect the Mahdi to emerge in Iraq because he's basing his acknowledge on local tradition and local Iraqi Muslims fighting with each other.  No Sunni Muslims outside Iraq expect him to emerge there.  The only thing geographically agreed upon is he'll be first acknowledged in Mecca.

I'm also curious about the traditions that ad-Dajjal will die in Lud.  Because in the Toldoth Yeshu traditions (Jewish anti-christian parodies of the Gospel narrative) Yeshu was stoned on the eve of Passover in Lud.  Which has it's roots in what Talmud Sanhedrin 67a says about Ben-Stada.  Is it possible Muhammad or other early Muslims were influenced by the developing Yeshu traditions?  He certainly showed familiarity with the Talmud elsewhere.

I believe there will be decoy Antichrists.  It's possible there will be Jewish and Muslim would be Messiahs waging war with each other each accusing the other of being The Antichrist, and maybe neither of those will be the real deal.  I still strongly think I.S.I.S. could be the Assyrian.

Can Sunday worship be the Mark of the Beast?

Seventh Day Adventists and similar groups are obsessed with this idea, tying it into The Pope being The Antichrist theories.

Obviously it departs from the plain reading of The Text of Revelation 13.  Which says it is the Number of the Name of a Man (Anthropos).

Some people will try to deny it actually is a number by saying no other time does The Bible use Gemetria, it always spells out numbers phonetically.  Problem is the Greeks texts all put a line over the Chi-Xi-Stigama which in the rules of Koine Greek tells us it's Gemetria.  The Bible does it different here because the context tells us Gemetria is what it is about.

But for Seventh Day Adventists (who I think are right that there is no NT basis for replacing The Sabbath with a different day) everything revolves around The Sabbath issue which is why they name themselves that.

First of all, Sunday worship does not actually break The Sabbath law, even if you think we are still under the Law.  The Sabbath Law can only be broken by what you do or don't do on The Sabbath.  Nothing in the Sabbath commands make it a sin to, if you're able, also rest a different day.  In modern America most people get both Saturday and Sunday off work.  So even if some global Law DEMANDING Sunday observance was made as Adventists predict, it would not stop Torah observing Christians or Jews from doing what they do on The Sabbath.

The only way it could be even remotely possible to violate The Sabbath with what you do on a different day would be maybe on Friday.  We see for example with The Manna that Israelites tended to do extra work on Friday to prepare for The Sabbath.  But on the First Day of the Week the Sabbath is over, so it's the least likely to be a day you would even be worrying about the Sabbath issue.

Meanwhile nothing in Revelation 13 can be taken as pointing to Sunday.  Nothing about the First Day of the Week, and nothing about Sun-Worship.

If you really want to twist the text of Revelation 13 to allude to a Day of the Week, the Sixth Day is what makes sense, 666 being a multiple of 6.  And I've observed reasons before to thematically link this part of Revelation 13 to Genesis 2 and Adam's creation.  And that the Gemetria of Iesous is 888 has been thematically linked to the Resurrection being on Sunday.

The Antichrist would presumably be taking titles of Christ for himself.  One of those is The Last Adam.  Gnosticism and Kabbalah have given the Last Adam concept their own special meanings.

Islam interestingly does call for weekly observance on Friday to commemorate the creation of Adam.  Because Islam has actually canonized the Apocryphal legend that God ordered The Angels to worship Adam.

Main article: Jumu'ah

The Quran acknowledges a six-part Creation period (32:4, 50:38) and the Biblical Sabbath as the seventh-day (yaum as-Sabt: 2:65, 4:47, 154, 7:163, 16:124), but Allah's mounting the throne after Creation is taken in contradistinction to Elohim's concluding and resting from his labors, and so Muslims replace Sabbath rest with jumu'ah (Arabic جمعة ). Also known as "Friday prayer", jumu'ah is a congregational prayer (salat) held every Friday (the Day of Assembly), just after midday, in place of the otherwise daily dhuhr prayer; it commemorates the creation of Adam on the sixth day, as a loving gathering of Adam's sons. The Quran states: "When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business: That is best for you if ye but knew" (62:9). The next verse ("When the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land ...") leads many Muslims not to consider Friday a rest day, as in Indonesia, which regards the seventh-day Sabbath as unchanged; but many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bangladesh, do consider Friday a nonwork day, a holiday or a weekend; and other Muslim countries, likePakistan, count it as half a rest day (after the Friday prayer is over). Jumu'ah attendance is strictly incumbent upon all free adult males who are legal residents of the locality.

I remain highly skeptical of the Islamic Antichrist theory, but this is an interesting observation.

But of course a Friday reverence can be connected to Catholic and other heretical Christian beliefs via the completely unsupported by Scripture Friday Crucifixion tradition.  Perhaps the counterfeit mortal wounding and healing of the Beast will follow the Catholic model.

The fact remains, the plain reading of Revelation is that it's a name not a day of the week.

Possible Davidic Descent of British Royalty

The main Tea Telphi legend used by British Israelism is most likely not true.  And the means suggested by Britam doesn't hold up under scrutiny either.

But, I read something interesting on a certain Genealogy website.

http://www.geni.com/projects/Descents-from-Antiquity/12283

Pagano Ebriaci

Pagano Ebriaci (?-c1091), of Pisa, ancestor of the Christian Ebriaci family, might have been a convert from Judaism, a son of Joseph of Fustat. The relationship is conjectural, and seems to have originated in the suggestion that the surname Ebriaci means "the Hebrew". Another theory is that the name Ebriaci might derive from a Latin word meaning drunk.

If Pagano Ebriaci was a son of Joseph of Fustat, then he was a grandson of Hezekiah IV, 38th Exilarch and a descendant of King David.

Pagano Ebriaci was an ancestor of Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, through Manfredo III, marchese di Saluzzo."

EdmundFitzAlan is through his son Richard an ancestor of Henry V of England as well as Elizabeth of York, Queen-Consort of Henry VII and thus ancestor of James VI of Scotland and I of England and thus all modern British and Netherlands Royalty. Also through his Granddaughter Alice Holland, Countess of Kent he is an ancestor of Henry VII himself through his mother.

Richard FitzAlan also has more then one connection to the Dukes of Norfolk, making him an ancestor of both the current Norfolk Family and Anne & Mary Boleyn.

Elizabeth of York I have shown in an earlier post to have possible Bagartid Ancestry.

On my Conspiracy blog I have a post on The Bolyen family including Mary Bolyen's descendants.

Christians have long suspected The Antichrist could claim Davidic descent.  I think it's not impossible he could legitimately have Davidic Descent.  Two of David's direct sons were arguably types of The Antichrist, Absalom and Adonijah (one of those is more sympathetic then the other).  And even Solomon himself after he back slid is directly connected to the number 666.  And we could also look at some of the worst Kings of Judah, especially Manasseh who we're told placed Idols in the Holy Place.

There is a tradition in the Talmud that says the Messiah would be Maternally of Dan and Paternally of David.  The reverse of Samson.  Since the Anglo-Saxons and Normans both likely descend from Dan.  And the current Queen and her Husband both descend from Danish Royalty.  It looks like such a mingling is taking place.

Update 5/14/2017: I now have this sort of follow up post.

Ephraim and The Fullness of The Gentiles

First off I want to make clear that unlike the likes of Chuck Missler and Chris White, I do believe the Lost Tribes have a role to play in The End Times.

What I want to object to here is the various variations of Two House theology that are predicated on tying Genesis 48 and Ezekiel 47 into Romans 9-11.

Now I am NOT a Darby style Dispensationist, I absolutely do believe that Gentile Believers are grafted into Israel.  But I also believe in the Uniqueness of The Church, we certainly have special promises that didn't exist for Pre Cross Believers.

Now there are some among these like Rob Skiba who will make clear they don't actually think you have to be a biological descendant of Abraham to be saved.  The problem is Romans 9-11 doesn't mention this third category he's imagined of Israelites who became Gentiles, it has just the two Olive Trees and the only grafting in mind is from the Gentile Tree to the Israel Tree, no implication of a past grafting going the other way.

What people overlook in Ezekiel 37 is Ephraim and Judah also have friends who are joined to them.  They correlate to the Gentiles Grafted in in Romans 9-11, not Ephraim. Translations have a tendency to obscure this.  But it's significant that Ephraim and Judah both have companions, not just Ephraim.

We are grafted into Israel, but not into one of the original 13 Tribes.   We are a 14th Tribe.  In Ezekiel 47 we are Yahuah-Shammah.

Rob likes to declare there is no such thing as a Gentile believer, and that Gentile means "out of Covenant".  The problem is he's accepting the very thinking Paul dedicated this Epistle to refuting.  Paul calls some of the believers reading this epistle Gentiles in 11:13.

This idea of Jews using a term like Gentile or Goyim to refer to all Non Jews in a way that excludes them is something that appears in The New Testament because it developed during the Intertestimental period, but it does NOT exist in The Hebrew Bible.  The problem is translations have gone and inserted it into the Hebrew Bible.

So the Hebrew word Goyim/Goyi which means Nation/Nations often gets translated in the KJV and other English Bibles as Gentiles or Heathen.  Then people will use their Strongs and see that same word is also nations and concludes Nations=Gentiles.  The problem is it's really the other way around.  The actual Hebrew words for foreigner or alien are usually translated stranger.  And a word study of Stranger shows that being one was never a barrier to salvation or citizenship, but being one spiritually was not good.

To prove this we can start with Genesis 12 when God first makes his promise to Abraham.  In verse 2 he says "I will make of thee a Great Goyi".  In Chapter 35 verse 11 God tells Jacob.  "be fruitful and multiply; a Goyi and a company of Goyim shall be of thee".

But the clincher is Exodus 19:6, at the giving of the Covenant.  "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy goyi. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

So no, Goyim does not meant "out of Covenant".

When Jesus said he came only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, He meant the Jews.  He spoke during His ministry to those Jews who were spiritually Lost.  But John's Gospel also says at the beginning His own received Him not so the opportunity to be grafted in came to the Gentiles.

Through out The New Testament both Jesus and Paul were opposing this xenophobic attitude towards "gentiles" that had developed.  Romans 1 verses 18-32 is a rhetorical rant.  If you actually find yourself cheering on that rant, you are the problem.  Because the rest of the Epistle is dedicated to refuting everything said in that rant.  There is definitely real sinful behavior in mind there, but it's the Reprobate doctrine Baptists build on this passage that Paul is declaring wrong.

In the verse that is describing a very specific kind of male Homosexual activity.  The word translated "Against Nature" is "Para Phusis"  a technical Greek term that has it's origins in Plato's proto Gnostic Cosmology laid out in Timaus.  It is also used by Philo, a contemporary of the NT era but also slightly older (he wrote some works at least as early as 10 AD) who was a Hellenistic Jewish Philosopher greatly influenced by Plato.  Whether or not he was the first Jew to use the term we can't be sure.

This exact same phrase is what Paul uses in Romans 11 to describe Gentiles being grafted in "unatrually" into the Tree of Israel.  That is God doing something, totally rejecting the notion that doing something "unatrual" is inherently a Sin.  In fact it is the Sin nature that is natural.

So clearly everything about Paul's intent here was people who in no way Naturally descended from Jacob being grafted into Israel.  Nor are they being let in because of some mystical loop hole.  So I don't care if the corrupt Septuagint uses almost the exact same phrase translated "Fullness of The Gentiles" in Genesis 48.

Paul does use a Genesis Patriarch as a type picture of the Gentiles he is talking about, that patriarch is Esau, he quotes the same Esau reference found in Malachi with the intent of refuting how Calvanists view that verse, but regardless Calvanists still don't get it.  I don't think it's a coincidence that many Ancient traditions hint at Edom becoming Rome.  Since Skiba believes in Jasher, he should be even more certain of that then me, because of it's Zepho story.

Some might also seek to take Jesus reference to a Fruitful Nation as a reference to Ephraim meaning Fruitful. Jesus was speaking Hebrew, but Ephraim strictly mean double fruit, what Jesus would have said was likely closer to Ephrath/Ephratah  location in Judah, which Psalm 132 identifies with Zion, and New Jerusalem is the Heavenly Zion.

It's funny because Two House theology usually takes offense at using Judah/Jew and Israel as synonyms, and insist IF Israel is ever used of one Kingdom it's the North.  Except in Romans 9-11 where there Israel means Judah and the Lost Tribes are the Gentiles.

Besides Dan I fully reject the theories of the Lost Tribes going West.  The Biblical clues all take them East,(Follow Up Post).  And many wonder where in Revelation is the return of the Lost Tribes because their bias is to look West.  I see it quite clearly in Chapter 16 after the pouring out of the Sixth Bowl, the Kings of The East (and some from all four corners because today everyone is scattered somewhat) are gathered together at the Hill of Megiddo, a Northern Kingdom territory.

I believe the temporary partial spiritual blindness Israel is under includes the Lost Tribes, it's not just Judah.

Let's compare the two Asian nations where it is currently the most Legal to be a Christian, and thus easiest to document and observe The Gospel's success there.  My studies of the history and DNA evidence lead me to conclude South Korea probably has little if any Lost Tribes ancestry, and mainly descends from Javan.  But Japan I think had a very strong case for being a Lost Tribe.

In South Korea 30% of the Population is Christian, most of them some form of "Protestant", their capital has 11 of the world's 12 largest Christian Congregations and they're second only to America in sending out missionaries.

Japan is only about 1% Christian and most of those are Catholic.  But none the less looking at the minority of the minority can be fascinating just as it is to look at the Messianic communities in Judah.  Japan has a Non-Church Movement that is like the House Church movement but goes back to the 1800s predating the current American House Church movement.  And a spin off of that is the Makuya movement, which is essentially a Japanese Hebrew Roots movement of sorts.  Japan also has 3 Mormon Temples while the more Christianity friendly South Korea has only 1.  Which I make note of simply because Mormonism also has an Israelite Identity emphasis in it's theology.

So Japan like Israel has a spiritual blindness but also a remnant.  The DNA evidence for the Japan theory overlaps with argument for Tibet and Burma, Y Chromosome Haplogroup D.

And then I also see Lost Tribes descendants in the Kurds and possibly many other populations of Iran.  The Kurds are most Sunni Muslin when Iran is mostly Shia Muslim.

The Bible isn't clear on the Earth's shape.

My main Flat Earth Post became, as I edited it multiple times, a bit hard to follow.  So I'm making this to replace it.

To restate my position.  I am not like most Creationists who will try to argue The Hebrew Bible clearly depicted a Round Earth long before Aristotle.  My position is that The Hebrew Bible never clearly spells out the size or shape of the Earth or the Universe.  I believe it is relatively compatible either way.  Though I may point to some interesting circumstantial evidence that may make the Globe fit better.

And again this is addressing Christians who believe the Earth is Flat, not merely addressing atheists accusing The Bible.

Let me explain what I mean when I say I can take the Pillars and Foundations just as literally as the Flat Earthers do.

I believe at the center of The Earth is the Abyss/Bottomless Pit/Great Deep.  Romans 10:7 tells us The Deep is where Jesus went while he was dead.  In John 2 Jesus clearly states as Jonah was in the belly of The Ketos so shall he be in the Heart of the Earth 3 days and 3 nights.  The word "heart" being used in that sense is an idiom of being inside something not beneath something.  The English word "core" comes from the old French and Latin words for heart.  The world of the Old Testament may have presumed a flat Earth but the Hellenistic Greek world of the New Testament equally presumed a round Earth.

Above that but still below us is Sheol/Hades/Hell.  I believe if you could walk around Sheol you would literally see foundations and pillars holding up what's above.

I'm glad that Flat Earthers understand how the Hebrew Bible does not use cosmological terms with our modern meanings.  That includes that "Earth" (Erets in Hebrew) is not the name of a Planet in the Hebrew Bible.  But also I should point out that Olam is not the Hebrew word for World or Universe but rather means Age/Eon.  Tebel is the word for world.

In Genesis 1 every time you see "Earth" and pretty much every time you see "land" in the Hebrew they are the same word.  (And amazingly I saw recently even KJV onliers that hate checking the Hebrew could tell The Bible uses those words as synonyms.)  That includes when in Genesis 1 it distinctly separates the land from the sea.

The Earth is the dry land in The Hebrew Bible.  Biblically you have left the Earth when you sail out into the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.  The ends of the Earth are the ends of the Dry Land.

The land mass of Europe-Asia-Africa has 4 corners, the strait of Gibraltar, the horn of Africa, Korea/Japan and the northernmost parts of Russia.  And I can prove using Scripture to interpret Scripture that those corners are what The Bible means by the 4 corners of The Earth, not this modern flat earth model with 4 corners outside the dome of a snow-globe that has the North Pole at the center.

Revelation 7:1 clearly tells us the 4 corners are linked to the 4 winds of heaven.  Daniel 11 tells us Alexander's Empire was divided to the 4 winds of heaven.  Ptolmey to the South, Seleucus to the North, Parthia in the East and Antipater, Antigonos and Lysimchus in the West.

Revelation 20 also tells us the Gog and Magog invasion comes from the 4 corners of the Earth.  Ezekiel 38-39 which gives us the details of that invasion makes clear that Libya is the West, Ethiopia the South, Persia the East and Gog of the land of Magog, the Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal from the North.

The proper translation of Psalm 104:5 is merely saying that the Earth cannot be removed.  Even the KJV adds words that are not in The Hebrew and the translations preferred by Flat Earthers use even more additional words.

When Psalm 96:10 and other verses say the Earth is fixed and won't move.  The Hebrew word there is the same one used in Psalm 62:6 where the Psalmist says he shall not be moved.  So yes the interpretation that that can mean a set fixed course is perfectly validated using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Rob Skiba loves to complain about all the italics in the KJV when it suits him.  But after he started this Flat Earth fixation he has conveniently forgotten the "May reach unto" in Genesis 11 isn't in the Hebrew text.  The Tower of Babel was about idolatry not transportation.  It is describing exactly what all scholars know the ancient Zigurats were, not a skyscraper or a star-gate or anything else.  What the so called book of Jasher says about it is simply wrong.

And I still stand by my unique approach to Isaiah 40.

When Atheists are trying as hard as they can to make The Bible contradict science they will sometimes just use the fact that The Bible says the Sun moves.  The Sun is moving in the currently accepted cosmology.

I also think there could very well be a literal solid enclosure at the edge of the Universe.  But that Dome isn't the Firmament.

Ecclesiastes is Solomon describing the World as it seems to be, to then say at the end that that is all wrong.  Christians do believe there was something new under The Sun, the New Testament.  When you build doctrine on statements from Ecclesiastes or Job's friends you will get people arguing there is no after life.  Job's friends being wrong is also part of the point of that book.

Everything else Flat Earthers use is just as valid to interpret poetically as the references to the Sun and Moon rising and setting.  Which the modern Flat Earth movement takes literally no more then Globe believers do.

Which also discredits all their appeal to ancient Pagan cosmologies.  Those cosmologies had the Sun literally rise and set, they had myths about the places where it set to and rose from.  The Koran says Alexander The Great traveled there and literally saw it.

Rob Skiba when speculating on the motives for the "Illuminati" to create a round Earth model.  Besides just disagreeing with the Bible for the sake of it (I don't see that as the sole motive even for Evolution which was also about providing a scientific basis for Eugenics and Racism).  Suggests it's about making humans feel insignificant.

My understanding of Psalm 8 tells me God created the entire Universe for Adam's benefit, regardless of it's size and shape and whether or not we're at the literal geographic center of it.

In which context it's this enclosed dome model that makes God's Creation seem less magnificent.  It makes Him more like a Gnostic or Platonic demiurge, an inferior creator of an inferior world.

Which leads me to all the stuff they point to that they see as "the Illuminati" secretly "admitting" the world is flat.  Well indeed I've long noticed that the cosmology presented in Masonic Lore presumed a Flat Earth.  Which brings me back to what I said on the other blog, what the Pagans believe we should be viewing as wrong.  When discussing the Capital in Washington DC, Rob knows full well how important the Dome shape is to the Pagans.

Another Man-Child post

When I first made this post, it did not have the reference to Isaiah 66 that is currently in it.

I was already pretty convinced of this theory without the help of Isaiah 66.  Then I was rereading it lately and I noticed what had completely flew by me before, that it references the Man-Child.  And the context clearly makes it New Jerusalem/Zion and it's Population.

Verses 6-11

A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Yahuah that rendereth recompense to his enemies.  Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith Yahuah: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.  Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

Wonderful smoking gun proof of a Mid-Way point Rapture.

Does the Book of Maccabees claim a different origin for Purim?

The books of Mccabees tend to be most interesting to us for telling the story of the origin of Hanukkah and of Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilling prophecies presumed to be about him from Daniel.  Once he's dead and the Dedication is celebrated we tend to stop reading besides occasionally taking interest in those letters from Sparta for Lost Tribes/Dan/Edom speculation.

Chapter 7 of First Maccabees begins with Demetrius taking the Seleucid throne.  This is the person who arguably should have been King the whole time, who's birthright was usurped by Epiphanes.  You'd think it'd be in his interest then to relate to others wronged by Epiphanes, like the Jews.  But no, he decided pretty quickly he wants Judea back in his empire.  And treasonous Jews who'd usurped the High Priesthood encourage him in doing so.  Nicanor is still one of the chief Seleucid generals.

I encourage you to read the entire Chapter.  I shall copy here starting from verse 33.  This is BTW the King James translation.

After this went Nicanor up to mount Sion, and there came out of the sanctuary certain of the priests and certain of the elders of the people, to salute him peaceably, and to shew him the burnt sacrifice that was offered for the king.  But he mocked them, and laughed at them, and abused them shamefully, and spake proudly, and sware in his wrath, saying, "Unless Judas and his host be now delivered into my hands, if ever I come again in safety, I will burn up this house: and with that he went out in a great rage."

 Then the priests entered in, and stood before the altar and the temple, weeping, and saying, "Thou, O Lord, didst choose this house to be called by thy name, and to be a house of prayer and petition for thy people: Be avenged of this man and his host, and let them fall by the sword: remember their blasphemies, and suffer them not to continue any longer."

 So Nicanor went out of Jerusalem, and pitched his tents in Bethhoron, where an host out of Syria met him.  But Judas pitched in Adasa with three thousand men, and there he prayed, saying, "O Lord, when they that were sent from the king of the Assyrians blasphemed, thine angel went out, and smote an hundred fourscore and five thousand of them.  Even so destroy thou this host before us this day, that the rest may know that he hath spoken blasphemously against thy sanctuary, and judge thou him according to his wickedness."

 So the thirteenth day of the month Adar the hosts joined battle: but Nicanor's host was discomfited, and he himself was first slain in the battle.  

Now when Nicanor's host saw that he was slain, they cast away their weapons, and fled.  Then they pursued after them a day's journey, from Adasa unto Gazera, sounding an alarm after them with their trumpets.  Whereupon they came forth out of all the towns of Judea round about, and closed them in; so that they, turning back upon them that pursued them, were all slain with the sword, and not one of them was left.  Afterwards they took the spoils, and the prey, and smote off Nicanors head, and his right hand, which he stretched out so proudly, and brought them away, and hanged them up toward Jerusalem.

 For this cause the people rejoiced greatly, and they kept that day a day of great gladness.  Moreover they ordained to keep yearly this day, being the thirteenth of Adar.  Thus the land of Juda was in rest a little while.

I'm accusing it of presenting a different origin not simply another deliverance on the same day because it records them referencing back to a past deliverance of Israel, Isaiah 36, in the days of Sennacherib and Hezekiah.  Which is a cool story to remember but you'd think he'd also remember the deliverance from Haman's scheme that happened at this same time of year?  And because it later says they ordained this day.

Nicanor and his men's bodies are hanged up, just like Haman and his sons.

Now I believe Esther over Maccabees because I consider the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint, God's Word.  In a lot of ways 1 Maccabees is clearly propaganda of the Hasmonean Dynasty, it may be they wanted to claim the origin of the holiday.

Which then makes me wonder, going back to all the debates about if Hanukkah is Biblical or not.  And how I believe Haggai 2 ties into Hanukkah.  What if these books are lying about it's origin too?  But the older account just keeps getting overlooked.  What if Haggai 2 is the real origin of Hanukkah?

2 Maccabees does tell a very different story about the fate of Nicanor in chapters 14 and 15.  But also claims it the origin of the 13th of Adar holiday.