Friday, September 22, 2017

Jonathan Cahn is comparing Trump to Jehu, while downplaying Jehu's negative aspects

Jonathan Cahn - The Jehu/Jezebel Template.  (I don't want to get into my political disagreements with Cahn here, that is for the SolaScirpturaChristianLiberty blog).

Clearly, another way for Christians to try to convince themselves that Trump is chosen by God and they should support him in-spite of his obvious moral problems.

Here is what boggles my mind about this.  To me, Jehu is clearly a Type of The Antichrist.  I've been arguing that since early in this Blog's history, back in 2014.  In my initial post about The Four Horsemen.

It comes up when suggesting The Antichrist may be a Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant.  I cite verses like Hosea saying Yahuah will avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu.  And how Jehu had enemies Decapitated like Revelation 20 says The Beast will do, I think the Beast may very well call Christians he dislikes worshipers of Baal, like the Hebrew Roots movement loves to do.

In this context The House of Ahab and Jezebel could be viewed as the Decoy Antichrist.  This overlaps with when I talk about Jeroboam as a type of the Antichrist.

This also comes up posts like The Antichrist may not be as popular as we assume, and God has used Babylon and he may use it again.

I don't want to say I think Trump is the Antichrist.  But whether he is or not, this upholding the legacy of Jehu as mostly positive is certainly helping setting stage for The Antichrist.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Dajjal being from Britain

Is a theory among some Muslims I recently became aware of.  Starting with This YouTube Video.

I was already familiar with the Haddith that is the main basis for this theory.  A Story about some Arab sailors who wind up on an Island where they talk to a chained person claiming to be the Dajjal.  An Island estimated to be about a month from Arabia.  Of course the people promoting this theory are saying they aren't taking it entirely literally.

I imagine most mainstream theories about where this Island was meant to be located, (if it intended a real location at all), would look for it in the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean, or further east.

Among Judaeo-Christian Conspiracy theorists there has long been a tendency to see British imperialism as the source of all modern evil.  Including some posts on my own Conspiracy Theory Blog.  And on this Blog in the England and Egypt post.

Before meeting Dajjal, these sailors were first greeted by a hairy man or creature.  The name he identified himself by is apparently related to the Arab word for Spying, so this is taken as a clue it's an island particularly associated with Espionage.  The British are credited with pretty much inventing modern Espionage under Queen Elizabeth. 

Apparently this Haddith is also one of a few that seem to foretell the Sea of Galilee drying up.  Which apparently is happening now.  You've probably seen Zionists brag about how modern Israel has made the desserts Green again.  Well apparently some think their doing that is in the long term hurting the environment of Israel, and is why the Sea of Galilee is drying up.

What most bothers me here is how the use of this Haddith to basically identify the Ashenazim with Gog and Magog can tie into the Khazzar theory, a deception I've already addressed.

But getting back to Britain.  The idea of the Dajjal being hidden on an Island at Muhammad's time, with some linking that Island to Britain, is interesting in light of Christian theories about King Arthur having something to do with The Antichrist.  However from what I can tell none of these Muslims have made an Arthur connection themselves.

About a century before Muhammad's time was King Arthur's time.  And at the end of his Reign he is said to have not died but been taken Mortally Wounded, to Avalon, from whence he will someday return when Britain needs him again.

But some theorize Avalon isn't a separate Island form Britan, but rather the area of Glastonbury, where there is a traditional site for King Arthur's Tomb.  This Haddith has the Dajjal Chained in an old place of worship, which in the context of seeing it as Britain makes it a Church or Monastery.

I have talked about Arthurian Legend a bit once previously on this Blog, in England and Edessa.  But I've talked about it a bit on my Nerdy Blog.  With the idea of connection between it and Arabia sort of coming up in my post about Wolfram's Parzival.

I still currently do not consider an Islamic Antichrist theory likely.  But it's interesting to keep an eye on what their theories are.

Monday, September 18, 2017

I can't support Chad Schafer's theory about Egypt

I talked about his World in Bondage to Egypt book once already.

Now personally I like Chad Schafer, we're friends on Facebook, some of what I say here will come off harsher then I intend.   It's just his theory I intend to be harsh on.

I like that he's drawing attention to often overlooked Eschatological significance of Egypt.  And I think he's onto something talking about the Arch of Titus.  The problem is how he brings those things together.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

September 23 2017 is apporaching.

Awhile ago I talked about why I don't think the alignment involving Virgo, Leo and 4 of the Planets is significant.  But now the time for it is approaching I better remind people.

Also recently was this AnswerInGenesis Article on it.

That somewhat overlaps with my refuting the September 11th 3 BC Birth of Jesus theory.

Rob Skiba has kinda gone off the deep end, in a recent radio show saying Revelation 12 can only be about either something astronomical or some sort of cloned rebirth of Jesus who immediately dies.

I feel like I have firmly Biblically proven that The Woman is Israel, and The Man-Child is The Church, especially thanks to Isaiah 66.

For those who still think The Church can only be represented by a woman, I recommend this Song of Solomon post of mine.

The only thing Biblically significant about this September is that as it often does the Month of Tishri and thus the Fall Feasts will begin.

Friday, September 1, 2017

The Forgotten Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

The second chapter of the Book of Daniel begins by telling us that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that troubled him.  In verse 5 he says "The thing is gone from me" and then demands his court occultists to make the dream known to him or he'll kill them all.

Every single commentary or Bible Study on Daniel Chapter 2 I have read or watched or listened to has assumed that Nebuchadnezzar did not actually forget this dream, he's just doing this to test all his court magicians.

For a community that is generally all about not reading things into the text that aren't actually there, I find this really odd.  Nothing in the text of Daniel 2 says or implies this.

It makes me wonder, can these people simply not relate to this happening?  Because it happens to me all the time, I'll have a Dream, a Dream that was pretty bizarre and interesting, but within minutes or even seconds of waking up my memory of the dream has faded to nothingness.

Now I don't think any of my forgotten dreams were visions from God revealing his plans for the coming centuries.  And I also can't relate to wanting to kill other people for not telling me the contents of a dream they didn't have, but Absolute Monarchs do a lot of such things I can't relate too.

The idea that it's a test is stupid.  No one who does claim to know how to interpret dreams, claims they can interpret a dream they don't know the contents of.  Now again, what Nebuchadnezzar is doing in my face value interpretation isn't rational either.  But it's the people saying he's lying about this who think he's being some champion of logical thinking.

It reflects how Protestant Christians sometimes feel compelled to in certain areas think like Atheists.  By thinking anything that exposures those sharletons with their Psychic hotlines must be serving the greater good.  But the Hebrew Bible was never operating under an assumption that occultists have no real power.

Now when Daniel describes the Dream to Nebuchadnezzar and then interprets it, that probably jogged his memory and brought it back to him.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Bethlehem was Zion, Which is The City of David

An argument can be made that the account of how Jerusalem came under David's control (2 Samuel 5:6-9 and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8) makes more sense if Jebus and "Zion which is the City of David" are separate cities.  He had to take one first to conquer the other. And this fits later references to the two locations in the time of Solomon also.  The Ark was brought out of the City of David to The Temple, and likewise the Daughter of Pharaoh was brought out of the City of David to Solomon's house.  It looks like after the Jebusites chose to resist, David simply chose the fortress of Zion to be the base of his campaign against Jebus.

It might be that Jerusalem is sometimes used broadly of an entire district, but when used specifically of a single City it's just Jebus.  Some references to Jerusalem and Zion in the same verse often taken to verify their being synonymous, can also work as listing separate cities side by side.  Like Isaiah 64:10 which says cities, plural, then lists Jerusalem and Zion.  But since Zion also arguably has both a poetic broader application and a more specific one, perhaps it fits when paired with Jerusalem, two names that refer to different specific cities but basically the same area when applied broadly.  Psalm 76:2 also makes sense as referring to Salem and Zion as separate cities.

It's possible sometimes Jerusalem and Zion are paired together to represent the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Benjamin and Judah, Psalm 78:68 says Zion is a mount of Judah.  Which can in turn be taken back more broadly to represent both wives of Jacob, Benjamin from Rachel and Judah from Leah.

And perhaps David's design for this area was similar in intent to the original plan for Washington DC, taking parts of both Maryland and Virginia to create a capital District.  Isaiah 24:23 refers to Yahuah ruling in Zion and in Jerusalem, as if they are separate.

One question that might pop into your mind from the idea of separating Jerusalem from the City of David is, which city then is Ariel in Isaiah 29?  "Where David dwelt" could apply to both but arguably fits the City of David better.  And Zion is mentioned explicitly.  Also Ariel means "Lion of God", that fits it being a Judean rather then Benjamite city, as Judah is the Lion in Genesis 49.  Other tribes (Gad and Dan) are associated with Lions elsewhere (Deuteronomy 33), but not Benjamin.

I think the house David built with materials provided by Hiram of Tyre was in Jebus/Jerusalem, where he lived and had children with his wives from Jerusalem, and that could be the same archeological site it's usually associated with.   But the Fort of Zion was in the City of David, that fort already existed.

Ophel is a place-name linked to the Gihon once.  It's a Hebrew word for Tent sometimes used of the The Tabernacle, and in the KJV is translated " tabernacle", so it may not always refer to the same place. Maybe the Ophel in the City of David could have been where David's Tabernacle was?

Only 2 Chronicles 1:4 says David pitched a Tent for the Ark in Jerusalem rather then Zion or the CIty of David.  First off the books of Chronicles probably entered their final form later, so a broader definition of what qualifies as Jerusalem may make more sense there.  But also this reference comes after David had purchased Moriah, so maybe the Ark did some moving around during this period.

I think Jerusalem is usually the City called the Daughter of Zion or Daughter of Sion. But "daughter of ____" can sometimes refer to a separate City that is related in some way.  Like Tyre being the Daughter of Sidon/Zidon in Isaiah 23:12.  And the Daughter of Babylon I think is likely Hammurabi/Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, the daughter of the original Babel which was Eridu.

The City we usually call Jerusalem I feel is obviously the Jerusalem of the The Gospels & Acts and thus the Jebus of the Hebrew Bible.  Where Solomon and Zerubabel/Herod's Temples were built.  So where then is the City of David and Mount Zion?

Luke Chapter 2 in verses 4 and 11 calls Bethlehem the City of David, and endless Christian commentaries try to explain why this doesn't contradict the Hebrew Bible's City of David being Jerusalem by saying both could be described that way.  Yet we're supposed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and Luke said "The" not "a".  And Christians view the New Testament as revealing and clarifying the "Old Testament".  This argument would not convince Jews or other non Christians of course, so fortunately I have some directly from the Hebrew Scriptures.

1 Samuel 20:6 when speaking of David refers to Bethlehem as "his city", that predates the exact phrase "City of David' ever occurring.  When you think about it this should always have been obvious, the hometown of David is the City of David.  To go back to a previous point, Bethlehem was in Judah.

If you object, "David had to capture his own home town?" remember what I said above, in my theory Zion didn't need to be captured, it was the base of operations for capturing Jebus.  Bethlehem is also in a mountainous region, in fact it's elevated higher then Jerusalem.  Perhaps the Gihon was the spring now known as the Spring of Etam, or Atan?

It's interesting to note that the Crusaders also captured Bethlehem first, Godfrey sent Tancred to take it, then they used it as a base in their siege of Jerusalem. Lots of people overlook this detail of the Crusades, but once you're aware of how Bethlehem is elevated higher then Jerusalem, you realize it is ideal to secure that area first if you want to siege Jerusalem.

Micah 5:2 is the key Prophecy that The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  But remember the Chapter divisions were not in the original text, and Micah 5 does sound like it's starting in the middle of something.  Micah mentions Zion constantly, particularly in chapter 4.

The first time Bethlehem is mentioned it is home to the Tower of Edar in Genesis 35:20-21.  Micah 4:8 refers to the Tower of Edar (Tower of The Flock in the KJV) as the Stronghold of Zion.  Then later refers to Jerusalem arguably as a separate city.  Some traditions say it was from the Migdol Eder that the Angel announced the Birth of Jesus to the Shepherds.

Psalm 132 mentions Ephratah in a context that seems to place the Tabernacle (Ophel) and The Ark there.  And it is a Davidic Psalm.  The City of David housed the Tabernacle of David and The Ark during most of David's reign.  And that Psalm also uses the name Zion.

2 Samuel 2:32 says David's nephew Asahel was buried in Bethlehem in the sepulcher of his father.  Kings of the House of David are repeatedly refereed to as being buried in the City of David, and resting with their fathers.  Starting with David himself in 1 Kings 2:10 being buried with his father in the City of David (Acts 13:36 also says David was buried with his fathers).  And it turns out Bethlehem does have a site with a tradition of being where David was buried.  Or the Kings might have been among those buried in the Bronze Age caves built where modern Efrat is.'s_Tomb " In the 4th century CE, he and his father Jesse were believed to be buried in Bethlehem. The idea he was entombed on what was later called Mt Zion dates to the 9th century CE." Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky, 'Where is King David Really Buried?,' The Jewish Press, May 15th 2014.  "By the mid-fourth century, the tombs of King David and his father, Jesse, are described as being in Beit Lechem.[See Limor, “King David’s Tomb.”] The first mention of Mount Zion as King David’s final resting place was in the ninth century".  Back to Wikipedia  "4th century Pilgrim of Bordeaux reports that he discovered David to be buried in Bethlehem, in a vault that also contained the tombs of Ezekiel, Jesse, Solomon, Job, and Asaph, with those names carved into the tomb walls."...[Ora Limor, "The Origins of a Tradition: King David's Tomb on Mount Zion," Traditio 44 (1988): 459.] "Having initially revered David's tomb in Bethlehem, Muslims began to venerate it on Mount Zion instead but no earlier than the 10th century following the Christian (and possibly Jewish) lead. In the twelfth century, Jewish pilgrim Benjamin of Tudela recounted a somewhat fanciful tale of workmen accidentally discovering the tomb of David on Mount Zion."
Asahel was a maternal Nephew which makes the above argument not quite a slam dunk exactly.  But his father is never identified.  And all three of Zeruiah's children are called sons of Zeruiah rather then by their father.  That makes it possible they may have been born out of wedlock and so mostly treated as part of Jesse's family.  Either way being buried in Bethlehem means, if it was his direct father he was buried with, he was one from the same city and so probably at least the same Tribe.  That David's nephews were so important to him means he may have insisted they be buried as part of the royal family.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to 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.
Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

It may also be interesting to note that a Bethlehem site is believed to be where Herod was buried, the Herodion.  And Herod's Official Biographer claimed him to be of Davidic ancestry.  I also wonder if Herod built his Herodium fortress over the older fort David had used that I'd mentioned earlier, possibly eliminating all evidence of the older fort.  Some aspects of Josephus description seem consistent with the idea of an older fortification existing there, it was the site of a battle before Herod built anything.

Bethlehem is never mentioned (by that name at least) in the books of Kings and only once in 2 Chronicles during the reign of Rehoboam.  As if during the Kingdom period calling it by that name was phased out in favor of the City of David.  Of course between Solomon and Hezekiah the only references to the City of David are as where the Kings were buried.

If you still think The Man-Child of Revelation 12 is Jesus.  It is Zion far more often then Jerusalem refereed to as travailing in Childbirth. With my view of The Man-Child as The Church at The Rapture, maybe Bethlehem will play a role in that?  After all a heavenly Mount Sion is important to Revelation 14.

Yahuah-Shammah is nine times the size of modern Jerusalem, according to the most common estimate of it's size, it could be larger.  Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem.  Yahuah-Shammah could be large enough to encompass both Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

But remember not all references to Bethlehem are to the one in Ephratah of Judah, there is another lesser known one in the North.  Sometimes people will try to argue that is where Jesus was born, but Micah, Matthew and Luke all make qualifiers ruling out the Northern One.  And the reference in John 7 would make no sense in that context if they meant a city in Galilee.

I have run into a potential problem with this Bethlehem theory.  Nehemiah 3:15-16 and 12:37 refer to the City of David as seemingly pretty clearly within the Jerusalem he rebuilt, and refers to the burial site of the Kings being there.  But I shall look more into that as there could be an explanation.

The potential answer to that issue is that Nehemiah's wall was larger then we usually think it was, that it encompassed Jerusalem and Bethlehem.  Maybe the wall we usually identify it with isn't it at all, or maybe it is but was only part of it.  And that most of what Nehemiah built we won't find the remains of due to the conquests of Israel by Antiochus Epiphanes and Rome.

Given my speculation that the Construction projects of Suleiman The Magnificent could be a second fulfillment of the Daniel 9 Prophecy fulfilled by Nehemiah.  It's interesting to note that he also built fortifications in Bethlehem, like The Castle of The Pools.

 A post in which I consider there may have been two Arks, possibly filling some gaps in this study.

The death of Rachel and birth of Benjamin is traditionally assumed to have been in Bethlehem.  But many have read Genesis 35 more carefully as saying the birth of Benjamin, Death of Rachel and her Burial were on the way to Ephratah and the Migdal Eder from Bethel.

If so that makes it likely these events happened in land later allotted to Benjamin.  As the only of the 12 sons born in the Land, perhaps it makes he'd be allotted his birth place. 2 Samuel 10:2 refers to her Tomb as being in Benjamin.  And there are traditions saying it is specifically in Ramah, which could be relevant to the "Voice Crieth form Ramah" Prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 quoted in Matthew 2.

As far as my citing it as evidence of Bethlehem being Zion.  I note that this argument observed that after these events Jacob traveled past the Migdal Eder and set up a Tent.  Perhaps this Tent was where the Tabernacle of David was later sent up?  Maybe that is the origin of the site popularly viewed as Rachel's Tomb today?

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

The Books of Tobit and Judith

Originally I was going to do this on my Revised Chronology blog.  But the theories about these books relevant to that are mainly the ones I'm going to be the most critical of.

I don't consider them Canon, as I already explained in my post on the Deutercanonical Books.  But they can be historically interesting to contemplate.

These books have in common being clearly mainly fictional narratives, that at least in the forms we have them contain some difficult to explain geographical errors.  And much more so with Judith apparent historical anachronisms.

Damien F Mackey attempts to explain the geographical issues in Tobit by saying Media is actually regions in Arabia, (Midian, Medan, Medina).  However this ignores the context of it clearly being about the deported Israelites.  II Kings is clear, many were taken to Media and all of then to east of the Euphrates.

 I've mentioned before about how Tobit as we know it is the product of a time where First Cousin marriages were strongly encouraged.  But I also have reasons to suspect Tobias's bride maybe wasn't his cousin originally before it was revised.

With the references to Ahikar we are told exactly how he fits into Tobit's genealogy, even though that character is only someone refereed to and not really part of the story (like the Author of Tobit wanted to create a Shared Apocryphal Universe).  However we're not told how Sarah or her father Raguel fit into it, just that she is Tobias' cousin somehow.  That could be consistent with her being a cousin being a detail added to the text later.

Sarah is the Hebrew word for Princess.  According to Herodotus it was around the time frame depicted in this book that the first King of Media lived.  And she is living in Ecbatane the capital of Media.  Could the original narrative have been about Tobias marrying a Median Princess?  And maybe the book of Judith calls the king of Media Arphaxad because they descended from Arphaxad via deported Northern Israelites?

The last verse of the book refers to the fall of Nineveh to "Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus".  A lot of people assume Ahasuerus here is another name for Cyaxares I of Media.  But there is evidence his son and future successor Astyages was also involved in the taking of Nineveh.  And Nebuchadnezzar was also at that time the Crown Prince of his father Nabopolassar.  Ahasuerus being a name for Astyages would agree with Josephus calling the Darius son of Ahasuerus of Daniel 5 a son of Astyages.  Which in turn agrees with that Darius being the same as Cyaxares II of Xenophon's Cyropedia.

Damien F Mackey's theory about The Book of Judith is that the "Nebuchadnezzar" of that book is really Sennacherib under his Babylonian Throne Name.  And that this is the same attempted invasion of Judah recorded in 2 Kings and Isaiah 36-39.  My main problem with that theory is Judith doesn't record an Angel destroying Assyria's Army.

His argument for this largely begins with theorizing that the Ahikar of Tobit and the Story of Ahikar is the same person as.Achior of the Book of Judith.  I see why those names seem kind of similar, but not enough to be a smoking gun.

The revised Chronology comes into it via saying Sennacherib is the same as Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon, conventionally dated to the end of the 12th century BC.  And if I were still inclined to agree with that theory, I'd consider identifying Holofernes, a name often said to seem Egyptian, with Horemheb based on Velikvosky's view of Horemheb.  But I'm not.

Three major mainstream theories about what historical context might have inspired Judith are Nebuchadnezzar as Artaxerxes III, as Ashurbanipal and as Tigranes The Great of Armenia.  Of those three the Ashurbanipal one is the main one I want to talk about here briefly.

It speculates the lack of a King in Judah is because it's while King Manasseh was being held in Babylon.  Which makes it interesting that Judith is called the Widow of a Manasseh.  But the only wife of King Manasseh mentioned in Scripture is Meshullemeth the mother of King Amon.  But the Kings of Judah frequently practiced Polygamy.  And some have speculated the name of Judith itself to be a symbol or code, as a feminine from of the name of the Southern Kingdom.

And since Tobit lived to see the fall of Nineveh, Ahikar could likewise have lived into the reign of Ashurbanipal.

Even if I were willing to consider changing when Nebuchadnezzar I lived.  He actually fits the time of Ashurbanipal better.  Ashurbanipal's brother Shamam-shum-ukin was King of Babylon during his reign.  A similar event involving a statue of Marduk being returned to Babylon transpires during his reign.  Nebuchadnezzar I celebrated a victory over Elam that seems similar to Ashurbanipal's.  And Nebuchadnezzar I conquered the "land of the Amorites" which could well refer to Canaan, where the Amorites originally came from, even Jerusalem was sometimes linked to the Amorites.

However my own revised chronology theories generally leave the Mesopotamian Kings Lists unaltered, as supported by Vellikvosky's own writing about Hamurabi and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt.

The city or village refereed to as Bethulia, which is not otherwise known to have existed, but seems to be near Jerusalem, I think is possibly meant to be Bethlehem.  Both names begin with a Beth. Bethulia seems to come from a Hebrew word for Virgin, Micah 4-5 tells us Bethlehem is where The Messiah will be born.  And in the context of my theory that Bethlehem is Zion which is the City of David, three Bible verses refer to the Bethulah daughter of Zion, (2 Kings 19:21, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13).  Micah 4-5 also refers to the Daughter of Zion giving birth in Bethlehem.  And if Judith was a wife of King Manasseh, it ties into the element of Bethlehem remaining a city linked to the house of David all through the Kingdom Period.

Now for my own personal theory.

Today a Jewish tradition has developed to read the Book of Judith during Hanukkah.  And to identify the character of Holofernes with Nicanor, both wind up beheaded for example.  I haven't yet however read any theory that the Maccabees were the original inspiration for the book.  But Judith 4:3 seems to allude to The Temple being recently rededicated following a desecration.

Who is Judith in this context?  Well in II Maccabees in particular in 14:24, Nicanor seems to be attracted to Judas Maccabeus.  Judith is the feminine form of the name Judah, which often becomes Judas in Greek Texts.

Did the author(s) of the book of Judith swap out a woman for Judas because of heteronormativity?  Or is it the product of some tradition the more mainstream historians who wrote the books of Maccabees and whatever other sources Josephus used would have ignored, that Judas Maccabeus was a Trans-woman?

Of course a potential Queer subtext for the Book of Judith on it's own is Judith and her unnamed maid.  If I made a film based on the story, I'd rename the city of Bethulia as Bethlehem, and give the name Bethulia to this character.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

More about Isaiah 7 and 8.

I did a post already proving that Virginity is implied in the meaning of Almah. I want to deal now with other aspects of how people will try to discredit this as a Prophecy applicable to the time frame of 5-1 BC.

I firmly believe in the doctrine of duel fulfillments.  So no I'm not going to deny that this is in some way applicable to Isaiah's own time in the reign of King Ahaz, when the Northern Kingdom and Aram Damascus were allied against Judah.

I'll even agree that the Prophetess who becomes Pregnant in Isaiah 8 is a lesser near fulfillment of the Almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

One thing I've seen is that some people think this Prophetess is Isaiah's wife.  It's difficult to know for sure, but I've generally more leaned towards the idea that this child in question is Hezekiah and the Prophetess is Abijah also called Abi his mother.  And so the Zechariah who is Abijah's father is the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8:2.

I think the basis for interpreting her as Isaiah's wife is taking the language of 8:3 as literally saying Isaiah fathered the child.  But I don't think that is the intent here.  It could be Isaiah's personal role in this first fulfillment is played in The Nativity narrative by Simeon or Anna in Luke 2.

My hunch is this Prophetess Office was directly inherited from that held by both Deborah and Miriam the Sister of Moses.  Thus backing up aspects of what I argued in the Almah post about the significance of Miriam being called an Almah.  And at the time of the Birth of Christ this Prophetess was Anna of Luke's Gospel.

Maybe at some point it became standard for this Prophetess to be among the wives of The King.  Like the ceremonial marriage between King and Priestess many pagan cultures had.  The Marriage between Jehoram's daughter Jehosheba and the Priest Jehoiada may have been a similar arrangement, a marriage alliance between the Royal family and the Priesthood.

Isaiah 8:14 is terminology drawn on by Paul (Romans 9:32-33, 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 1:23) as well as 1 Peter 2:8-10.  So quoting this promised Son as being Jesus was not unique to Matthew.

The key objection many might have to applying this prophecy all the way into Isaiah 8 to the time of Jesus birth is what's said in Isaiah 8:4.
For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, "My father", and "my mother", the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
I have argued that King Herod died during the 40 days between Jesus Birth and Presentation in The Temple.  After he died rebellions broke out in the lands Herod ruled, which did extend to include parts of Old Testament Aram.  And these were put down by Varus when he was governor of Roman Syria.  I don't think it's that hard to typologically say Rome is in the role of Assyria here.  Especially the Roman Province of Syria which was basically what the Seleucid Empire had declined to.

Josephus talks in-depth about these campaigns.  One battle is clearly placed in the general area of Samaria.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

About Ephraim, All means All

So last year I did my post on Ephraim and the Fullness of The Gentiles.  I stand by that in terms of my rejecting Two House Theology.  The Church is part of Israel but not one specific Tribe.  Ephraim's role in Bible Prophecy is in Revelation 16 in the 6th Bowl.

But I'm more understanding now of the argument that Ephraim becoming "a Multitude of Nations" should be translated "the Fullness of the Gentiles".

Here is what people are missing in terms of connecting Genesis 48 to Romans 9-11.  If Ephraim became the "Fullness" of the Gentiles.  And if ALL Israel will be Saved.  Then logically Everyone will be Saved.

Hence more proof of Unviersalism.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Ezekiel 39 is the Prequel to Ezekiel 38.

The name Gog is in The Bible besides Ezekiel and Revelation.  Everyone knows Magog is, as a son of Japheth.  However I have realized that Gog is as well (and I'm not referring to those Septuagint additions either, this is in the KJV and the Masoretic Text).  But first the main topic for this study.

I did a post on Ezekiel 38 and 39 being after the Millennium, in the context of Chris White's argument.  I wavered there a bit but ultimately came to agree with Chris.  Back then I still supported identifying Magog, Rosh, Meshech and Tubal with Russia, but I've now come to be more willing to agree with White's identifications for the locations of the nations involved also.

I alluded in that post to having once seen but forgotten where an assessment that Ezekiel 39 takes place before Ezekiel 38.  I've now found a website making that argument but I don't think it's what I originally saw.  It argues Ezekiel 39 is Armageddon and Ezekiel 38 is the post Millennial invasion.
I haven't looked at other articles on that site.  I suspect there is plenty else I disagree with, I'm here endorsing only possibly this article.  I left a Comment that may or may not ever get approved where I made some incorrect statements since I didn't think them through well enough.  I'll try to say what I meant to better here.

First, when making an argument like this, it's useful to state that you're aware the modern chapter divisions aren't in the original text.  In this case the first verse of Chapter 39 does make sense as a partial change of topic.  And the last verse of 38 does sound kind of like a conclusion.

Now I have dedicated this Blog to arguing Revelation needs to be interpreted Chronologically.  But the reason I emphasis that is because it's what's distinct about Revelation from other Prophetic books.  Others aren't even all one vision unless it's really short.  And even within one vision or revelation there are reasons why it could suit Yahuah to show some things out of order.  The difference in Revelation is John is being shown a clear sequence of events.  And that the Book defines itself as how to make sense of the rest of The Bible.

So I'm not 100% sure I agree with this view of Ezekiel 38 and 39 yet, but I want to start a conversation about it.

As for why would God show Ezekiel these battles out of order?  Why do so many Historical movies not start at the beginning of what they're going to show?

To the objection that implies it's inaccurate to define Armageddon as an invasion from the north, I wouldn't address that how this article did at all.  The Hill of Megiddo is not the site of the battle but the gathering place of The Beast's Armies.  They are planning to attack Jerusalem, though they may be cut off at Bethel before they get there.  Or they are headed to The Woman's hiding place in The Wilderness (Arabia).  Either way, they are coming to their target from the North, Megiddo was in the Northern Kingdom, close to the northern extremity of what was allotted to Western Manasseh.

It's possible, though maybe a stretch, that Gog is only really an individual in chapter 39, that Ezekiel 38 means Gog as a geographical or tribal indicator.  Some things said in 38 might be a little difficult to interpret that way, but it's possible.  There are other Prophecies where Yahuah seems to speak to nations as if they were individuals.  Also remember that translators sometimes add more pronouns than the original Hebrew directly justifies.

Revelation 20 definitely seems to be using Gog not as a person but as a location or tribe, that is why it (and never Ezekiel) says "Gog and Magog", they are refereed to as two of the same kind of thing.

Meanwhile Ezekiel 39 describes the place where Gog will be buried being named after him.  That will be important later.

Also Ezekiel 39 never directly refers to Magog as being part of the invasion, it says that when the invaders are destroyed he'll also send fire on Magog and "them that dwell carelessly in the Isles".  39 also never mentions Persia, Cush, Phut, Gomer and Togarmah, Tarshish or Sheba and Dedan.

Revelation 20 also gets mistakenly claimed to have all nations involved.  It's just Nations in the four Corners, Ezekiel 38's alliance represents all four corners, Phut in the West, Cush in the South, Persia in the East,  and Gog, Gomer and Togarmah are associated with the north.

I also think Armeggedon may not be as absolutely everyone as people assume.  I've talked on this blog how I view the 6th Bowl of Wrath in Revelation 16 as being about the Scattered House of Ephraim returning to their land, in Northern Manasseh.

Meshech and Tubal can both be associated with ancient Uratu, in modern Kurdistan, near where the Assyrians took the Northern Tribes they deported, and where the Kingdom of Adiabene emerged in the first century.  Uratu also had four ancient Kings named Rusa.  So maybe "Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal", should instead be "Prince Rosh of Meshech and Tubal"?  But also one of these Rusas had a location named after him, Rusahinili.

This article unlike others seeking to identify a Gog invasion with Armageddon, insists Gog can't be The Beast since The Beast is cast into the Lake of Fire, and not killed or buried.  Indeed, it may instead be that Gog is one of the Kings of The East, along with Rosh.  But maybe there are other ways to look at it, who knows.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ezekiel 38 is about the post Millennial Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20.  Ezekiel 39 is either more on that, or it's Armageddon, but there is no Pre-Trib or Mid-Trib Gog and Magog invasion.

Ironically we are now in an era where it's liberals who are paranoid about Russia.

Now what about that reference to Gog I promised?  It's in 1 Chronicles Chapter 5 verses 4-6.  The context is talking about the Tribe of Reuben at the time they were deported by Assyria in about 745 BC.
The sons of Joel: Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son, Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son, Beerah his son, whom Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria carried away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites.
So it seems Joel was a Prince of Reuben at the time of the captivity, and he and his seven sons were carried away into captivity.  And his second Son was named Gog.  The word for Prince used here is Nasi, same as in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

Why am I certain this isn't just a coincidence of names?  Because Ezekiel 39:11 says the place where Gog is buried in east of the sea, all scholars agree the Dead Sea is meant here.  Reuben was one of the trans-Jordan tribes, and the only one who was far enough south to be east of the Dead Sea.  My English language Jerusalem Bible has a footnote here implying that the river Arnon is specifically mentioned.  I'm not sure why it thinks that, might be something lost in translation, but I mention it cause it's consistent with what I just said, the Arnon was meant to be the southern border of Reuben, the border between Reuben and Moab.

So the reason Gog is being associated with persons or peoples separated by over a Thousand Years is I think because it's identifying descent from Gog ben Joel of the Tribe of Reuben.

People who want to interpret Ezekiel as just referring to his own time like to see Gog as Gyges of Lydia.  Well Gyges, who was called Gugu in Assyrian inscriptions, died before Ezekiel's time.  But I do think Gyges could be the same individual as the Gog of 1 Chronicles 5.

The deportation of the Trans-Jordan tribes was in 745 BC.  Gyges reigned from 716 to 678 BC.  If he was Joel's second born son he could have been between 7-20 years old when deported.

Gygyes' story in Greek sources has a lot of myth mingled in.  Needless to say I don't think he was the son of a Dascylus.  The story of him being a Bodyguard could be plausible, sometimes kings have used foreign mercenaries as Bodyguards, like Caligula, and Israelites living in Exile could be attracted to such a job.

The versions of his rise that involves him sleeping with the prior King's wife, have the potential to remind a Biblically literate reader of Reuben's sin.  That could mean one of two things.  The story is made up but Gyges encouraged it out of affinity with his ancestor. Or that it's a trait he inherited.

Gyges could be an ancestor of Cyrus.  A later king of Lydia from his dynasty, Alyattes, had a daughter named Aryenis who married Astagyes of Media and may have been the mother of Cyrus's mother Mandane.  A daughter of Cyrus married Dairus I and was the mother of Xerxes, who was probably an ancestor of Apamea royal wife of Seleucus I, who I've shown were ancestors of Charlemagne.

Cyrus went on to conqueror Lydia, ending Gygyes' dynasty.   At that point you could argue he fully became a successor of Gyges.

Making a Reubanite prince an ancestor of Charlemagne would be interesting to Britam supporters, since they like to make France Reuben.  France having it's own River Arnon is an interesting coincidence.  And it's also interesting here how both Eugene Sue in Les Mysteries du People and Paul Feval in Anne of the Isles (Translated into English by Brian Stableford published by BlackCoatPress) construct fictional narratives with a mythical patriarch of a clan of Pre-Christian and Pre-Roman Gallic (specifically Bretan) France named Joel.

But as interesting as that all is, I think the Gog(s) of Ezekiel and Revelation will be attacking from Turkey or Northern Iraq.

Update: More on Lydia

The city of Sardis wasn't always called that it seems.  Homer called it Hyde, and I agree with the theory that Homer was contemporary with Gyges.  The first surviving reference to it being called Sardis is in the 470s BC.

I've talked on my Revised Chronology Blog about the Sherden/Shardana of the Seas Peoples being linked to both Sardis and Sardinia and possibly descending from the Sardite clan, descendants of Sered of the Tribe of Zebulun in Numbers 26:26.

In Gyges time however the Sherden were not yet native to Sardis, but were among the foreign mercenaries he was using and also recommended to Psamtick I of Egypt (Seti I in my chronology).  The son of a Reubanite prince using members of other Tribes as mercenaries would certainly be interesting.

The Hebrew spelling of Gog in Gimel-Vav-Gimel, and Magog is Mem-Gimel-Vav-Gimel.  But the vav like yot was sometimes used like a vowel in the Masoretic text, so some people theorize for words like this the vav might not have been used originally.  This factors into two theories about the etymology of Gog and Magog.

One is the idea that Magog is a Hebrew code for Babel (Babylon).  If the Vav is dropped then you get Magog from taking the next later after it in the alphabet for each letter of Magog and then turning it backwards.  Gog then becomes just Bab, which means gate in the pagan etymology of Bab-El.  Makes me think of the Persian false prophet known as The Bab.

The other is the theory that Agag might be a related name.  The Septuagint replaces Agag with Gog in Balaam's oracles, in Numbers 24:7.

In the context of looking for Gog in Media or Persia, it's interesting to remember that Haman was called an Agagite (technically his parent, presumably father, was).  The Septuagint additions to Esther has the Persian King call Haman a Macedonian.  Maybe Makedon could be related to Magog somehow?  But also a Macedonian princess named Gygaea married a Persian noble and was the mother of another Persian noble.  Gygaea was also an ancient name for Lake Mamara in Lydia.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel Literal is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or the New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christian agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals. 

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and 'Holy Place" mean inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time viewers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Iapetos could be The Name of The Beast

Iapetos was the name of a Titan from Greek Mythology, is often called today Iapetus or Japetus because of Latinization, but Ἰαπετός Iapetos was the original proper Greek spelling.

Disclaimer up front, I am not arguing Greek Mythology is true and The Antichrist will be a Titan from it.  Or even how many Christians usually tie the Titan Mythology into Genesis 6.  Nor would it require him being anyone who lived in the past returning.  By the end it will make sense why a (completely biologically Homo-Sapien) Jewish Messiah claimant, or maybe even someone claiming to be Jesus, would use this name. Just bear with me.

The spelling has a Greek Gemetria value of Six Hundred and Sixty Six.
Iota=10, Alpha=1, Pi=80, Epsilon=5, Tau=300, Omicron=70, Sigma=200.

This spelling is also 7 letters, and no repeats, 7 different Greek letters.  Why do I find that significant?  At the start of Chapter 13 John says the Name of Blasphemy was written on the seven heads of the Beast.  I've long had a hunch this is the name being dealt with at the end, just not sure what to make of it.  Here I think it possible that each Head had one letter.  Perhaps I could go deeper with that, but not today.

A few Greek names are known to have had this value.  Irenaus and Hippolytos and other Early Church Fathers speculated on some, but didn't notice this one.  Though Tietan, a bizarre I don't think attested anywhere else spelling of Titan, is included, and a Titan is what Iapetos was in Greek Mythology.  I'm not quite the first to notice this however, a google search for Iapetos 666 will mainly turns up stuff about a Metal band (I haven't listened to them).  But no Bible Study seriously looking into it.  At first I myself while excited to have stumbled on this didn't think too much of it.

But then I read how the name is usually interpreted to mean The Piercer.  It's thought to come from the word iapto which means wound or pierce, and usually refers to a spear.  Most scholars think this meaning is meant to apply the idea of mortality to him.

All that is stuff right from Wikipedia.  I myself think it could also be possible to interpret it's derivation from that word as meaning Pierced or Wounded.  Which can make us think of Revelation 13 even if we didn't already have the Gemetria connection.  But maybe The Beast would want both the Piercer and Pierced meanings to apply to him, he was Pierced, but after being healed intends to Peirce his enemies.

I will return to Etymology later.

Homer mentions Iapetos in the Iliad (8.478–81) as being in Tartaros with Kronos. He is a brother of Kronos, who ruled the world during the Golden Age.  2 Peter 2:4 uses Tartaros as a name for The Abyss, The Beast ascends out of The Bottomless Pit.

The importance of that Homer reference has to do with how the idea of all the Titans being in Tartaros comes later, at first it was just these two.  Given how little we know of Iapetos, and how Homer and Hesiod come after Greek Mythology had already changed in many ways.  It could be Iapetos and Kronos were originally the same.

Egyptian mythology also has more then one Underworld god.  Anubis is like Hades is seemingly existing only to rule there.  The other is Osiris who similar to the Titans originally ruled the world of the living but then was killed.  The Pharaoh is Horus in life and Osiris in death.

It is believed there was an underworld god among the Semites named Shalman, the god of the Theophoric Assyrian name Shalmanezzer.  Possibly related to the Hebrew name Shalim meaning Dusk.  In Egyptian Mythology the land of the Dead was also called The West, Amentis, because it was where they believe the Sun traveled from West to East during the Night.  It's not difficult to connect these names to the name of Solomon, as Shalim and Shalem are very similar if not identical in spelling.  And I've argued elsewhere adding an N to the name of Shalmo to get Solomon isn't just a result of the Greek.  And these are speculated to be related to the Greek Salmoneus, another King imprisoned in Tartaros.  In the Septuagint Solomon is spelled Salomon.

Solomon is linked to the number 666 in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13.  He was a type of Christ early on when he was doing well, but later he fell into Idolatry.  Even the fact that he built a palace for himself that took 4 years longer to build then The Temple is perhaps a sign of this.  That will be a subject in the future.  But this connection is still only as a type.

I've also talked on this Blog about how The Beast may seek to be an Adam figure.  That one of the titles of Christ he may claim for himself is The Last Adam.  How part of the reason his name adding up to 666 means something may be a connection to the 6th day of Creation being the day Adam was made.  And understanding The Image of The Beast begins with Adam being made in The Image of God.  And that maybe his deception will draw on false teaching that say Genesis 1 and 2 are about two different Adams.

Iapetos in Greek Mythology is made an ancestor of the entire Human Race.  Two of his sons are Prometheus and Epimetheus.  Prometheus is the father of Deucalion, the Noah figure of one of Greek Mythology's Flood Legends.  And Epimetheus married Pandora (arguably an Eve figure) and had Pyrrha, the wife of Deucalion.

It may be interesting to note that being the Granfather of the Flood Survivor gives basis to identify Iapetos with Methuselah, who's name means "His death shall bring" making an interesting connection for the mortality association.

The Flood connection is a good place to get into how many Creationists (including myself), and even some purely Secular people doing comparative mythology like Robert Graves, see this name as being derived from Yaphet/Japheth.  Greek mythology is very garbled and so a son of the Flood survivor became an ancestor.  Not unlike Rammah son of Kush becoming Rama with a son named Kush in Hindu mythology. 

The secular scholars however tend to do so from a desire to late date as much of Genesis as they can and say Genesis took the name from the Greeks.  While Iapetos makes sense as an archaic Greek transliteration of Japheth, if it went the other way I wouldn't expect Japheth to be spelt with only three letters.

This can be a good time to look at how Japheth fits into typological themes of The Bible.

In Genesis 9:27.
 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
The word for Tents here is Ophel and is definitely used of the Mishkan/Holy Tabernacle elsewhere.   This can be seen as anticipating Romans 9-11 and Galatians talk of Gentiles being grafted unto Israel.  That is good, I love the Adoption theme of The Bible.

The Problem is how many, including some in the Hebrew Roots movements, tie that into British Israelism and Two House Theology.  Seeing Ephraim and the Northern Kingdom become intermingled beyond distinction with the descendants of Japheth.  Cimmerians linked to both Gomer and Omri, Scythians linked to both Magog and Israel, The Irish linked to Magog and Judah's son Zarah and later the House of David.  And all of Britam's identifications.  I do see some truth in plenty of that kind of stuff, but it also gets tied into Racist and Nationalist political agendas.

And many of these are expecting a Messiah Ben-Joseph.  Christ White has argued for The Antichrist claiming to be Messiah Ben-Joseph independent of the Lost Tribes aspect.  And I disagree with many aspects of his argument especially Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon, but have explored how that could tie into the Lost Tribes issue.

I have a growing hunch The Antichrist will be using much rhetoric taken from the Hebrew Roots movement.  That he'll talk about Nimrod basically plagiarizing Rob Skiba.  And that includes their reverence for The Book of Jasher, which paints Nimrod as Evil and says he fought a War with Japheth.  There may be other sources for this Japheth vs Nimrod mythology, I'm unsure.

I've said before I think there may be Decoy Antichrists, including the Terrible of The Nations who will rule Babylonia.  And that The Terrible of The Nations will be an enemy of The Antichrist, and probably who wounds him.

Of all the people who are types of Christ in The Hebrew Bible, it's interesting how it was Joshua of all of them who shares his actual name.  The Shia Muslim reverence of Ali draws a lot on seeing Ali as the Joshua to Muhammad's Moses.  Well in this un-Biblical Jasher mythology, Japheth becomes arguably the Joshua to Noah's Moses.

Now some Creationists talking about Iapetos as Japheth have claimed Iapetos makes no sense in Greek etymology at all.  And in fairness there are real Greek scholars who have questioned the etymology I discussed above.

But what I want to talk about is how that commonly accepted Etymolgoy for Iapetos can be more consistent with Japheth's Hebrew eytmolgoy then you might think.

Going back to Genesis 9:27, the use of Enlarge there is a known pun, as Japheth's name is derived from that Hebrew word, phathah.  But this verse is the only time the KJV translates it Enlarge.  It's also sometimes words like Entice or Beguile, where sometimes a sexual connotation is implied in the context.  And the Strongs definition suggests it could mean "to open".  So the idea of Piercing could come from it, especially as things get clouded through a change in language.

A Yot added at the beginning of a name is often a sign of being Yah theophoric. Yeshua itself is an example of a Yahuah theophoric being contracted to the point where the letter Yot is all that represents the Holy Name.  Now I don't think Japheth was a Yah theophoric name, but I think a future false Messiah deifying himself while going by that name could seek to re-imagine it as one.

Those who out of ignorance of how First Century Greek worked try to claim Iesous is really a pagan name.  May add that they feel a transliteration of a Yah theophoric name should have an Alpha after the Iota.  But in Greco-Rroman times all Semitic names beginning with Yot began with Iota-Eta.  And that included Japheth in the Septuigant. But this rule wasn't a factor in more archaic times when the spelling of Iapetos was standardized.  And given the many Semtic via Phonecian influences on Greek, I wonder if Iasus might derive from a more ancient Greek form of Yeshua?

So I can easily imagine a false Messiah Ben-Joseph etymologically connecting himself to Japheth.  And interpreting the name Iapetos to mean either "Yah pierced" or "Yah Piercer".  And either those proposed meaning could have opposite proposed interpretation depending on if he identifies himself with Yahuah or rejects the name of Yahuah.  "Pierced by Yah" or "Yah is pierced".  And "Yah the Piercer" or "the Piercer of Yah".  There are multiple options.

And the Hebrew Gemetria value of the Hebrew spelling of Japheth being 490 he could argue a Biblical Numerical significance for, being 70 times 7.  I've suggested before that the Antichrist might claim to be the Messiah the 70 weeks points to.

And so I feel I have made my case.  What's below is just a supplemental epilogue and not part of the main thesis. 

For those who want to cling to the Hexagram having some connection to the Mark of The Beast because of the Seal of Solomon/Ring of Solomon mythology.  Which I talked a little about yesterday.  You could easily place one letter of Iapetos, probably the first, Iota, in the middle and the remaining six letters in each point.

It becomes interesting then that the moon of Saturn that has become named after Iapetos is hard to look at without thinking of Hexagons and Hexagrams because of it's unique appearance.  Saturn was the roman name for Kronos, so to keep that theme all or most of Saturn's moons were given names with a Titan connection, including one simply named Titan.

In the novel of Arthur C Clarke's 2001:A Space Odyssey, the Black Alien Monolith is on Iapetus.  But the movie changed it to a moon of Jupiter because they couldn't figure out how to do Saturn's Rings.  (Yet people think Kubrick directed to rehearse a NASA faked Moon Landing).  This fact is a factor in why I imagine Iapetus when thinking of William Scnebelen's Cathedral of Pain story about being taken to a Moon of Saturn, even though Bill doesn't specify which moon at all.

There are lots of Ancient Aliens related fringe theories about Iapetus.  Including that it's an artificially created moon comparable to The Death Star.  Tom Horn advanced a Christianized version of these ideas placing Tartaros/The Abyss inside Iapetus rather then The Earth.  I no longer believe that theory, but the idea that the Star approaching the Earth in Revelation 9 after the 5th Angel Sounds could be Iapetos remains in my mind.  Remphan being known to refer to Saturn I view as possibly support for Satan's Throne being on one of it's moons.

But that astronomical stuff is not that important.

Update May 27 2017: More on Bill Cooper's After The Flood, and Japheth and Noah in Pagan in mythologies.

There is a lot of agreement on Iapetos being derived from Japheth.  But Bill Cooper's other identifications for Japheth are more controversial.  And while I love his research, it does have flaws.

I've already talked about how flawed I feel his argument for Sceaf (once rendered Seth) as Japheth is.  I've contemplated using the Seth variant to identify him with Set of Egyptian mythology, or one of the Seti's of the 19th Dynasty named after him.  And I may engage in further speculation on that in the future.

And his Iupater/Jupiter argument is silly, that etymology is clearly simply Father-Jove.  If the Spear association of Iapetos is correct, then Quirinus may be the Latin form of him.  As far as appendix 11 goes.  Dardanus was a descendant of both Iapetos and Jupiter because his parents in Greek mythology were Zeus and Electra daughter of Atlas son of Iapetos.

But I want to defend the Pra-Japati connection.  Arguing Prajapati is Japheth gets written off since it has a seemingly clear etymology, Praja-Pati, "Lord of The People".  But Prajapati was definitely viewed as a god of procreation, which fits what I pointed out above about the etymology of phathah.

And the name Prajapati is also linked to the family of the Flood survivor, Manu in Hindu mythology.  But this time rather then a descendant or ancestor Prajapati is a title of Manu, being a progenitor.  But the name of Prajapati is applied to ancestors of Manu as well.

Manu as a Hindu name for Noah is interesting to speculate on, since Man as a word for Human probably comes from the same Proto Indo-European origin (Man was not originally gender specific, Woman means Man with a Womb) it is used in Bible translations for Adam and Enosh, words for Human, and Ish and Zakar, works for Male.

Manes is an obscure name in Greek texts thought to be a Hellenized form of it.  He was the the first King of Maeonia, but mainly an ancestor of early Kings of Lydia.  His son was Atys and Atys son was Lydus/Ludos, the namesake of Lydia.  In the Bible the namesake of Lydia is Lud/Lod the son of Shem son of Noah.

Manu the Great is also a Chaledean god of Fate.  It is usually said there probably isn't a connection between him and the Hindu Manu, but Prajapati is also a god of time and fate.

The Hebrew name Noah or Noach is Strong number 5146, it means Rest or Comfort.  A related Hebrew word carrying similar meaning is Nacham, Strong number 5162.  But another Hebrew name comes from that, by adding a Mem as a prefix you get Manehem/Menahem.  So adding a similar prefix to Noah, which would carry the meaning of "from Noah" would get Menoah or Manoah, the name of Samson's father.

Could Manu be a corruption of that name?  And perhaps even Menes as the first Pharaoh of Egypt was as well?

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Beast of The Earth from the Koran.

My attitude towards Islamic Antichrist/Mahdi theories has been long and complicated.

One factor is I used to say that if the Beast out of the Sea does claim to be the Islamic Mahdi, that I doubted the second assumption of The False Prophet aka the Beast out of The Earth claiming to be the Islamic Isa/Jesus would be correct.

Then I changed my mind on that as I learned more.  I showed from Scripture that the False Prophet being a Counterfeit Jesus does make sense independent of reading Islamic eschatology into it.  But now, I've again noticed something others talking about Islamic Eschatology miss.

The Koran, which doesn't mention The Mahdi, does mention a Beast of The Earth, it actually calls it that, but doesn't depict this Beast as Evil, it's depicted as good.
And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.
— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82
 And from a Hadith, though it's considered weak.
Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "A beast will emerge from the earth. With it shall be the ring of Sulaiman (Solomon) and the staff of Musa (Moses). It will brighten the face of the believer, and stamp the nose of the disbeliever with the ring, such that when the people gather to eat, it will be said to this one: 'O believer! and to that one: 'O disbeliever!'"
— Jami' Al-Tirmidhi; English: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3187; Arabic: Book 47, Hadith 3490
Could this Brightening the Faces have some connection to the Mark of The Beast in the Forehead?

Many Christian commentators think The False Prophet will claim to be the Prophet like Unto Moses.  This beast claiming to have the Staff of Moses could fit that.  The New Testament tells us that Prophet is Jesus.  But many even claiming to be Christians want to give that title to someone else, like Muslims arguing it was Muhammad.  And those who want to make Moses one of the Two Witnesses say this Prophecy is about a second coming of Moses.  I haven't seen it yet but it wouldn't surprise me if some Jews think that will be fulfilled by Elijah.

Since The Mahdi was added to Islamic Eschatology later.  One could argue that the demonic forces behind The Koran originally just intended Isa to be the Antichrist and this Beast the False Prophet.

But maybe it's possible for a Muslin today to try and argue this Beast in this Sura was a symbol of Isa, just as the New Testament Apocalypse Symbolized Jesus as the Arnion (usually translated Lamb but could be Goat or Ram).  And indeed The Beast out of The Earth has Horns like an Arnion.  And Jesus did Descend into the Heart of The Earth.  Contrary to what most Muslims think The Koran doesn't contradict Jesus dying on The Cross but affirms it.

Having The Ring of Solomon could be a sign of being an Heir to Solomon and thus being Messiah Ben-David.  But in this extra Biblical Lore about Solomon (it's not unique to Islam) Solomon used this Ring/Seal to perform Magick and control Demons/Shedim/Jinn.  The Ring is also said to have the Divine Name in-graved on it.  And I would guess it's normally depicted as being worn on the Right Hand.

This is perhaps a good time to remember that the number 666 was linked to Solomon, and the Hexagram has been linked to the Seal of Solomon, which many have sought to connect to the Number of The Beast.  And in one Legend the Ring of Solomon is thrown into the Sea to be returned to Solomon later by a Sea Animal.

What if the Ring of Solomon here is going to be used like a Ring a King would give to a Regent?

More importantly, there is a reason the Ring of Solomon and Seal of Solomon are treated as synonyms when you study this lore.  Because a King's Seal was often on his Ring which he would use to place his Seal on documents and so forth, but he might also give the Ring to someone else to give them authority to seal things in his name.  Revelation is definitely drawing on this imagery in Chapter 7 with the 144,000.  And The Mark is frequently viewed as Satan's inferior copy of that.

Again, my take on studying these False Prophecies is that I think Satan makes all of them as potential seeds for The Antichrist.  But that doesn't mean for certain that this false Prophecy is what The Antichrist will wind up using.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

The Ark of The Covenant

This post is a follow up of sorts to my The Mercy Seat is Not a Throne post.  I stand by all my main points made there, but I want to talk about some other issues related to The Ark I've studied since then, some of which may provide new context to what I discussed there.  And some of that material will be retreaded here.

This is partly about how I've become more skeptical of my past support of it being in Aksum.

1: Contents of The Ark

Hebrews 9:4 indicated that in addition to The Tablets, The Ark also contained the Rod of Aaron, and the Jar of Manna.  This is often viewed as a contradiction because of 1 Kings 8:9.
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahuah made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
II Chronicles 5:10 says the same thing.  However these verses are set at the consecration of Solomon's Temple, after The Ark had been captured for awhile by The Philistines.  They may have taken the other objects in there but didn't see any value in broken stone tablets.

Hebrews 9 is referring to the Time of Moses. Exodus 16:33-34 says the Pot of Manna was placed before Yahuah and before the Testimony.  That could be consistent with in the same container, The Ark.  Numbers 17:10 says the same about Aaron's Rod.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26 adds a Scroll, presumably the first Torah Scroll, though one that timeline wise wouldn't have included Deuteronomy, into the Ark.  Why would Hebrews 9 leave that out?  Hebrews hardly contradicts more being in there, it's likely the writer was more drawing on verses set at an earlier point in the timeline of the wondering.

2. Was it in The Temple in the days of Hezekiah?

In Kings the last clear reference to The Ark is during he reign of Solomon.   In Chronicles this is also true save one verse from the Reign of Josiah which implies it had already left but that it might be possible to get it back.. More on that later.

But 2 Kings 19:15 is often cited as proof that it was there in the time of Hezekiah, because he "prayed before Yahuah, and said, O Yahuah God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim".  And they assume this term must always refer to the Cherubim on The Mercy Seat.

But Solomon's Temple had some things The Tabernacle didn't.  One of those was it's own larger pair of Cherubim in the of The Holy of Holies, placed there already before The Ark was brought to it.  This is recorded in 1 Kings 6 starting in verse 23 (The Ark was brought to The Temple in chapter 8) and 2 Chronicles 3 starting in verse 10 (The Ark was brought there in chapter 5).

And it also could just be a poetic title of Yahuah based on his dwelling between the actual living Cherubim in his Heavenly Throne Room.

So it could have been there at that time.  But we have no direct proof it was.

3. Could Shishak have taken it?

Once one accepts there is no proof of it still being there later. It becomes easy to conclude the most logical option is Shishak took it.  The movie Raiders of The Lost Ark is based on this assumption.  And as I said before a belief it could be in Egypt might be key to some End Times deceptions.

On my Revised Chronology blog I talk about Shishak a lot, to some degree I've changed my mind about him over it's history.  In one post (at the time I'm first writing this the most recent on the Shishak tag, dated November 4th 2016 though I've edited it since then) I pointed out overlooked aspects of the Chronicles account that showed no battle was fought, Rehoboam was convinced by a Prophet to willingly hand over tribute.

To me that makes it unlikely The Ark was taken then, Rehoboam would have stripped The Temple of all the purely decorative Gold.  But they wouldn't have handed over The Ark.  The Prophet's words were obeyed to avoid something that tragic.

4. What do I think of 2 Maccabees?

If that story is true The Ark was hidden in a cave on Mt Sinai/Horeb.  Which I've argued recently could be in Yemen but I'm not going all in on that.  I certainly view it as in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But I've grown more skeptical of Jabal el Laws.

However I have argued against giving credence to the Deutercanonical books.  So I don't think that's what happened.

5. Where do I think The Ark is?

The Bible tells us, in the Book named for the premise that it is Revealing mysteries to us.  In The Book of Revelation chapter 11, after the 7th Trumpet is sounded in it's very last verse.
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Now I know the counter argument, "The Tabernacle was modeled after The Temple in Heaven, so this is just what The Ark copied".  But you see what makes The Ark different is it's the one thing that wasn't an exact replica, it's there in place of the Four Living Cherubim.

This is the fate of The Ark being reveled to The World at the time The Beast is setting up his deception which I think may include a counterfeit.  Michael Rood who supports the Ron Wyatt theory I debunked, sees The Ark as possibly relevant to the Covenant of Daniel 9.  If there is an end times significance to the 70th Week, I think he's right but for the wrong reason.

5a. When did it leave Earth for Heaven?

Ezekiel 10 describes when Yahuah's divine presence left Solomon's Temple shortly before the fall to Nebuchadnezzar., and it's been noted how in that presence never returned to The Second.  Though The New Testament support it having some Holy Spirit presence till Pentecost, via John 4.  I think what only The First Temple had was The Word/Logos, while the second had only the Spirit.

The account of it's leaving makes reference to the Cherubim.  Maybe Yahuah took The Ark with him?

6. What about Jeremiah 3:16
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith Yahuah, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of Yahuah: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
My Mercy Seat post refuted seeing The Mercy Seat in verse 17.

But I also saw recently someone argue that because no on could enter the Holy of Holies in Ancient Israel, even the beginning of the condition described as ending here hasn't happened yet.  That is a massive abuse of the text, the intent here is clearly to allude to the Pilgrimage Festivals.  Under the New Testament we no longer need to go to Jerusalem or Shiloh or Bethel to observe those Feasts, because now WE are God's Temple and Tabernacle.  Wherever we gather He is there.  So I agree with the face value reading that this means the purpose of the Ark is served, it has one last function when the 7th Trumpet sounds and that is it.

7. Were there two Ark of the Covenants?

The last and most shocking issue I shall cover.

In Exodus it is clear that the first Tablets, which God made directly and which were broken.  Were placed in The Ark made of Gold that has The Mercy Seat as it's lid.  And that Ark was made by Bazael.

Deuteronomy 10 says 40 years later God had Moses on his own make another Ark of only Wood and placing the second set of Tablets inside them.  Some see this as a contradiction and evidence of the Documentary Hypothesis.  But it's perfectly consistent if one considers that God wanted a second humbler Ark to be made for some reason.

Attempts to figure this mystery out by saying something like the Ark of Yahuah is the Golden one and the Ark of God is the Wooden one won't bear out, both are used interchangeably of the Ark the Philisintes captured.

Talmudic tradition actually says there were two Arks.  Rashi's assessment that the Wooden one was the only one use din battle accept when The Philsitines took it as a punishment, I'm not sure will bear out. Though it might agree with the theory that the Wooden Ark became the Drum of Thunder of The Lemba tribe.

In my post on Bethel The House o God I attempted to explain why Judges 20 placed The Ark in Bethel when other verses say it was in Shiloh all that time.  If there were two Arks then we have a possibly simpler answer.

Aven(Also rendered On) and Bethaven are used in The Bible of two locations.  On/Heliopolis in Egypt.  And a place near Bethel in Joshua 7:2, but also seems to be used as a synonym for Bethel in Hosea and Amos after Bethel became home to Jeroboam's Idol. Samuel 14:18-23 possibly also The Ark with Bethaven.

I recently argued that Zion, Which is The City of David is Bethlehem, not Jebus as popularly assumed.  One area where my argument gets difficult in the time frame from when David Brings The Ark to Zion after becoming sole ruler, to Solomon placing it is his Temple.  There being Two Arks could solve some of that.

Now I return to that verse from the time of Josiah.  2 Chronicles 35:3.
"Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now Yahuah your God, and his people Israel"
I notice that he didn't say "did Build for it".  Maybe the Ark in question here was never previously in Solomon's Temple?

I think the Ark of Gold with The Mercy Seat as it's Lid is what had those other objects placed in it.  And that it was kept in The Tabernacle with the other Holy Relics built for The Tabernacle.  And as such it was at Shiloh all through The Judges period, and then got taken by The Philistines and wound up at Kirithjearim.  When it was separate form The Tabernacle of Meeting, the Tabernacle had no Ark while it was at Nob then Gibeon.

I think the Ark of Wood was in Bethel all through the Judges period and still so down into the Reign of Saul and even the start of David's Reign.

During the reigns of David and the start of Solomon's reign I'm not always sure which Ark is where.  I think he originally brought the Ark from Kirithjearim to Zion, but may have brought the other to Mt Moriah after he purchased it.

But The Ark of Gold was the one Solomon originally placed in The Temple.  And perhaps the other was placed in the Tabernacle of David in Zion when he moved the Daughter of Pharaoh out of there.  And later that Wooden Ark was the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 35.

7a. Which one do I think was taken to Heaven?

Very likely both.

If one is still on Earth it's the Wooden lesser one.  But it might have had a Counterfeit Mercy Seat, designed to look like a Throne placed on it.  Maybe it's in Aksum, and had been on Tana Kirikos and at Elephantine.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

England and Edessa

On another blog the other day I did a post theorizing that the early traditions of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus and the later ones taking her to southern France are perhaps explained by the first Christians of Lyon coming from Ephesus.

Since making that, I decided to look into traditions about the early Briton Church again, which as usual lead me to Simon Zelotes, the only one of the Twelve that I think could have come to Britain.  Of other traditions about where he went, I totally reject ones making him the same as Simon the Half Brother of Jesus, or the Simon who was the second Bishop o Jerusalem.  For reasons explained in my post on the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus.  Other aspects of that post may be relevant later.

He's said to have spent some time in Egypt but no claims that Egypt is where he died.  The same Disciple being linked to both Briton and Egypt could be interesting in light of my England and Egypt post.  (My calling this post England and Edsessa is kinda misleading since it's mostly about pre Anglo-Saxon Britons, but I wanted to repeat that previous double E phonetic effect.)

What's most interesting is Simon's link to Edessa, many traditions seem to also pair him with Jude//Thadeus, who is even more strongly linked to Edessa.  The associations with Aremnia/Ibera of the Caucus could have to do with Moses of Khorene treating Agbar of Edessa as part of Armenia's legacy.  And them being said to go to Persia may have to do with Edessa being a Parthian client kingdom during much of the first century.

The key thing is that as soon as I realized Simon Zelotes who I'd long knew was sometimes said to come to Britannia had also been associated with Edessa.  I immediately thought of how King Abgar the IX and/or X of Edessa is theorized to be who the Liber Pontificals actually meant by King Lucius of Britain.

This is more complicated then the Ephesus to Lyon connection for three reasons.

1. That a group of Christians came to Lyon from Ephesus in the later Second Century is a known fact independent of thinking the development of traditions about Mary Magdelene had anything to do with it.  While here I admittedly have little to go on to prove anyone ever came from Edessa/Osroene to Britain during the time frame in question.

2. I don't think this migration is the sole or even primary origin of Briton Christianity, as the Ephesus to Lyon connection seems to be.  Tertulian and I think also Irenaus have quotes showing Christians were in Britain already before the time of Abgar IX.  And I still think Aristobulus of Romans 16 came to Britain as there are no alternate traditions for him.

3. Simon Zelotes like all of the Twelve I think did more traveling around then Mary Magdalene did, who traditions take only to Ephesus and much later France.  So maybe he individually did go to both places, (especially since he's said to have come to Britannia twice, in the early 40s and in 60), while I'm certain Mary was never actually in France.  But there are some reasons in the New Testament to think the Twelve went mainly to places with a very strong Jewish presence, which Edessa had in the first century, but Britannia did not.  Acts 2:9-11 mentions Mesopotamia and Arabians (Osroene was an Arabian kingdom in Mesopotamia) present at Pentecost but not Britain or Gaul.  I think Paul lead the way West while the Twelve focused mainly on the East (I've already shown that Peter didn't go to Rome). I'm interested in theories of Paul coming to Britain but haven't looked that deep into it yet, the main book on it is pretty expensive.

Much of ancient Osroene was in modern Syria (but all of it East/North of the Euphrates).  But it had chunks of Iraq and modern Turkey, including Edessa itself and the city possibly responsible for the Lucius in Britain scribal Error, Birtha aka Birecik.

Bede added to the Lucius of Britain story that under him the whole country converted and remained Christian at least until the Diocletian Persecution. Elsewhere this persecution is not known to have had any notable incidents in Britain, in fact it seems it wasn't enforced in The West much at all.  But major focal points of much of it were in Turkey and in the East.  Logically, this may have been a time when many Christians in the East migrated West.

Another figure controversially associated with both Turkey and Britain is Empress Helena, but in this case it's her beginning not end that is being disputed.  The source for her being born in Nicodemia is not till the 6th Century, and seems to be based on her and Constantine's later connections to Nicodemia.  So I'm inclined to doubt she was born there.  But the problem with the much later traditions of her being born a Briton princess is that Constantius Chlorus didn't come to Britain til within a year before he died there, and Constantine was already an adult.

I think maybe an overlooked clue to Helena's origin is her name.  Before her the only royal families Helena would have been a dynastic name for are Osroene and Adiabene, who intermarried with each other.  Helen of Adiabene married Abgar V of Edessa after her first husband died.  I think the two later kings of Osroene called Bar Ezad were sons of Helena's son Izates II of Adiabene.  So just as mythical Welsh genealogies make Empress Helena a descend of Lucius of Britain, I think she may really have been a descendant of Lucius Abgar of Birecik.

Regardless of Constantine's ancestry, his descents I think include many monarchs of the British Isles right down to the present.... but first.

Both the other wife of Constantius, and the only wife of Constanine who is ancestral to his successors, Fausta, were daughters of Eutropia.  A woman of seemingly noble origin in Roman Syria.  And so I think very likely to descend from the Near Eastern Roman aristocracy that descended from Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene and thus from the Seleucid Dynasty.  And also from daughters of the Ptolemaic Dynasty like Cleopatra Thea, Tryphenea and Cleopatra Selene.  So this post is again further backing for making British Royalty descendants of Egyptian Royalty.

Flavia Maxima Constantia, was a granddaughter of Constantine, and a descendant of both daughters of Eutropia.  She married the Western Emperor Gratian.  They are in mainstream history presumed to have had no children, but they were married for long enough, and there's a lot of time that Constantia isn't mentioned.  How she died at only 21 max isn't known, maybe she died in child birth.  If Gratian had any "legitimate" children it was by her, he died before he could even have consummated his second marriage.

Welsh traditions say that Magnus Maximus was married to a daughter of Gratian named either Helena or Ellen.  Welsh genealogies sometimes say he had two wives, one named Helena and one Ellen.  One a daughter of Gratian and the other of a mysterious Eudaf.  Eudaf is a name used in other welsh texts to refer to Octavian Caesar Augustus, whether the name actually comes from Octavian or Augustus is hard to tell, but this is why the Eudaf who is a father in law of Maximus is sometimes given as a King Octavius of Britain.  Gratian's full name as Emperor was Flavius Gratainus Augustus, so I think his daughter was the only wife of Magnus Maximus.

Welsh genealogies put Magnus Maximus in the ancestry of a lot of people.  There may be a route to put him in the ancestry of the Kings of Gwynedd from whom came the Medieval princes of Wales from whom came The Tudors.  But I want to focus on the Scottish connection here.

Rigrawst was the wife of King Brychan of Brycheiniog.  Born 468 AD, she was the daughter of Gwrtheyrn ap Gwidol (Vortigern) and Severa Ferch Mascsen, the daughter of Magnus Maximus. [ Brian Daniel Starr, The Life of Saint Brychan: King of Brycheiniog and Family (Google eBook) (Brian Daniel Starr, 2008) page 59.]  Brychan himself may through his mother descend from Maximus's daughter Gratiana who is said to have married Tudwall of Galloway.

Dyfnwal Hen was a King of Strathclyde.  The Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd, a later genealogy of northern kings, gives a modified version of Dyfnwal's family tree.[Bromwich, pp. 256–257] Here, he is the son of Idnyued and the grandson of Magnus Maximus.  There are also genealogies making Dyfnwal an ancestor of Gabran mac Domangairt, father of Aeden mac Gabran, from whom descends most later royalty of Scotland, from Malcolm and Duncan of Macbeth (possibly Macbeth himself) down to the Davids and Alexanders, then to Robert The Bruce and eventually the Stuarts including James I ancestor of all Kings of Britain since.  Brychan I've also seen listed as an ancestor of Gabran.

I did a post in the past on Adiabene where I theorized that Izates II or Monobaz II or both could have married Half-Sisters of Jesus.  I also have a post on Arthruain Legend and Grail Romances where I draw on that post and my Half Brothers of Jesus post and theorize that King Kalafes of Grail Legend may be based on Abgar of Edessa.  And maybe Bron was actually Izatez or Monobaz.  A daughter of Kalafes married a son of Bron who inherited his Kingdom.  I've already suggested that the Davidic Exilarchs of the Jewish Community in Mesopotamia could also descent from Abgar and Izates.  And also the Bagatrid Dynasty. 

I don't think Joseph of Arimathea actually came to Britain.  But some things about the Grail legend are geographically contradictory.  For example Sarras is said to be both an island they stopped on on the way to Britain, and "on the road from Jerusalem to the Euphrates and Babylon", which makes me wonder if it could be meant to be Sura, which was linked by a roman road to Palmyra in antiquity.

If Josephus is correct that the Tadmor of Solomon was Palmyra, then maybe it's allegorically what the Grail lore meant by the "Ship of Solomon", while also bringing in Celtic Pagan ideas.  When Wikipedia attempts to cast doubt on this identification, it says the Tadmor of 1 Kings 9:18 was built in Judea, that is demonstrably wrong because that verse clearly says Tadmor and Baalath were built "In the Wilderness" a term that refers to the deserts of Arabia, Jordan and Syria.  The "in the Land" phrase just means within what was was promised to Abraham which extended all the way to the Euphrates.  We know from Assyrian inscriptions that Palmyra was called Tadmor/Tadmar.

According to the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal and Estoire del Saint Graal, Galahad is of the Lineage of Solomon via his descent from the Fisher Kings, and that is why the "Ship of Solomon" is important.  The Grail saga ends with Galahad and the Grail being taken to heaven as Sarras, and then Sir Bors lives on to tell the tale.

If Sarras is Sura then Corbenic could be identified with a city of Osroene or Adiabene.  Which also makes it interesting that the region it lies in is called Eden in Perlevaus, as contrary to many theories, The Bible places Eden in northern Mesopotamia.  And Castle Mortal would be another city of the same area.

The traditional timeline for King Arthur is 516-537 based on the Annals Cambrie, but Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Brute Tyslo place his death in 542.  The Exilarch at that time was Mar Ahunai, but he never operated publicly due to the fall out of his predecessor Mar Zutra II's failed rebellion (496-502 AD).  Mar Zutra II also had a son, Mar Zutra III, who became head of an academy.

The Bagatrid descent would at this time be represented by the father, or grandfather or maybe even great-grandfather of Guaram I, the first Prince of Iberia.  This Guaram was the son of a Solomon son of Dahn son of Isaac son of Aser.

But perhaps the real forgotten inspiration of this was that via Empress Helena the descendants of the Agbars of Edessa becomes kings in the British Isles.