Monday, February 27, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you believe in Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theories, the 12 signs of the Zodiac form a circle.  Often also believed to correlate to the Israelites encampment around The Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers.

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

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

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

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

Saturday, February 25, 2017

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update October 22nd 2017:  I may abandon this.

Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view.  I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple.  However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction.  The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death.  He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.

And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here.  And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there.  Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.

As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference.  They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp.  I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.

Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer

I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately.  I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage.  I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to.  But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.

My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by me observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon.  But not entirely.  I"m still uncertain about much of this.

Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models.  Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it.  The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.

So I've still come to reject this theory.

Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany

BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.

But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany.  So that becomes an interesting connection.

Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Is The White Horseman of Revelation 19 someone other than Jesus?

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

Plus that term is secular in origin, being a term for an "emperor" a King who rules other Kings. And as such can apply to David and Solomon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update March 4th 2017:

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

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

Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah.  And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium.  (From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.)  Zechariah possibly calls the Horse Judah, David's Tribe.

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