And perhaps also his corresponding site for Golgotha, even though I had been hostile to it at first. But aspects of how he makes the argument are still wrong.
First because Zion the City of David was not Jerusalem at all but Bethlehem. But what that means is verses saying the Ark was taken out of the City of David when placed in the Temple are no longer against Cornuke's site. I do believe what we today call the Old City was Jebus, and perhaps remained the entirety of Jerusalem until the return from Captivity. Perhaps Nob and Gibeon were what we now call The Temple Mount?
Another argument against Cornuke's site is saying a threshing floor wouldn't be near a Spring because of contamination risks. But I have also argued that The Temple wasn't on the threshing floor, the threshing floor must be east of Jerusalem since Yahuah stopped there approaching Jerusalem. Maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 is just saying aspects of the Construction began there, perhaps materials were built and ritually purified there before being moved into the city. Genesis 22 tells me that Moriah is the site of the Crucifixion not The Temple.
Stephen in Acts 7:44-50 says Solomon didn't follow David's intent for The Temple. I think the Eschatological Tabernacle will be Zion.
As far as if what we today call the Gihon Spring is the Biblical Gihon, well what the name Gihon refers to is the most confusing subject of all, since it's a River in Genesis 2. And if you don't think that's the same Gihon then you can't prove the Gihon associated with Solomon's coronation is the same one associated with Hezekiah either.
I still think it's possible the first and second Temples weren't on the same spot. If Cornuke's site is only one of them it's probably Solomon's. The thing is so much debate about The Temple focuses on what Mountain or Hill it was built on when I suspect Solomon's Temple wasn't on a mountain at all, I think when he was at the High Place at Gideon Yahuah made him realize the Tabernacle shouldn't be on a High Place.
I spent over a year being very interested in the theory that The Temple was were Justinian built the Nea Eklessia of the Theotokos, where now stands the Armenian Church of the Archangels and the Garden of the Resurrection. And I still think Justinian might have believed he was rebuilding The Temple. But there are some issues with this argument.
They use quotes from Medieval Rabbis saying the Gentiles never built on the site of The Temple, maybe the Nea had been forgotten by the Jews by that time, but it's also possible the "Market of the Jews" actually refereed to the Old City not what we now call the Jewish Quarter.
And the thing about the orientation of that first century synagogue is, I don't think the idea of needing to Pray in the direction of The Temple existed yet in the first century, neither Testament of The Bible alludes to such an idea. I think it's a post 70 AD Rabbinic custom that influenced the development of Islam.
I think maybe the next archeological mystery Cornuke should tackle is The Nativity, I don't think Jesus was born at the traditional site of the Nativity which was an Adonis Cave. I've talked about how the Church of St David by King David's Wells claims to be where David was buried, well right by it is a Church of St Joseph. I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned. And Conruke could also look for the Migdol Eder while he's at it.
I don't agree with the traditional site of Kiriath-Jearim either, since it's too far north. As a city that like Jebus marked the border between Benjamin and Judah I think it was probably on close to the same latitude as the Old City. But since it's ultimately on Judah's side unlike Jebus which was on Benjamin's side, that makes it if anything a little south of the Old City.
If it was west of Jebus, then I think it may have been on what we today know as the Western hill, primarily south of the modern Zion Gate of Suiliman's Wall. But if it was East of Jebus, then perhaps the Ark once rested where Jesus was buried,. A possibility I consider symbolically interesting since one of the few times that Hebrew word for Ark is used in reference to something other then The Ark is also the first time it's used, in the last verse of Genesis where the KJV translates it "Coffin" referring to the burial of Joseph who was a type of Christ.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Thursday, December 6, 2018
There is also a Bethulah Pregnancy in The Hebrew Bible.
The Prophets of Ancient Israel refereed often to The Daughter of Zion.
In 2 Kings 19:22, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13 she is explicitly refereed to as a Bethulah, translated Virgin in the KJV.
But in Jeremiah 4:21 and Micah 4:10 she travails in childbirth.
Jeremiah specifically says both things.
So I've shown in the past that Almah implies Virginity, and I've shown that other objections to viewing Isaiah 7-8 as Messianic don't hold up. And now I've shown that there is an implied Bethulah Birth in Bible Prophecy as well.
So make no mistake, The Virgin Birth is rooted in The Hebrew Bible.
In 2 Kings 19:22, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13 she is explicitly refereed to as a Bethulah, translated Virgin in the KJV.
But in Jeremiah 4:21 and Micah 4:10 she travails in childbirth.
Jeremiah specifically says both things.
So I've shown in the past that Almah implies Virginity, and I've shown that other objections to viewing Isaiah 7-8 as Messianic don't hold up. And now I've shown that there is an implied Bethulah Birth in Bible Prophecy as well.
So make no mistake, The Virgin Birth is rooted in The Hebrew Bible.
Monday, December 3, 2018
The Mother of Harlots
The pastor I do not like to name did a sermon on the Whore of Babylon once. This sermon focused specifically on her being called the "Mother of Harlots". He views the Mother Whore as being the Roman Catholic Church (even though he's Futurist not Hisotricist), and the other Harlots as being other denominations of Christianity who broke off from Rome. He is one of those Independent Baptists who insists the Baptists have some secret independent Apostolic Succession and so does not descend from Rome the way mainline Protestants do.
The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD. It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV. The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one. Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut. Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.
This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects. It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one. Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line. Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?
Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine. Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of. And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.
Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria. Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after. In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).
At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian. But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.
Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century. The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.
The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire. The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.
After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.
Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed. I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.
Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle. Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus. He also really hated The Jews.
He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus. However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened. From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power. But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.
Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora. But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.
It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria. Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later. Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia. Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.
Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus. Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.
Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church. But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.
Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves. Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.
All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism. But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.
The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD. It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV. The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one. Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut. Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.
This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects. It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one. Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line. Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?
Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine. Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of. And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.
Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria. Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after. In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).
At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian. But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.
Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century. The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.
The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire. The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.
After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.
Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed. I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.
Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle. Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus. He also really hated The Jews.
He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus. However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened. From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power. But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.
Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora. But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.
It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria. Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later. Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia. Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.
Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus. Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.
Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church. But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.
Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves. Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.
All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism. But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Different spellings of Jerusalem.
I no longer believe The Beloved Disciple who wrote the Fourth Gospel is John Son of Zebedee. But I've also considered that it was also a different John who wrote Revelation. And so I've ironically opened myself to the possibility that all five traditional John books do have the same author, just not who we've traditionally thought. However this post isn't even mainly about that but something I noticed while looking into all that.
One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other. The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419. Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them. So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.
The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon. Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.
Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20. The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified. Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.
Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1. Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem. Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem. Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.
Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative. In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic. The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.
If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.
What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to? Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area? Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem? In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.
Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22. Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem. Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".
In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.
Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically. Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.
So with all those nuances in mind. This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.
Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.
The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings. The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem. However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.
Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.
Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim. But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.
One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other. The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419. Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them. So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.
The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon. Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.
Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20. The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified. Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.
Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1. Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem. Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem. Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.
Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative. In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic. The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.
If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.
What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to? Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area? Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem? In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.
Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22. Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem. Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".
In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.
Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically. Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.
So with all those nuances in mind. This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.
Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.
The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings. The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem. However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.
Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.
Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim. But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.
Update April 2022: Since I originally wrote this I've changed my mind on that Temple Mount skepticism I alluded to, I do believe Solomon's Temple was on the Temple Mount just probably not the Dome of the Rock specifically.
I've also learned as far as Archeological Inscriptions go which Hebrew variant is actually older is the opposite of what simply looking at the Masoretic Text implies, Yerushalaim seems to be a Hasmonean era development that simply how these books were copied over time. It could be Aramaic Danile and Post-Captivity texts maintained the older form more often because there were the ones written in Aramaic Script originally rather then Paleo Hebrew.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Shepherds In Winter
The only real Biblical argument against a winter birth for Jesus is a claim that Shepherds would not have had their flocks outdoors in winter. These people are forgetting that Israel does not have the climate of Northern Europe or America.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
But also as shown in my Magi and the Census post, I think it's a wrong assumption that they traveled to Bethlehem just before Mary gave birth, I think they had been there for months already.
Genesis 31:38-40: "This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes. "Jacob was at this time much further north then Bethlehem, yet he was engaged in Shepherding during the winter. So using the no shepherds in winter argument calls Scripture a liar.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.Also there is Canon H.B Tristram
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).
“A little knoll of olive trees surrounding a group of ruins marks the traditional site of the angels’ appearance to the shepherds, Migdol Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. But the place where the first ‘Gloria in excelsis’ was sung was probably further east, where the bare hills of the wilderness begin, and a large tract is claimed by the Bethlehemites as a common pasturage. Here the sheep would be too far off to be led into the town at night; and exposed to the attacks of wild beasts from the eastern ravines, where the wolf and the jackal still prowl, and where of old the yet more formidable lion and bear had their covert, they needed the shepherds’ watchful care during the winter and spring months, when alone pasturage is to be found on these bleak uplands“. Picturesque Palestine Vol 1 page 124Also note this excerpt from Messianic Jewish Scholar Alfred Edersheim:
“That the Messiah was born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so, was the belief that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder , the tower of the flock.I've also seen it claimed by some that Israel is "impassable" during winter, and Mary and Joseph couldn't have traveled south at this time. But John 10:21-22 tells us Jesus traveled to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Dedication/Hannukah. Indeed I take from this passage that Hanukkah while not one of the required pilgrimage days became an unofficial additional one, since it was intimately about Jerusalem and The Temple.
This Migdal Eder, was not the watch tower for ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple Sacrifices, and accordingly that the Shepherds who watched over them were, no ordinary Shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on the account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observances unlikely, if not absolutely impossible.
The same Mishnic also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all year round , since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before Passover- that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. Thus Jewish traditions in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from Migdal Eder, where Shepherds watched the Temple flocks all year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak -The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah By Alfred Edersheim
But also as shown in my Magi and the Census post, I think it's a wrong assumption that they traveled to Bethlehem just before Mary gave birth, I think they had been there for months already.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Four of the Seven Churches of Revelation don't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in The Bible.
Which is surprising considering how much of Acts is dedicated to Paul's time in this same region, and his Epistles sometimes further mentioning other cities near or related to the city of the Church being addressed.
The three that are mentioned are Ephesus which comes up a lot actually, perhaps more then any other location outside the Promised Land. Thyatira which is the home town of Lydia who Paul met at Philippi in Acts 16, and Paul visits unnamed cities in the same general area. And then Laodicea is mentioned in Colossians 2:1 and 4:13-16, and it's probably among the cities of Phrygia alluded to in Acts.
But Smyrna, Pergamos/Pergamon, Sardis and Philadelphia are not mentioned, by those names at least, anywhere but in Revelation.
Studies of the Seven Churches often see symbolic or poetic significance in the names used to refer to these cities. That is a potential reason why some of them might be called by different names then what other ancient writers including other NT writers would call them.
In the case of Pergamos, it's not even that name's real etymology sited but the idea that it can be reinterpreted to mean "perverted marriage" because it's a Church that married the World.
Pergamos has a tendency to be the most mysterious to me, even if purely symbolic/spiritual a city being said to be where Satan's Throne is located is a pretty big deal. And by secular standards Sardis and Pergamon were two of the most important cities of the region, so their being missing in Acts is much more of an enigma then Smyrna or Philadephia, or for that matter Thyatira and Laodicea being mentioned pretty rarely.
I argued in the past that the Martyrdom of Anitpas makes the Serapeum most likely to be the Pagan Temple Jesus had in mind, not the more popular Altar depicting the Gigantarchy.
But what's interesting is that as I was doing more research into this I discovered that The Illiad mentions a Citadel in Iliom called Pergamos. In fact that Citadel is said to have a Seat for Apollon.
http://thetroydeception.com/
I don't think I can agree with the claim that this mistake was a deliberate conspiracy, it's probably the same as many other mistaken identifications I've dealt with regarding locations in Israel, it just happened because of details being lost to time and people reading these texts who don't live there making assumptions. The Dardanians role in the story could be part of the issue I should maybe mention here my support for the theory that Homer was contemporary with Gyges of Lydia.
[Update: I've since learned others have proposed the same theory in different ways. Like Troy: The World Deceived by John Lascelles.]
How does this relate to the issue of Pergamon being missing from Acts? Because Acts does mention Troas in chapter 16, arriving there in verses 7&8 and leaving in verses 10&11. Troas is placed in Mysia there which is also mentioned on the above site and on Pergamon's Wikipedia page as being where Pergamon was.
The three that are mentioned are Ephesus which comes up a lot actually, perhaps more then any other location outside the Promised Land. Thyatira which is the home town of Lydia who Paul met at Philippi in Acts 16, and Paul visits unnamed cities in the same general area. And then Laodicea is mentioned in Colossians 2:1 and 4:13-16, and it's probably among the cities of Phrygia alluded to in Acts.
But Smyrna, Pergamos/Pergamon, Sardis and Philadelphia are not mentioned, by those names at least, anywhere but in Revelation.
Studies of the Seven Churches often see symbolic or poetic significance in the names used to refer to these cities. That is a potential reason why some of them might be called by different names then what other ancient writers including other NT writers would call them.
In the case of Pergamos, it's not even that name's real etymology sited but the idea that it can be reinterpreted to mean "perverted marriage" because it's a Church that married the World.
Pergamos has a tendency to be the most mysterious to me, even if purely symbolic/spiritual a city being said to be where Satan's Throne is located is a pretty big deal. And by secular standards Sardis and Pergamon were two of the most important cities of the region, so their being missing in Acts is much more of an enigma then Smyrna or Philadephia, or for that matter Thyatira and Laodicea being mentioned pretty rarely.
I argued in the past that the Martyrdom of Anitpas makes the Serapeum most likely to be the Pagan Temple Jesus had in mind, not the more popular Altar depicting the Gigantarchy.
But what's interesting is that as I was doing more research into this I discovered that The Illiad mentions a Citadel in Iliom called Pergamos. In fact that Citadel is said to have a Seat for Apollon.
Homer, Iliad 7.17 ff :Since I know from my past Revised Chronology interests that many question the traditional site of Troy, I decided to see if any have argued that Troy and/or Iliom was actually Pergamon. And in so doing found this website.
"Now as the goddess grey-eyed Athene [on Olympos] was aware of these two [the Trojan princes Hektor (Hector) and Paris] destroying the men of Argos in the strong encounter, she went down in a flash of speed from the peaks of Olympos to sacred Ilion, where Apollon stirred forth to meet her from his seat on Pergamos, where he planned that the Trojans should conquer. These two then encountered each other beside the oak tree, and speaking first the son of Zeus, lord Apollon, addressed her : ‘What can be your desire this time, o daughter of great Zeus, that you came down from Olympos at the urge of your mighty spirit? To give the Danaans victory in battle, turning it back? .
http://thetroydeception.com/
I don't think I can agree with the claim that this mistake was a deliberate conspiracy, it's probably the same as many other mistaken identifications I've dealt with regarding locations in Israel, it just happened because of details being lost to time and people reading these texts who don't live there making assumptions. The Dardanians role in the story could be part of the issue I should maybe mention here my support for the theory that Homer was contemporary with Gyges of Lydia.
[Update: I've since learned others have proposed the same theory in different ways. Like Troy: The World Deceived by John Lascelles.]
How does this relate to the issue of Pergamon being missing from Acts? Because Acts does mention Troas in chapter 16, arriving there in verses 7&8 and leaving in verses 10&11. Troas is placed in Mysia there which is also mentioned on the above site and on Pergamon's Wikipedia page as being where Pergamon was.
It's important to the timeline of Acts as the narrative voice changing from third person to first person here leads many to conclude this is where Luke joined Paul's party. Pergamon as a cult center of Aesculapius was a place many Physicians would have visited regularly.
Now at first glance the website I linked to above might be skeptical of the Acts 16:11 Troas being their real Troy since it's against thinking Troy was right by Samothrace. But Luke doesn't actually say they were that close, in fact they possibly stopped at a Neapolis first, which could well be the Neapolis of Lesbos which as the above link says was just west of Mysia. Or even if this Neapolis is a place reached after Samothrace, Luke says they set a course to Samothrace, there is no indicator of how far away it was. Maybe people misunderstanding Act 16 is the real origin of the error that Troy was near Samothrace?
Troas is visited again in Acts 20:5-12, and there it is seemingly nearer to Lesbos (Mytilene) then Samothrace, in fact they would not have sailed to Assos if they were leaving from the Hisarlik site, that trip would have been much shorter by land.
If the Seat of Satan Jesus refereed to was chiefly the Serapeum, the mythological memory of Apollo's seat could still have also been in mind. Hellenic comparative mythology I'm pretty sure often identified Serapis with Apollo. Aesculapius was a son of Apollo who also had a Temple near by.
The Seven Church Ages theory of the Seven Churches promoted by many Protestant Historicists and some Futurists tends to see the message to Pergamos as partly a Prophecy of when The Church married Rome, the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Well Rome in John's time saw themselves as the successor of Troy via Aeneas, the Aeneid written to celebrate that identification also used Pergamos as synonymous with Troy. In fact the Illiad itself mentions Aeneas in connection to Apollo's temple at Pergamos.
I've learned while researching this that Pergamon's Serepeum wasn't built till the reign of Hadrian, so the tradition about that being where Antipas was killed must be false since Revelation was written well before then
Pergamon became a center of the Imperial Cult under Augustus in the late 1st century BC. Augustus deification of himself involved associating himself with Apollo, while also claiming descent from Aeneas. So like Smynra the Imperial cult is probably the real backstory behind Martyrdom being mentioned here. I wonder if those books about Pergamon being Troy have a specific theory about where Apollo's sanctuary was? If the text of the Iliad can be interpreted as implying it's the highest peak, that would be where Trajan built his Temple, further tying it to the Imperial Cult. Did Trajan simply build over where Augustus and other prior Emperors had been worshiped? And did Augustus in turn choose the site of an ancient Temple to Apollo? But then Trajan preferred to associate his deification with Zeus rather then Apollo?
Later in Revelation 13 Satan gives his Seat to The Beast, and The Beast is often viewed as being in some way Rome or a Roman Emperor.
Pergamon was a known cult center of Aesculapius going back to the fourth century BC according to Pausanias. But the surviving remains near the Serapeum like the Serapeum itself are mainly a 2nd century AD construction.
Now at first glance the website I linked to above might be skeptical of the Acts 16:11 Troas being their real Troy since it's against thinking Troy was right by Samothrace. But Luke doesn't actually say they were that close, in fact they possibly stopped at a Neapolis first, which could well be the Neapolis of Lesbos which as the above link says was just west of Mysia. Or even if this Neapolis is a place reached after Samothrace, Luke says they set a course to Samothrace, there is no indicator of how far away it was. Maybe people misunderstanding Act 16 is the real origin of the error that Troy was near Samothrace?
Troas is visited again in Acts 20:5-12, and there it is seemingly nearer to Lesbos (Mytilene) then Samothrace, in fact they would not have sailed to Assos if they were leaving from the Hisarlik site, that trip would have been much shorter by land.
If the Seat of Satan Jesus refereed to was chiefly the Serapeum, the mythological memory of Apollo's seat could still have also been in mind. Hellenic comparative mythology I'm pretty sure often identified Serapis with Apollo. Aesculapius was a son of Apollo who also had a Temple near by.
The Seven Church Ages theory of the Seven Churches promoted by many Protestant Historicists and some Futurists tends to see the message to Pergamos as partly a Prophecy of when The Church married Rome, the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Well Rome in John's time saw themselves as the successor of Troy via Aeneas, the Aeneid written to celebrate that identification also used Pergamos as synonymous with Troy. In fact the Illiad itself mentions Aeneas in connection to Apollo's temple at Pergamos.
Homer, Iliad 5. 445 ff (trans. Lattimore) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :Wow, that's really interesting given what happens later in Revelation, with a Head of the Beast having a mortal wound that is healed and being given Satan's Seat. Aeneas was a son of Aphrodite/Venus as I mentioned in the post I made yesterday. Still I have my skepticism of the seven ages theory. Also the context of this wounding in the Iliad is not with a sword or to the head but a boulder to the thigh.
"Apollon caught [the wounded] Aineias (Aeneas) now and away from the onslaught [of the battle], and set him in the sacred keep of Pergamos (Pergamus) where was built his own temple. There Artemis of the showering arrows and Leto within the great and secret chamber healed his wound and cared for him."
I've learned while researching this that Pergamon's Serepeum wasn't built till the reign of Hadrian, so the tradition about that being where Antipas was killed must be false since Revelation was written well before then
Pergamon became a center of the Imperial Cult under Augustus in the late 1st century BC. Augustus deification of himself involved associating himself with Apollo, while also claiming descent from Aeneas. So like Smynra the Imperial cult is probably the real backstory behind Martyrdom being mentioned here. I wonder if those books about Pergamon being Troy have a specific theory about where Apollo's sanctuary was? If the text of the Iliad can be interpreted as implying it's the highest peak, that would be where Trajan built his Temple, further tying it to the Imperial Cult. Did Trajan simply build over where Augustus and other prior Emperors had been worshiped? And did Augustus in turn choose the site of an ancient Temple to Apollo? But then Trajan preferred to associate his deification with Zeus rather then Apollo?
Later in Revelation 13 Satan gives his Seat to The Beast, and The Beast is often viewed as being in some way Rome or a Roman Emperor.
Pergamon was a known cult center of Aesculapius going back to the fourth century BC according to Pausanias. But the surviving remains near the Serapeum like the Serapeum itself are mainly a 2nd century AD construction.
I've decided I can't agree with the Fullness of the Pergamon was the original Troy theory because of how Young Pergamon is archeologically, one of these Pergamon theory books date the fall of Troy to 811 BC but Pergamon was founded later then that. But I do think locals in Pergamon saw themselves as the real Troy all through antiquity and that belief influenced some aspects of the Iliad.
I'm not today going to propose any theories about Smyrna or Sardis. [Update: in light my newer theories about the Latest Date for The Revelation I now think Smyrna and Sardis didn't have Christian communities till the Second Century.]
I'm not today going to propose any theories about Smyrna or Sardis. [Update: in light my newer theories about the Latest Date for The Revelation I now think Smyrna and Sardis didn't have Christian communities till the Second Century.]
I do have some interesting thoughts on Philadelphia.
Philadelphia was the name of several cities in antiquity and could easily have been a nick name to many more. The Philadelphia traditionally identified with the Philadelphia of Revelation is the city today called Alasehir. But Alasehir was still a predominantly Pagan city well into the sixth century with it's major Church not being built till 600 AD. That's not what I'd expect from the Christian legacy of one of the two most praised Churches in Revelation.
Ammia in Philadelphia is the designation of a Prophetess mentioned by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book 5 Chapter 17 quoting a Miltiades criticizing the Montanists. Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Quadartus and Ammia in Philadelphia. Quadartus is also mentioned in Book 3 Chapter 37, it's possible he too was in or from Philadelphia but not certain. Eusebius and Miltiades considered these Prophets valid, it's the Montanists' claim of succession from them they're rejecting.
What's interesting is that when Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Ammia and Quadartus, it was supposedly a line of succession they got from the Daughters of Philip from Acts 21:9. And Montanus and his women were from Phrygia. The exact locations of Pepuza and Tymion where Montanus claimed New Jerusalem would descend and thus made his head quarters are also a mystery, we just know they were in Phrygia. I've come to suspect they may have been simply Montanus's personal pet names for cities usually known by other names.
I believe that Philip one of the Twelve Disciples and Philip the Deacon aka Philip the Evangelist are in fact the same person, no NT passage mentions both by name together. I get why people assume Acts 6 allows no overlap between the Twelve and the Seven. But remember in John chapter 12 the Philip who is of the Twelve serves as the contact between Greek Speaking Jews interested in Jesus message and the Twelve, so Acts 6 could just be him still playing that role. And Stephen is mentioned first even over one of the Twelve because he became the first Martyr, while when Acts was written Philip's own Martyrdom probably hadn't even happened yet. Deacon was not meant to be a rank in the NT Church, it was a word meaning "servant", Jesus, Peter and Paul intended for the Church's Elders and Overseers to see themselves as servants.
Polycrates of Ephesus records some traditions I think are wrong like identifying a John with The Beloved Disciple when I view them as different and if either was ever in Ephesus it wasn't John. But he doesn't call that John one of the Twelve. The only one of the Twelve whom Polycrates mentions is Philip, he says this Philip was one of the Twelve and had at least three daughters, Philip and two of his daughters fell asleep and were buried in Hierapolis in Phrygia. Eusebius in Book III chapter 31 also cited another source for Philip and his Four Daughters who were Prophetesses coming to Hierapolis in Phrygia.
Philadelphia isn't mentioned at all in Polycrates discussion of Asian Churches observing Passover on the 14th. It's not the only city from Revelation 2&3 missing, but Hierapolis is the only Church mentioned that doesn't appear to be one of the Seven. Thyatira and Pergamon he might have left out since they were specifically associated with bad doctrines in Revelation, but if Philadelphia's Church kept Passover on the 14th that is something he'd want to mention, and perhaps try to explain away if they didn't.
Hierapolis means Holy City, as in a sacred city with an important Temple(s), because it had a lot of pagan temples. The message to Philadelphia is the one that speaks of the City of God which is New Jerusalem and the Temple of God. In Revelation 3:12 Jesus promises to make the Overcomer a Pillar in the Temple of God, Paul refers to the Apostles in Jerusalem as Pillars in Galatians 2:9. Revelation 21:14 says the Twelve Apostles are the Foundations of New Jerusalem, and in Ephesians 2:20 Paul says the Apostles are the Foundations of The Temple of God. Based on Polycrates I think Philip was the only one of the Twelve who fell asleep in Asia.
Philadelphia was the name of several cities in antiquity and could easily have been a nick name to many more. The Philadelphia traditionally identified with the Philadelphia of Revelation is the city today called Alasehir. But Alasehir was still a predominantly Pagan city well into the sixth century with it's major Church not being built till 600 AD. That's not what I'd expect from the Christian legacy of one of the two most praised Churches in Revelation.
Ammia in Philadelphia is the designation of a Prophetess mentioned by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book 5 Chapter 17 quoting a Miltiades criticizing the Montanists. Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Quadartus and Ammia in Philadelphia. Quadartus is also mentioned in Book 3 Chapter 37, it's possible he too was in or from Philadelphia but not certain. Eusebius and Miltiades considered these Prophets valid, it's the Montanists' claim of succession from them they're rejecting.
What's interesting is that when Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Ammia and Quadartus, it was supposedly a line of succession they got from the Daughters of Philip from Acts 21:9. And Montanus and his women were from Phrygia. The exact locations of Pepuza and Tymion where Montanus claimed New Jerusalem would descend and thus made his head quarters are also a mystery, we just know they were in Phrygia. I've come to suspect they may have been simply Montanus's personal pet names for cities usually known by other names.
I believe that Philip one of the Twelve Disciples and Philip the Deacon aka Philip the Evangelist are in fact the same person, no NT passage mentions both by name together. I get why people assume Acts 6 allows no overlap between the Twelve and the Seven. But remember in John chapter 12 the Philip who is of the Twelve serves as the contact between Greek Speaking Jews interested in Jesus message and the Twelve, so Acts 6 could just be him still playing that role. And Stephen is mentioned first even over one of the Twelve because he became the first Martyr, while when Acts was written Philip's own Martyrdom probably hadn't even happened yet. Deacon was not meant to be a rank in the NT Church, it was a word meaning "servant", Jesus, Peter and Paul intended for the Church's Elders and Overseers to see themselves as servants.
Polycrates of Ephesus records some traditions I think are wrong like identifying a John with The Beloved Disciple when I view them as different and if either was ever in Ephesus it wasn't John. But he doesn't call that John one of the Twelve. The only one of the Twelve whom Polycrates mentions is Philip, he says this Philip was one of the Twelve and had at least three daughters, Philip and two of his daughters fell asleep and were buried in Hierapolis in Phrygia. Eusebius in Book III chapter 31 also cited another source for Philip and his Four Daughters who were Prophetesses coming to Hierapolis in Phrygia.
Philadelphia isn't mentioned at all in Polycrates discussion of Asian Churches observing Passover on the 14th. It's not the only city from Revelation 2&3 missing, but Hierapolis is the only Church mentioned that doesn't appear to be one of the Seven. Thyatira and Pergamon he might have left out since they were specifically associated with bad doctrines in Revelation, but if Philadelphia's Church kept Passover on the 14th that is something he'd want to mention, and perhaps try to explain away if they didn't.
Hierapolis means Holy City, as in a sacred city with an important Temple(s), because it had a lot of pagan temples. The message to Philadelphia is the one that speaks of the City of God which is New Jerusalem and the Temple of God. In Revelation 3:12 Jesus promises to make the Overcomer a Pillar in the Temple of God, Paul refers to the Apostles in Jerusalem as Pillars in Galatians 2:9. Revelation 21:14 says the Twelve Apostles are the Foundations of New Jerusalem, and in Ephesians 2:20 Paul says the Apostles are the Foundations of The Temple of God. Based on Polycrates I think Philip was the only one of the Twelve who fell asleep in Asia.
New Jerusalem is called the Holy City in Revelation 21:2 though it's a different Greek word for Holy, Hagias/Hagian. However the word for Holy that is the first part of Hierapolis happens to look like the beginning of how Jerusalem is spelled in Greek. Greek was often a very precise language, but I think Hieros and Hagios were understand as synonyms, or at least that mostly anything which can be described as one can also be described as the other. Also the only time either of these words for Holy appears in Revelation 2-3 is the beginning of the message to Philadelphia.
Philip is a name derived from the same Greek word for Love as the first syllable of Philadelphia. The meaning of Philadelphia is often said to be "brotherly love" but Greek was unlike English in that the words for Brother and Sister used in the New Testament are just slight variations on each other, and so the last part of Philadelphia is almsot arguably closer to the word for sister since city names often wind up mostly feminine in form. So maybe there is some wordplay going on here where the name also suggests the sisters who were daughters of Philip? The first Hellenistic Monarch given the epithet Philadelphos was Ptolemy II who was given it in reference to his love for his Sister, so yes it absolutely can mean Sisterly Love.
One of the most famous sites in Hierapolis is the Ploutonion, a ceremonial gateway to Hades, the Underworld. Jesus introduced himself in the message to Philadelphia as one who is Holy and as He who openeth and shutteth and has the Key of David. In the other messages the titles for Jesus used here are references back to titles from chapter 1, but David isn't mentioned in chapter 1 and the only Keys mentioned in Chapter 1 are the Keys of Hades and Death. Sheol comes up in some Davidic Psalms, including one Peter quoted in Acts 2. The Key of David and the talk of opening and shutting also comes from Isaiah 22:22, and the context there can maybe also be inferred to relate to the Resurrection.
Some people see in the message to Philadelphia possible allusions to the city having a history of Earthquakes, well it was the same for Hierapolis, being damaged by Earthquakes in 17 AD and 60 AD. As Colossians 4:13 indicates, Hierapolis was close to Laodicea, so that could be why they're next to each other in Revelation chapter 3. Hierapolis was between Laodicea and Alasehir but much closer to Laodicea, and some think Hierapolis hot springs provide context to understanding the lukewarm water of Laodicea, Jesus is definitely contrasting Laodicea and Philadelphia spiritually.
Antiochus III aka Antiochus The Great settled 2,000 Jews in Phrygia in the early second century BC, by 62 BC the Jewish population in Hierapolis was 50,000. Jews from Phrygia were at Pentecost according to Acts 2:10, Paul was there in Acts 16:6 before heading to Mysia/Troas and then returned there in Acts 18:23. Alasehir in contrast does not seem to have ever had a Jewish population.
Based on John 8, those who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan, probably refers to non Christian Jews. It's unfortunate that today some people use that to justify their Antisemitism, these privileged Jews were being criticized for persecuting those with different beliefs, modern Jews living in America and Europe are in no position to be the persecutors, at least not to Christians. Today it is if anything many Christians committing the sins of the Pharisees in John 8 and the Synagogue of Satan.
Philadelphia is presented in Revelation as a city where Christians aren't facing the immediate threat of death for their faith the way they were in Smynra due to the presence of the Imperial Roma cult. But while Christians were the minority everywhere this city is one where it seems to have been particularly not easy to be a Christian culturally. How many Pagan Temples Hierapolis had could be the reason for that.
If Montanus knew full well that the Philadelphia of Revelation was in Phrygia, that could make sense of his ability to develop a belief that Phrygia was where New Jerusalem would descend by ignoring how New Jerusalem being referenced in that message isn't about Geography. In fairness to Montanus however, Revelation 21 makes New Jerusalem large enough that if you place it's exact center at Jerusalem and/or Bethlehem and/or Bethel, it would include all of Phyrgia.
Papias is also said to have spent time in Hierapolis. And it should also be noted that Apolinarius a chief early critic of the Montanists was a Bishop of Hierapolis, so they had opposition in Phrygia as well. Indeed there was a Bishopric in Hierapolis that existed all through Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene Early Church History, while the one for Alasehir doesn't appear till the time of Nicaea. And in the Fourth Century Hierapolis became a majority Christian city very quickly, unlike Alasehir.
My Philadelphia theory is not one I'm gonna promote as strongly because I lack any independent evidence that Hierapolis was also known as Philadelphia. But even if I can never find that smoking gun, I'm willing to consider that this city might have been called that only by it's Christian population, perhaps as a pun on the name of the Disciple who was buried there.
One of the most famous sites in Hierapolis is the Ploutonion, a ceremonial gateway to Hades, the Underworld. Jesus introduced himself in the message to Philadelphia as one who is Holy and as He who openeth and shutteth and has the Key of David. In the other messages the titles for Jesus used here are references back to titles from chapter 1, but David isn't mentioned in chapter 1 and the only Keys mentioned in Chapter 1 are the Keys of Hades and Death. Sheol comes up in some Davidic Psalms, including one Peter quoted in Acts 2. The Key of David and the talk of opening and shutting also comes from Isaiah 22:22, and the context there can maybe also be inferred to relate to the Resurrection.
Some people see in the message to Philadelphia possible allusions to the city having a history of Earthquakes, well it was the same for Hierapolis, being damaged by Earthquakes in 17 AD and 60 AD. As Colossians 4:13 indicates, Hierapolis was close to Laodicea, so that could be why they're next to each other in Revelation chapter 3. Hierapolis was between Laodicea and Alasehir but much closer to Laodicea, and some think Hierapolis hot springs provide context to understanding the lukewarm water of Laodicea, Jesus is definitely contrasting Laodicea and Philadelphia spiritually.
Antiochus III aka Antiochus The Great settled 2,000 Jews in Phrygia in the early second century BC, by 62 BC the Jewish population in Hierapolis was 50,000. Jews from Phrygia were at Pentecost according to Acts 2:10, Paul was there in Acts 16:6 before heading to Mysia/Troas and then returned there in Acts 18:23. Alasehir in contrast does not seem to have ever had a Jewish population.
Based on John 8, those who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan, probably refers to non Christian Jews. It's unfortunate that today some people use that to justify their Antisemitism, these privileged Jews were being criticized for persecuting those with different beliefs, modern Jews living in America and Europe are in no position to be the persecutors, at least not to Christians. Today it is if anything many Christians committing the sins of the Pharisees in John 8 and the Synagogue of Satan.
Philadelphia is presented in Revelation as a city where Christians aren't facing the immediate threat of death for their faith the way they were in Smynra due to the presence of the Imperial Roma cult. But while Christians were the minority everywhere this city is one where it seems to have been particularly not easy to be a Christian culturally. How many Pagan Temples Hierapolis had could be the reason for that.
If Montanus knew full well that the Philadelphia of Revelation was in Phrygia, that could make sense of his ability to develop a belief that Phrygia was where New Jerusalem would descend by ignoring how New Jerusalem being referenced in that message isn't about Geography. In fairness to Montanus however, Revelation 21 makes New Jerusalem large enough that if you place it's exact center at Jerusalem and/or Bethlehem and/or Bethel, it would include all of Phyrgia.
Papias is also said to have spent time in Hierapolis. And it should also be noted that Apolinarius a chief early critic of the Montanists was a Bishop of Hierapolis, so they had opposition in Phrygia as well. Indeed there was a Bishopric in Hierapolis that existed all through Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene Early Church History, while the one for Alasehir doesn't appear till the time of Nicaea. And in the Fourth Century Hierapolis became a majority Christian city very quickly, unlike Alasehir.
My Philadelphia theory is not one I'm gonna promote as strongly because I lack any independent evidence that Hierapolis was also known as Philadelphia. But even if I can never find that smoking gun, I'm willing to consider that this city might have been called that only by it's Christian population, perhaps as a pun on the name of the Disciple who was buried there.
Update 2023: Both these theories I have become inclined towards.
For Pergamon I do still think people in that believed they were Troy and that may have influenced what's said in Revelation, but Toas in Acts probably refers to the Troad region and not a single city.
For Philadelphia I realize I was missing the point by making such a point out of the Philadpehian Church's seeming insignificance. The message about them being the smallest and weakest Church by Secular Standard but the truest in their faith. But also maybe Eusebius couldn't give a list of Bishops because they never accepted Episcopal Polity before Nicaea. And maybe a Pro-Montanist could argue the Montanists were the legacy of Philadelphia.
Some of the circumstantial stuff I mentioned could still be interesting. Polycrates letter only accounts for 3 of Philip's 4 daughters, so maybe the remaining one settled in Philadelphia where she became the Sempai of Ammia.
And some of these regions terms within the Province of Asia were flexible and so maybe Alasehir can be considered part of Phyrgia even though it's usually classified as Lydian. The location of Pepuza is known now, and was when I first wrote this, I had simply been influenced by outdated information. It is arguably closer to Alasehir then it is to the Laodicea/Hierapolis/Colossae area.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
I think it's possible Patmos wasn't where we think it was.
The Isle we currently identify with Patmos was mentioned rarely in Antiquity, and it's known that it was originally named Letois after Leto because of myths about Artemis raising it out of the Sea at the request of Selene. It's not till the Fourth Century any Church commemorating John writing Revelation was founded there. There are lists from sources like Tacitus of islands being used as penal colonies by Rome in the 1st Century and Patmos/Letois is never among them.
I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Lazarus (and maybe also his Sisters) not any of the 12, and that they wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John. I also believe John was never in Ephesus and that one of the False Apostles of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation 2 is the origin of that false tradition. I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of that tradition.
The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there. Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him. Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them. But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.
Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus. It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be. And this John does not claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee either.
There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.
The first time the New Testament uses a word for Island/Isle is Acts 13:6, while Paul, Barnabas and someone named John were on the Island of Cyprus, when they arrive at a city on Cyprus called Paphos. It is upon leaving Cyprus in this chapter that this John separates from Paul and Barnabas. It's pretty easy for me to imagine Patmos being an alternate form of or nick name for Paphos.
This John in Acts 13 was appointed to be Barnabas and Paul's "Minister", the specific Greek word used here implies a type of recorder or record keeper, someone who will be writing stuff down. His record of these events was probably used as source material by Luke when he compiled Acts, though I don't think Luke simply copy/pasted it. The Book of Revelation is it's John serving that exact same function.
The reason scholars are pretty sure the John of Acts 13 is John Mark is because these events are referenced back to in Acts 15:37-40 where he's called both John and Mark. That passage also tells us Barnabas and John Mark went back to Cyprus. So could this John Mark have written Revelation at Paphos on Cyprus? If John Mark is also the Mark who was a relative of Barnabas then he was a native of Cyprus to begin with.
But what if Mark and Revelation could have the same author? Literary analysis only focuses on if Revelation lines up with books we've named after John son of Zebedee. Mark's Gospel is likewise his record of what Peter preached. Differences in literary style could perhaps be explained by him being the recorder of different reciters.
Acts 13 at Paphos is the only place outside of Revelation the word Pseudoprophetes (False Prophet) is used of a singular individual.
Kittim was a Son of Javan Son of Japheth in Genesis, but the name pops up a few times in Bible Prophecy. It's pretty agreed on that it's an early name for the island of Cyprus, it's just disagreed to what extent Kittim extends beyond that, or if it's more specifically just Kition.
Cyrpus at one point in it's ancient history was divided between Ten City-State Kingdoms, one of them was based in Paphos, one was Salamis and one was Kition.
The Wikipedia page for Paphos says some interesting things about the local Greek Mythology. For one it's the source of the legend of Pygmalion, a myth about a statue named Galatea being brought to life by Aphrodite, many people talking about this story leave out that it was specifically a statue of Aphrodite.
The local cult of Aphrodite at Paphos believed the version of her origin story where she rises from the Sea, (the word for Sea in question being Thalassa the same one Revelation uses) after the genitals of Ouranos (Heaven) were cut off and cast into it (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 12.43, it's also in Hesiod). Serpents were often used as Phalic Imagery in antiquity, so to a literate Greek reader Revelation 12 talking about the Old Serpent being cast out of Ouranos to the Earth might seem evocative of that castration.
The Greek text of Revelation may not define the Beasts out of the Sea and Earth as inherently masculine as our English Bibles make us assume. The word for "Man" is always Anthropos which actually means Human and is not really gender specific. And English is often forced to make pronouns Gender Specific that were not always so in the original.
There was also precedent for Aphrodite being worshiped as a War deity, Aphrodite Areia. "Who is able to Make war with the Beast".
So it might be some of these local Pagan traditions influenced the Symbolic Imagery Jesus choose to use to communicate His message to this John.
It is also part of the Mythology of Paphos that they were colonized by Arcadians who fought in the Trojan War. I have long theorized the Arcadians of Greek Mythology are the Arkite tribe of the Canaanites. And I also think that Troy was partly based on the Northern Kingdom of Israel. There is also a legend mentioned by Strabo about Paphos being founded by Amazons, who I also have wild speculations about.
Pygmalion was also the name of a King of Tyre who's reign is typically dated to 831-785 BC, he is known to have built colonies on Cyrpus and Sardinia. His grandfather was the brother of Jezebel, Jezebel's father had been a priest of Astarte according to Phoenician historians quoted by Josephus. Dido the founder of Carthage was the sister of Pygamlion of Tyre, she had stopped at Cyrpus on the way to Carthage. Dido had also been married to a Priest of Melqart (The King of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:11-19).
This is why Cyrpus is often viewed as the origin of the cult of Aphrodite, or rather that it was on Cyprus Astarte became Aphrodite.
After the Christianization of the Roman Empire, The Virgin Mary began taking on aspects of the worship of many Olympian goddesses, including Aphrodite/Venus. An Adonis Cave in Bethlehem became the Church of the Nativity. Still it's important to avoid the bad Hislop derivative research you see being promoted by many Protestants, Hebrew Roots followers, Neo-Pagans and New Atheists. Nimrod did not have a wife named Semiramis, but it is true that the title "Queen of Heaven" in Pagan mythologies was often given to goddesses associated with the planet Venus. And there is indeed a Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in Paphos, and a few others elsewhere on the island of Cyrpus.
The title of Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer or Birth-Giver of God) is part of Mary's quasi deification, so even though I'm not Nestorian I have my own reasons for not using that title for Mary, it's not Biblical so it doesn't matter if it's technically accurate. Aphrodite/Venus did have mother goddess aspects, as the mother of Aeneas she was a mother to Rome, and she was sometimes the mother of the god named Love. Indeed one of the confusions of the conflicting accounts of Greek mythology is how Eros was both a son of Aphrodite but also a primordial deity who existed before Aphrodite's parents, sometimes Eros was even made the very first god.
There is a theory that one or both of the Jewish Temples (or maybe the Tabernacle of David) stood where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos. So that's a pretty literal definition of an Abomination of Desolation. But if you want a more symbolic one there is the fact that Catholics defend their Marian Doctrines by saying Mary is the Tabernacle and Ark of the New Covenant. The New Testament actually teaches that every and all believers are The Temple/Tabernacle of God.
Update April 2020: I've decided this post should be viewed first and foremost as an argument for John Mark being the John of Revelation. As a relative of Barnabas he was probably also born on Cyprus so so Jesus using Cypriot perspectives on things in the Vision is just evidence of that more so then Patmos being Cyprus.
I still have my doubts about the traditional identification of Patmos. Is there any solid proof Letois was called Patmos before being associated with The Revelation? Or that that association happened before the Fourth Century?
Update May 27th 2020: It has just been brought to my attention that there are some texts published by von Soden which say "John" wrote his Gospel after returning to Ephesus from Paphos. That doesn't directly relate to Revelation at all, and ties into traditions I now consider false, but it is an interesting witness.
Here is the best link I find for a source on them.
Further Updates: The author of that book I've also interacted with on the comments section of a Preterist blog.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/04/06/john-mark-beloved-disciple/comment-page-1/#comment-17
And they've written another blog post on the subject.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/
I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Lazarus (and maybe also his Sisters) not any of the 12, and that they wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John. I also believe John was never in Ephesus and that one of the False Apostles of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation 2 is the origin of that false tradition. I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of that tradition.
The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there. Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him. Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them. But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.
Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus. It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be. And this John does not claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee either.
There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.
The first time the New Testament uses a word for Island/Isle is Acts 13:6, while Paul, Barnabas and someone named John were on the Island of Cyprus, when they arrive at a city on Cyprus called Paphos. It is upon leaving Cyprus in this chapter that this John separates from Paul and Barnabas. It's pretty easy for me to imagine Patmos being an alternate form of or nick name for Paphos.
This John in Acts 13 was appointed to be Barnabas and Paul's "Minister", the specific Greek word used here implies a type of recorder or record keeper, someone who will be writing stuff down. His record of these events was probably used as source material by Luke when he compiled Acts, though I don't think Luke simply copy/pasted it. The Book of Revelation is it's John serving that exact same function.
The reason scholars are pretty sure the John of Acts 13 is John Mark is because these events are referenced back to in Acts 15:37-40 where he's called both John and Mark. That passage also tells us Barnabas and John Mark went back to Cyprus. So could this John Mark have written Revelation at Paphos on Cyprus? If John Mark is also the Mark who was a relative of Barnabas then he was a native of Cyprus to begin with.
But what if Mark and Revelation could have the same author? Literary analysis only focuses on if Revelation lines up with books we've named after John son of Zebedee. Mark's Gospel is likewise his record of what Peter preached. Differences in literary style could perhaps be explained by him being the recorder of different reciters.
Acts 13 at Paphos is the only place outside of Revelation the word Pseudoprophetes (False Prophet) is used of a singular individual.
Kittim was a Son of Javan Son of Japheth in Genesis, but the name pops up a few times in Bible Prophecy. It's pretty agreed on that it's an early name for the island of Cyprus, it's just disagreed to what extent Kittim extends beyond that, or if it's more specifically just Kition.
Cyrpus at one point in it's ancient history was divided between Ten City-State Kingdoms, one of them was based in Paphos, one was Salamis and one was Kition.
The Wikipedia page for Paphos says some interesting things about the local Greek Mythology. For one it's the source of the legend of Pygmalion, a myth about a statue named Galatea being brought to life by Aphrodite, many people talking about this story leave out that it was specifically a statue of Aphrodite.
The local cult of Aphrodite at Paphos believed the version of her origin story where she rises from the Sea, (the word for Sea in question being Thalassa the same one Revelation uses) after the genitals of Ouranos (Heaven) were cut off and cast into it (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 12.43, it's also in Hesiod). Serpents were often used as Phalic Imagery in antiquity, so to a literate Greek reader Revelation 12 talking about the Old Serpent being cast out of Ouranos to the Earth might seem evocative of that castration.
The Greek text of Revelation may not define the Beasts out of the Sea and Earth as inherently masculine as our English Bibles make us assume. The word for "Man" is always Anthropos which actually means Human and is not really gender specific. And English is often forced to make pronouns Gender Specific that were not always so in the original.
There was also precedent for Aphrodite being worshiped as a War deity, Aphrodite Areia. "Who is able to Make war with the Beast".
So it might be some of these local Pagan traditions influenced the Symbolic Imagery Jesus choose to use to communicate His message to this John.
It is also part of the Mythology of Paphos that they were colonized by Arcadians who fought in the Trojan War. I have long theorized the Arcadians of Greek Mythology are the Arkite tribe of the Canaanites. And I also think that Troy was partly based on the Northern Kingdom of Israel. There is also a legend mentioned by Strabo about Paphos being founded by Amazons, who I also have wild speculations about.
Pygmalion was also the name of a King of Tyre who's reign is typically dated to 831-785 BC, he is known to have built colonies on Cyrpus and Sardinia. His grandfather was the brother of Jezebel, Jezebel's father had been a priest of Astarte according to Phoenician historians quoted by Josephus. Dido the founder of Carthage was the sister of Pygamlion of Tyre, she had stopped at Cyrpus on the way to Carthage. Dido had also been married to a Priest of Melqart (The King of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:11-19).
This is why Cyrpus is often viewed as the origin of the cult of Aphrodite, or rather that it was on Cyprus Astarte became Aphrodite.
After the Christianization of the Roman Empire, The Virgin Mary began taking on aspects of the worship of many Olympian goddesses, including Aphrodite/Venus. An Adonis Cave in Bethlehem became the Church of the Nativity. Still it's important to avoid the bad Hislop derivative research you see being promoted by many Protestants, Hebrew Roots followers, Neo-Pagans and New Atheists. Nimrod did not have a wife named Semiramis, but it is true that the title "Queen of Heaven" in Pagan mythologies was often given to goddesses associated with the planet Venus. And there is indeed a Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in Paphos, and a few others elsewhere on the island of Cyrpus.
The title of Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer or Birth-Giver of God) is part of Mary's quasi deification, so even though I'm not Nestorian I have my own reasons for not using that title for Mary, it's not Biblical so it doesn't matter if it's technically accurate. Aphrodite/Venus did have mother goddess aspects, as the mother of Aeneas she was a mother to Rome, and she was sometimes the mother of the god named Love. Indeed one of the confusions of the conflicting accounts of Greek mythology is how Eros was both a son of Aphrodite but also a primordial deity who existed before Aphrodite's parents, sometimes Eros was even made the very first god.
There is a theory that one or both of the Jewish Temples (or maybe the Tabernacle of David) stood where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos. So that's a pretty literal definition of an Abomination of Desolation. But if you want a more symbolic one there is the fact that Catholics defend their Marian Doctrines by saying Mary is the Tabernacle and Ark of the New Covenant. The New Testament actually teaches that every and all believers are The Temple/Tabernacle of God.
Update April 2020: I've decided this post should be viewed first and foremost as an argument for John Mark being the John of Revelation. As a relative of Barnabas he was probably also born on Cyprus so so Jesus using Cypriot perspectives on things in the Vision is just evidence of that more so then Patmos being Cyprus.
I still have my doubts about the traditional identification of Patmos. Is there any solid proof Letois was called Patmos before being associated with The Revelation? Or that that association happened before the Fourth Century?
Update May 27th 2020: It has just been brought to my attention that there are some texts published by von Soden which say "John" wrote his Gospel after returning to Ephesus from Paphos. That doesn't directly relate to Revelation at all, and ties into traditions I now consider false, but it is an interesting witness.
Here is the best link I find for a source on them.
Further Updates: The author of that book I've also interacted with on the comments section of a Preterist blog.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/04/06/john-mark-beloved-disciple/comment-page-1/#comment-17
And they've written another blog post on the subject.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/
Update: We now need to depend on the Way Back Machine to read these.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
1st Peter could have been written before 41 AD.
So people insisting Babylon can't be Babylon in 1 Peter and Revelation like to talk about Josephus account in Antiquities Of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 9 of the Jewish community in Babylon being forced to leave for Seleucia in 41 AD as evidence Peter wouldn't have gone there with no Jewish population left.
One website mistakenly says 41 BC, I think that's just a typo though. This event is the end of Book 18, it follows the entire reign of Tiberius and all or most of the reign of Caligula, so it happened in 40 AD at the soonest.
Now I've responded to this in a few ways in the past. First Trajan's account clearly has Babylon still existing and populated in the teens of the second century. Lots of sites online insist on talking about this account as if it says Babylon was nothing but a ruin, they are just over emphasizing Trajan's disappointment at it's decline, but it's also clear people were still living there as at least one Temple was till operating as Trajan offered sacrifices to Alexander in the room where he died. Therodoret of Cyrus refers to Babylon still being inhabited in the fifth century.
And I've also argued that Peter could mean Babylon as in the region of Babylonia, not just the individual city of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian Talmud is called the Babylonian Talmud for a reason. I agree with those who say the Babel of Genesis 11 was probably Eridu. And in Seleucia both the Gentile and Jewish population were of people who were moved there from Babylon, they may well have called themselves Babylon in some sense. The Jewish Population of Seleucia got involved in the Kitos War during the reign of Trajan. The Assyrian Orthodox Church had a Bishopric in Babylonia till well after the Muslin Conquest, often based in Seleucia.
However I also feel it's highly possible 1 Peter was written before 40 AD. I place the Crucifixion in 30 AD, and the events of Acts chapters 6 through most of 11 in 36/37 AD, maybe getting into early 38 at the latest. By then Believers were being called Christians at Antioch and Peter was done with his affairs in Joppa and Caesarea.
The Death of Herod Agrippa recorded in Acts 12 was in 44 AD. We tend to assume the Passover season when James was martyred and Peter imprisoned was the one of that same year, and if true it perfectly leaves room for Peter to have been in Babylon during that gap. But it's also possible the narrative of Acts 12 after verse 19 jumps forward to record his death. It might be the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 is supposed to be at the very start of the reign of Claudius, Herod Agrippa didn't become King of Judea till Claidus came to power. I think it's possible Peter and James were in Jerusalem for this Passover because it was Pilgrimage festival, their being here isn't evidence no one left Judea yet.
Don't get deluded by any notion it'd take a long time for Christian Communities to emerge in the places Peter wrote to. Pentecost of Acts 2 included Jews from those same parts of Asia and Mesopotamia. The communities Paul started later were the primarily Gentile ones, 1 Peter is specifically addressed to Jewish Believers of the Diaspora.
Paul said Peter was in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision in Galatians 2:7-8, and for over 600 years by this time Babylonia had the most important Jewish community outside of Israel. Rome had a Jewish population (also represented at Pentecost) but it was much smaller and less significant. So Peter would be remiss in his duties if he didn't go to Babylonia.
The idea that Peter would use Babylon as code for Rome to hide what he's talking about from the Roman authorities is absurd. Besides negative assumptions we make about the name Babylon, Peter isn't saying anything bad about this city, just that it's is where he is, and presumably so is Marcus. And if any authorities had intercepted the letter they could easily have known where it as mailed from and so using a derogatory code name could only be counter productive to that presumed goal.
Now all that said, I have been contemplating the Babylon in Egypt theory, and may make a post on that soon, though frankly my thoughts there are more about that being The Babylon of Revelation.
The oldest traditions do not assume every Mark or Marcus of The New Testament was the same person. And I unlike most don't even think every John Mark was the same, fact is among Romanized Jews of the first century John Mark was likely the equivalent of John Smith. The John Mark associated with Paul and Barnabas is probably the cousin of Barnabus mentioned in the Epistles. The John Mark son of Mary of Acts 12 I think is the one Peter mentions in his Epistle and who wrote the Gospel According to Mark.
I believe The Gospel According to Mark was based on what Peter preached in Babylonia, and I agree with the arguments for it and Matthew both being written already before the events of Acts 12.
Biblical Prophets were not cowards, when Babylon was the current world power Old Testament Prophets didn't use Nineveh as code, no in the Old Testament Nineveh is Nineveh and Babylon is Babylon. So I'm tired of people saying that Revelation's "Old Testament imagery" proves Babylon is Rome.
If you respect Tradition so much, the Assyrian Orthodox Church traditionally holds that Peter was exactly where he says he was when he wrote that Epistle.
One website mistakenly says 41 BC, I think that's just a typo though. This event is the end of Book 18, it follows the entire reign of Tiberius and all or most of the reign of Caligula, so it happened in 40 AD at the soonest.
Now I've responded to this in a few ways in the past. First Trajan's account clearly has Babylon still existing and populated in the teens of the second century. Lots of sites online insist on talking about this account as if it says Babylon was nothing but a ruin, they are just over emphasizing Trajan's disappointment at it's decline, but it's also clear people were still living there as at least one Temple was till operating as Trajan offered sacrifices to Alexander in the room where he died. Therodoret of Cyrus refers to Babylon still being inhabited in the fifth century.
And I've also argued that Peter could mean Babylon as in the region of Babylonia, not just the individual city of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian Talmud is called the Babylonian Talmud for a reason. I agree with those who say the Babel of Genesis 11 was probably Eridu. And in Seleucia both the Gentile and Jewish population were of people who were moved there from Babylon, they may well have called themselves Babylon in some sense. The Jewish Population of Seleucia got involved in the Kitos War during the reign of Trajan. The Assyrian Orthodox Church had a Bishopric in Babylonia till well after the Muslin Conquest, often based in Seleucia.
However I also feel it's highly possible 1 Peter was written before 40 AD. I place the Crucifixion in 30 AD, and the events of Acts chapters 6 through most of 11 in 36/37 AD, maybe getting into early 38 at the latest. By then Believers were being called Christians at Antioch and Peter was done with his affairs in Joppa and Caesarea.
The Death of Herod Agrippa recorded in Acts 12 was in 44 AD. We tend to assume the Passover season when James was martyred and Peter imprisoned was the one of that same year, and if true it perfectly leaves room for Peter to have been in Babylon during that gap. But it's also possible the narrative of Acts 12 after verse 19 jumps forward to record his death. It might be the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 is supposed to be at the very start of the reign of Claudius, Herod Agrippa didn't become King of Judea till Claidus came to power. I think it's possible Peter and James were in Jerusalem for this Passover because it was Pilgrimage festival, their being here isn't evidence no one left Judea yet.
Don't get deluded by any notion it'd take a long time for Christian Communities to emerge in the places Peter wrote to. Pentecost of Acts 2 included Jews from those same parts of Asia and Mesopotamia. The communities Paul started later were the primarily Gentile ones, 1 Peter is specifically addressed to Jewish Believers of the Diaspora.
Paul said Peter was in charge of bringing The Gospel to the Circumcision in Galatians 2:7-8, and for over 600 years by this time Babylonia had the most important Jewish community outside of Israel. Rome had a Jewish population (also represented at Pentecost) but it was much smaller and less significant. So Peter would be remiss in his duties if he didn't go to Babylonia.
The idea that Peter would use Babylon as code for Rome to hide what he's talking about from the Roman authorities is absurd. Besides negative assumptions we make about the name Babylon, Peter isn't saying anything bad about this city, just that it's is where he is, and presumably so is Marcus. And if any authorities had intercepted the letter they could easily have known where it as mailed from and so using a derogatory code name could only be counter productive to that presumed goal.
Now all that said, I have been contemplating the Babylon in Egypt theory, and may make a post on that soon, though frankly my thoughts there are more about that being The Babylon of Revelation.
The oldest traditions do not assume every Mark or Marcus of The New Testament was the same person. And I unlike most don't even think every John Mark was the same, fact is among Romanized Jews of the first century John Mark was likely the equivalent of John Smith. The John Mark associated with Paul and Barnabas is probably the cousin of Barnabus mentioned in the Epistles. The John Mark son of Mary of Acts 12 I think is the one Peter mentions in his Epistle and who wrote the Gospel According to Mark.
I believe The Gospel According to Mark was based on what Peter preached in Babylonia, and I agree with the arguments for it and Matthew both being written already before the events of Acts 12.
Biblical Prophets were not cowards, when Babylon was the current world power Old Testament Prophets didn't use Nineveh as code, no in the Old Testament Nineveh is Nineveh and Babylon is Babylon. So I'm tired of people saying that Revelation's "Old Testament imagery" proves Babylon is Rome.
If you respect Tradition so much, the Assyrian Orthodox Church traditionally holds that Peter was exactly where he says he was when he wrote that Epistle.
Monday, November 12, 2018
"Behold, I Make All Things Fresh."
"Neo" is a cool sounding synonym for "New" that like many such cool sounding words is Greek in origin. I had for awhile uncharacteristically just assumed without checking that "Neo" was the Greek word for "New" that was used when referring to New Jerusalem in Revelation. And with that assumption in mind had considered that if I ever did start my own Worship Community I'd call it Neo-Yerushalaim, going Greek for the "New" part and proper Hebrew for Jerusalem, and in the process creating a name that sounded vaguely Anime inspired.
But recently I was looking over the Greek of Revelation 21 for other reasons (I was deciding if I wanted to revise anything about the "Great City" post) and noticed that no form of "Neo" is there. Rather the word for "New" used of New Jerusalem is Kainos Strong Number 2537. It's the same when New Jerusalem is first mentioned in Revelation 3:12 as part of the message to Philadelphia.
Neo/Neon is used in the New Testament. Strongs defines the difference between the two words by saying.
Neo/Neon/Neos and words derived from it are equally as inclined to be translated "young", "younger" or "youth". Neo implies something that actually is brand new, while Kainos implies something old being made Fresh again.
For example, you could have used Neo for New York or New Orleans, New cities founded with those names but that exist on a completely different continent. The Mormon view of New Jerusalem treats it as a Neo, as they believe New Jerusalem will be in the Continental United States, that New Jerusalem is related to Old Jerusalem the same way New York and New Orleans are to their European predecessors.
But you could have a Neo-City on the same location, if the first city was completely destroyed and everyone killed or displaced leaving no real continuity of architecture, culture or genealogy between the Old and the New, like the Neo-Tokyo in Akira. Chris White's rationalization for how making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem doesn't contradict New Jerusalem is also a Neo-Jerusalem doctrine. But so is full dispensationalism, New Jerusalem is clearly identified with The Church, so if The Church and Israel and totally separate, then they need to see this as a different Jerusalem no matter where it's located.
A word related to Kainos is translated "Newness" in Romans 6:4 and 7:6 when Paul speaks of us being made new at Baptism. Kainos is also the word for "New" when referring to the New Heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13. I've argued that the Lake of Fire is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the world will be Baptized in Fire just as it had been Baptized with Water. Forms of Kainos also get translated Renew, Renewed and Renewing.
New Jerusalem will have continuity with Old Jerusalem. It is gonna be much larger in size, but it will include where Old Jerusalem was. But more importantly it's population will include residents of old Jerusalem, from every era of it's history.
Kainos is also the word for "New" used when in Revelation 21:4 God says "Behold, I Make All Things New", which Peter Hiett has said played an important role in his coming to the doctrine of Universal Salvation, I think this nuance makes that conclusion about the verse even more solid.
I think this little detail I've discovered is good for opposing quasi Gnostic ideas, this World is not going to be destroyed, it's going to be purified and restored to how it was when it was New.
Likewise however the fact that Hebrews 12:24 uses a form of Neo not Kainos for the New Covenant works against the Hebrew Roots argument that the New Covenant is really just the Old Covenant restored.
But recently I was looking over the Greek of Revelation 21 for other reasons (I was deciding if I wanted to revise anything about the "Great City" post) and noticed that no form of "Neo" is there. Rather the word for "New" used of New Jerusalem is Kainos Strong Number 2537. It's the same when New Jerusalem is first mentioned in Revelation 3:12 as part of the message to Philadelphia.
Neo/Neon is used in the New Testament. Strongs defines the difference between the two words by saying.
"new (especially in freshness; while neoV - neos 3501 is properly so with respect to age:"Suggesting "Fresh" could be a good translation of Kainos. Now words with "fresh" in them appear in the KJV in verses that don't use this word, but that's complicated. Hebrews 6:6's "afresh" is a prefix that means again. Likewise "refresh" is either there more for the RE part of that, or something to "cool off" or "rest".
Neo/Neon/Neos and words derived from it are equally as inclined to be translated "young", "younger" or "youth". Neo implies something that actually is brand new, while Kainos implies something old being made Fresh again.
For example, you could have used Neo for New York or New Orleans, New cities founded with those names but that exist on a completely different continent. The Mormon view of New Jerusalem treats it as a Neo, as they believe New Jerusalem will be in the Continental United States, that New Jerusalem is related to Old Jerusalem the same way New York and New Orleans are to their European predecessors.
But you could have a Neo-City on the same location, if the first city was completely destroyed and everyone killed or displaced leaving no real continuity of architecture, culture or genealogy between the Old and the New, like the Neo-Tokyo in Akira. Chris White's rationalization for how making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem doesn't contradict New Jerusalem is also a Neo-Jerusalem doctrine. But so is full dispensationalism, New Jerusalem is clearly identified with The Church, so if The Church and Israel and totally separate, then they need to see this as a different Jerusalem no matter where it's located.
A word related to Kainos is translated "Newness" in Romans 6:4 and 7:6 when Paul speaks of us being made new at Baptism. Kainos is also the word for "New" when referring to the New Heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13. I've argued that the Lake of Fire is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the world will be Baptized in Fire just as it had been Baptized with Water. Forms of Kainos also get translated Renew, Renewed and Renewing.
New Jerusalem will have continuity with Old Jerusalem. It is gonna be much larger in size, but it will include where Old Jerusalem was. But more importantly it's population will include residents of old Jerusalem, from every era of it's history.
Kainos is also the word for "New" used when in Revelation 21:4 God says "Behold, I Make All Things New", which Peter Hiett has said played an important role in his coming to the doctrine of Universal Salvation, I think this nuance makes that conclusion about the verse even more solid.
I think this little detail I've discovered is good for opposing quasi Gnostic ideas, this World is not going to be destroyed, it's going to be purified and restored to how it was when it was New.
Likewise however the fact that Hebrews 12:24 uses a form of Neo not Kainos for the New Covenant works against the Hebrew Roots argument that the New Covenant is really just the Old Covenant restored.
Did Pilate's Governorship actually begin in 17 or 18 AD?
Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.
http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist
There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included. Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common 26 AD date.
In Book 18 of Antiquities of The Jews, the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in 17 AD. The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.
Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome. Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in 19 AD (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.
Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in 30 AD.
However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down. It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC or 25-22 BC) even more plausible.
Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus. Which points us to 18 AD.
What about the 15th Year of Tiberius? Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion. And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir in 4 AD which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.
As far as the 70 Weeks goes. The same chronology for Artaxerxes that has 483 years from his 20th year be the Nisan of 30 AD, could bring us to 17 or 18 AD if we used the Decree of Ezra 7 which was his 7th year. However I still strongly feel only the Nehemiah Decree can fit the requirements of Daniel 9, so I shall remain favoring a 30 AD Crucifixion.
But regardless of my Crucifixion model, I am interested in this theory about Pilate.
http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist
There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included. Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common 26 AD date.
In Book 18 of Antiquities of The Jews, the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in 17 AD. The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.
Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome. Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in 19 AD (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.
Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in 30 AD.
However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down. It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC or 25-22 BC) even more plausible.
Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus. Which points us to 18 AD.
What about the 15th Year of Tiberius? Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion. And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir in 4 AD which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.
As far as the 70 Weeks goes. The same chronology for Artaxerxes that has 483 years from his 20th year be the Nisan of 30 AD, could bring us to 17 or 18 AD if we used the Decree of Ezra 7 which was his 7th year. However I still strongly feel only the Nehemiah Decree can fit the requirements of Daniel 9, so I shall remain favoring a 30 AD Crucifixion.
But regardless of my Crucifixion model, I am interested in this theory about Pilate.
Update March 2024: The Article is behind a Paywall now and it's older versions wasn't properly archived.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
How Many Lost Tribes will be Restored?
I like Peter Hiett's Sermon interpreting the Parables of Luke 15 from a Universal Salvation perspective.
http://www.thesanctuarydenver.org/sermons/sin-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Now I would never start with these parables in building a Doctrine of Universal Salvation since I know to most Christians the Coins/Sheep/Sons never represented all of Humanity to begin with, but just Believers or "The Elect" (whatever that means). But here I'm mainly addressing various forms of Two House Theology and Lost Tribes focused theories and the Hebrew Roots Movement, who would view these parables as just Israel and the Lost as Ephraim. So it's interesting then that in none of those parables is the total number 12. (Also it doesn't fit many places where Samaria/Jospeh is the first born, like Ezekiel 16 and Jeremiah 31:9, and the North had 8 out of 12 tribes, two thirds inheritance. No the Older Brother here is Israel as a whole as God's Firstborn among the Nations, Exodus 4:22).
Michael Heiser does not technically seem to be teaching any of those Soteorlogies, but he is obsessed with viewing The Bible, especially The Old Testament from an "Ancient Near East perspective", and even connects that to his rejection of Universal Salvation. Well I don't believe in The Bible because I want to worship an ancient local near eastern tribal deity, I believe in The Bible because I believe it's god is the True God who created ALL of Humanity..
We tend to summarize the history of God's chosen people as Him first choosing Abraham in Genesis 12, but then the chosen line gets narrowed down to Isaac and then Jacob. And then the 12 Tribes are the chosen people until Solomon's failures cause the North to break off and it falls into sin repeatedly until it is carried away in captivity in II Kings 17. But Bible Prophecy says that Ephraim will be restored, and so Christians have frequently disagreed on how that fits into The New Testament.
However the Book of Genesis doesn't begin with Chapter 12, it begins with Chapter 1, where Adam is made in God's Image and Likeness and given Dominion over The Earth, something reaffirmed in Psalm 8, so the Chosen line begins with Adam and Eve who's Seed was chosen to Crush The Serpent. But then because of the Fall and various subsequent Sins it was narrowed down to Seth and Enosh, and then to Noah and Shem and Heber and then Abraham in chapter 12.
And so likewise perhaps Ephraim/Samaria isn't the only disinherited branch that is going to be restored. I already talked on my other blog about how Esau, Jacob's Brother, is not as cut off as people think. There are Prophecies of the coming Millennium and/or New Heaven and New Earth that mention Nebojath and Kedar, the first two sons of Ishmael. Jeremiah foretells how Moab and Ammon will be brought back from their captivity, and there are also Prophecies of the Messianic Era mentioning Sheba. Jeremiah 49 has Elam being restored from their captivity, and Isaiah 19 speaks of Asshur showing that Semites not form Aprhaxad are still part of the plan. And there are also references to Javan and Tarshish showing Japheth isn't left out, and Isaiah 19 mentions Mizraim, Isaiah 18 and Zephaniah speak of Cush bringing Gifts to the Messiah's Kingdom, and Ezekiel 16 says even Sodom will be restored, which means Ham and even Canaan isn't left out. 1 Peter 3&4 tell us Jesus Preached The Gospel to the very same men who rejected Noah when He went down into Sheol.
Romans 5 tells us all who became Sinners in Adam are made Righteous in Christ, and this is backed up by 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Timothy 2&4. And Romans 11 says the Fullness of the Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel shall be Saved.
This is also the point of Robin Parry's First Fruits and The Nations study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ybft7WMgXY&t
http://www.thesanctuarydenver.org/sermons/sin-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Now I would never start with these parables in building a Doctrine of Universal Salvation since I know to most Christians the Coins/Sheep/Sons never represented all of Humanity to begin with, but just Believers or "The Elect" (whatever that means). But here I'm mainly addressing various forms of Two House Theology and Lost Tribes focused theories and the Hebrew Roots Movement, who would view these parables as just Israel and the Lost as Ephraim. So it's interesting then that in none of those parables is the total number 12. (Also it doesn't fit many places where Samaria/Jospeh is the first born, like Ezekiel 16 and Jeremiah 31:9, and the North had 8 out of 12 tribes, two thirds inheritance. No the Older Brother here is Israel as a whole as God's Firstborn among the Nations, Exodus 4:22).
Michael Heiser does not technically seem to be teaching any of those Soteorlogies, but he is obsessed with viewing The Bible, especially The Old Testament from an "Ancient Near East perspective", and even connects that to his rejection of Universal Salvation. Well I don't believe in The Bible because I want to worship an ancient local near eastern tribal deity, I believe in The Bible because I believe it's god is the True God who created ALL of Humanity..
We tend to summarize the history of God's chosen people as Him first choosing Abraham in Genesis 12, but then the chosen line gets narrowed down to Isaac and then Jacob. And then the 12 Tribes are the chosen people until Solomon's failures cause the North to break off and it falls into sin repeatedly until it is carried away in captivity in II Kings 17. But Bible Prophecy says that Ephraim will be restored, and so Christians have frequently disagreed on how that fits into The New Testament.
However the Book of Genesis doesn't begin with Chapter 12, it begins with Chapter 1, where Adam is made in God's Image and Likeness and given Dominion over The Earth, something reaffirmed in Psalm 8, so the Chosen line begins with Adam and Eve who's Seed was chosen to Crush The Serpent. But then because of the Fall and various subsequent Sins it was narrowed down to Seth and Enosh, and then to Noah and Shem and Heber and then Abraham in chapter 12.
And so likewise perhaps Ephraim/Samaria isn't the only disinherited branch that is going to be restored. I already talked on my other blog about how Esau, Jacob's Brother, is not as cut off as people think. There are Prophecies of the coming Millennium and/or New Heaven and New Earth that mention Nebojath and Kedar, the first two sons of Ishmael. Jeremiah foretells how Moab and Ammon will be brought back from their captivity, and there are also Prophecies of the Messianic Era mentioning Sheba. Jeremiah 49 has Elam being restored from their captivity, and Isaiah 19 speaks of Asshur showing that Semites not form Aprhaxad are still part of the plan. And there are also references to Javan and Tarshish showing Japheth isn't left out, and Isaiah 19 mentions Mizraim, Isaiah 18 and Zephaniah speak of Cush bringing Gifts to the Messiah's Kingdom, and Ezekiel 16 says even Sodom will be restored, which means Ham and even Canaan isn't left out. 1 Peter 3&4 tell us Jesus Preached The Gospel to the very same men who rejected Noah when He went down into Sheol.
Romans 5 tells us all who became Sinners in Adam are made Righteous in Christ, and this is backed up by 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Timothy 2&4. And Romans 11 says the Fullness of the Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel shall be Saved.
This is also the point of Robin Parry's First Fruits and The Nations study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ybft7WMgXY&t
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Was Bible Prophecy fulfilled around 500 AD?
A few 2nd/Early 3rd Century AD Church Writers predicted that the Millenium would begin about 500 AD [Strandberg, Todd; James, Terry (June 2003). Are You Rapture Ready. New York City: Dutton.]. I don't think that happened, but I am open to unconventional understandings of how Daniel 2 and 7 relate to Revelation which could include more quasi Preterist/Historicist interpretations of those Chapters.
The basis for Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome and Julius Africanus predicting around 500 AD was that for reasons based on Septuagint chronology they felt the time of Christ was 5500 years from Creation and that the Seventh Millennium would begin about 500 years later. So I’m going to allow a range here. It’s interesting that all three had passed away before 250 AD and so were not making predictions based on a bias for wanting it to happen in their lifetimes.
The earliest possible date for The Birth of Jesus is 25 BC, 500 years from which would be 476 AD, but more popular dates are about 5-4 BC which takes us to the 490s AD. From here on the start date is already AD so just put a 5 in-front of it to get the end date.
I place The Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in the Spring of 30 AD. Others have proposed dates all over the time Pilate was Governor (26-36 AD). The latest possible date is 37 AD, which year is also when I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel so definitely an important year. But there is also room to argue the history of the First Advent isn’t fully done till we reach the end of the narrative of Acts (62-64 AD), or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in the midst of the Jewish Revolt that spanned from 66-73 AD.
So what was the End Time scenario predicted by our 500 AD date setters? Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy more then any other Pre-Nicene writers. Their model predicted that the Roman Empire would collapse, than 10 Kingdoms would arise in its place, and then after that would come The Little Horn commonly identified with The Antichrist.
This was a pretty standard view of Bible Prophecy prior to Nicaea. But when Constantine happened things changed, many started thinking Rome’s fall wasn’t something to look forward to anymore, and so Amillennial and Post-Millennial interpretations rose in popularity, and then the Last Roman Emperor tradition developed, which turned the one who would restore Rome after it’s collapse into a Hero rather then a Villain.
So it’s Ironic that even though the Church stopped believing in what those early Eschatology teachers predicted, what they predicted at least partially did happen pretty much exactly when they predicted it would. Basically everything but The Second Coming itself.
476 AD is one of the dates commonly cited as when the Western Empire fell, along with 480 and 488 AD. Chris White talked about how Daniel 2 can be viewed as being fulfilled in the late 400s AD, which I talked about when critiquing his very different view of Daniel 7.
Much of the 500s were dominated by the reign of Justinian, an emperor popular with History YouTubers like Extra Credits. Seventh Day Adventists and other Protestant Historicists have a long history of viewing Daniel 7 as being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, with the 10 Horns being the Barbarian Kingdoms that rose to power in the West as Rome Fell. I’m going to link to a Playlist that is mostly videos an Atheist YouTuber called NumberOneSon made critiquing various SDA teachers on what they get wrong about Justinian’s history.
History Versus Playlist. Note, There is at least one video on the Playlist not about this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL95E6667F8E19F8B0
His critiques are mostly correct. (He does confuse Monophysite and Miasphyte theology by calling Theodora a Monophysite, she was a Miasphyte and so did believe Jesus was both Fully Human and Fully Divine, and it was only Miasyphtes not proper Monophysites Justinian wanted to make peace with, but that confusion is common.) However the details these SDAs get wrong don’t change that, yes, what happened then looks an awful lot like what Daniel 7 predicted as it was interpreted by pre-Nicene Christians.
I'm willing to consider the Prophetic use of the round number 10 a detail that doesn’t need to be fulfilled exactly literally. You can say that’s convenient, but I say it’s just the nature of the number 10. But still there are ways to justify making it exactly 10 kingdoms if you wanted to. And I lean towards viewing the three Kingdoms Justinian uprooted as being the Vandals, Alans and Ostrogoths. I know the Alans and Vandals are technically viewed as being the same kingdom by this point, but I still think it's valid to view them as separate in the context of fulfilling this prophecy.
Also I’m not a Historicist (not properly anyway) so don’t accept any Day=Year arguments and therefore won't turn around and make this about Napoleon and The Roman Question.
But the big difference between what I’m considering possible here and the SDAs is I don’t make the Little Horn into The Pope. Instead I think the Little Horn is basically the Eastern Empire.
Some Prophecy teachers will try to say the Ten Toes need to be 5 on each Leg, thus 5 for the Eastern Empire. The problem is in the context of Daniel 7 the Eastern Empire is the land of the first three Beasts (Mainly the Leopard). Making it the Eastern Empire can make the Little Horn of Daniel 7 the same as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 without rejecting that the Fourth Beast is Rome. I have already argued in an early Seleucid Dynasty post that the Daniel 8 Little Horn can be viewed as the Seleucid Empire as a whole, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom is the horn it grew out of. The legacy of the Seleucid Empire, both genealogically and culturally, was absorbed into the Eastern Roman Empire. If the Eastern Empire had a Capital prior to Constantinople being founded it was Antioch, that’s where Germanicus operated from when he was placed in charge of the East. And it remained important after, with Constantius Gallus operating there when he was the number 2 man in the Empire, and the Bishop of Antioch always being one of the top Bishops in the Imperial Church.
So when the Eastern Empire is uprooting certain Barbarian Kingdoms during the 6th Century AD, that could be the Little Horn uprooting three of the ten. Also in Daniel 7 the "Little Horn" is never directly called a King, that could be relevant here since in Jsuitnian's time the Roman Emperors were still officially claiming they weren't kings.
Chris White argued The Stone from Daniel 2 is The Church being established. Given my argument that Daniel 2 and 7 should be understood in the geographical context of Mesopotamia, the Assyrian Church would fit best as being that Stone. And the Nestorians were the branch of Christianity Justinian was pushing out.
And because I've considered more complicated nuanced views of how Daniel and Revelation relate to each other, the 3 uprooted horns may not be permanently uprooted, or since 10 is a symbolic number they get replaced once the Little Horn's role is over. And so the Barbarian Kingdoms have become the WEU nations or something like that.
The Eight King of Revelation 17 can be viewed as different from the Little Horn, the Little Horn uproots three horns, but the Eight King is someone the Ten Horns more willingly give their power to. Maybe you can still make that the Papacy, but then comes the other problems traditional Historicism has.
The basis for Irenaeus, Hippolytus of Rome and Julius Africanus predicting around 500 AD was that for reasons based on Septuagint chronology they felt the time of Christ was 5500 years from Creation and that the Seventh Millennium would begin about 500 years later. So I’m going to allow a range here. It’s interesting that all three had passed away before 250 AD and so were not making predictions based on a bias for wanting it to happen in their lifetimes.
The earliest possible date for The Birth of Jesus is 25 BC, 500 years from which would be 476 AD, but more popular dates are about 5-4 BC which takes us to the 490s AD. From here on the start date is already AD so just put a 5 in-front of it to get the end date.
I place The Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost in the Spring of 30 AD. Others have proposed dates all over the time Pilate was Governor (26-36 AD). The latest possible date is 37 AD, which year is also when I place the end of the 70 Weeks of Daniel so definitely an important year. But there is also room to argue the history of the First Advent isn’t fully done till we reach the end of the narrative of Acts (62-64 AD), or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in the midst of the Jewish Revolt that spanned from 66-73 AD.
So what was the End Time scenario predicted by our 500 AD date setters? Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy more then any other Pre-Nicene writers. Their model predicted that the Roman Empire would collapse, than 10 Kingdoms would arise in its place, and then after that would come The Little Horn commonly identified with The Antichrist.
This was a pretty standard view of Bible Prophecy prior to Nicaea. But when Constantine happened things changed, many started thinking Rome’s fall wasn’t something to look forward to anymore, and so Amillennial and Post-Millennial interpretations rose in popularity, and then the Last Roman Emperor tradition developed, which turned the one who would restore Rome after it’s collapse into a Hero rather then a Villain.
So it’s Ironic that even though the Church stopped believing in what those early Eschatology teachers predicted, what they predicted at least partially did happen pretty much exactly when they predicted it would. Basically everything but The Second Coming itself.
476 AD is one of the dates commonly cited as when the Western Empire fell, along with 480 and 488 AD. Chris White talked about how Daniel 2 can be viewed as being fulfilled in the late 400s AD, which I talked about when critiquing his very different view of Daniel 7.
Much of the 500s were dominated by the reign of Justinian, an emperor popular with History YouTubers like Extra Credits. Seventh Day Adventists and other Protestant Historicists have a long history of viewing Daniel 7 as being fulfilled in the time of Justinian, with the 10 Horns being the Barbarian Kingdoms that rose to power in the West as Rome Fell. I’m going to link to a Playlist that is mostly videos an Atheist YouTuber called NumberOneSon made critiquing various SDA teachers on what they get wrong about Justinian’s history.
History Versus Playlist. Note, There is at least one video on the Playlist not about this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL95E6667F8E19F8B0
His critiques are mostly correct. (He does confuse Monophysite and Miasphyte theology by calling Theodora a Monophysite, she was a Miasphyte and so did believe Jesus was both Fully Human and Fully Divine, and it was only Miasyphtes not proper Monophysites Justinian wanted to make peace with, but that confusion is common.) However the details these SDAs get wrong don’t change that, yes, what happened then looks an awful lot like what Daniel 7 predicted as it was interpreted by pre-Nicene Christians.
I'm willing to consider the Prophetic use of the round number 10 a detail that doesn’t need to be fulfilled exactly literally. You can say that’s convenient, but I say it’s just the nature of the number 10. But still there are ways to justify making it exactly 10 kingdoms if you wanted to. And I lean towards viewing the three Kingdoms Justinian uprooted as being the Vandals, Alans and Ostrogoths. I know the Alans and Vandals are technically viewed as being the same kingdom by this point, but I still think it's valid to view them as separate in the context of fulfilling this prophecy.
Also I’m not a Historicist (not properly anyway) so don’t accept any Day=Year arguments and therefore won't turn around and make this about Napoleon and The Roman Question.
But the big difference between what I’m considering possible here and the SDAs is I don’t make the Little Horn into The Pope. Instead I think the Little Horn is basically the Eastern Empire.
Some Prophecy teachers will try to say the Ten Toes need to be 5 on each Leg, thus 5 for the Eastern Empire. The problem is in the context of Daniel 7 the Eastern Empire is the land of the first three Beasts (Mainly the Leopard). Making it the Eastern Empire can make the Little Horn of Daniel 7 the same as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 without rejecting that the Fourth Beast is Rome. I have already argued in an early Seleucid Dynasty post that the Daniel 8 Little Horn can be viewed as the Seleucid Empire as a whole, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom is the horn it grew out of. The legacy of the Seleucid Empire, both genealogically and culturally, was absorbed into the Eastern Roman Empire. If the Eastern Empire had a Capital prior to Constantinople being founded it was Antioch, that’s where Germanicus operated from when he was placed in charge of the East. And it remained important after, with Constantius Gallus operating there when he was the number 2 man in the Empire, and the Bishop of Antioch always being one of the top Bishops in the Imperial Church.
So when the Eastern Empire is uprooting certain Barbarian Kingdoms during the 6th Century AD, that could be the Little Horn uprooting three of the ten. Also in Daniel 7 the "Little Horn" is never directly called a King, that could be relevant here since in Jsuitnian's time the Roman Emperors were still officially claiming they weren't kings.
Chris White argued The Stone from Daniel 2 is The Church being established. Given my argument that Daniel 2 and 7 should be understood in the geographical context of Mesopotamia, the Assyrian Church would fit best as being that Stone. And the Nestorians were the branch of Christianity Justinian was pushing out.
And because I've considered more complicated nuanced views of how Daniel and Revelation relate to each other, the 3 uprooted horns may not be permanently uprooted, or since 10 is a symbolic number they get replaced once the Little Horn's role is over. And so the Barbarian Kingdoms have become the WEU nations or something like that.
The Eight King of Revelation 17 can be viewed as different from the Little Horn, the Little Horn uproots three horns, but the Eight King is someone the Ten Horns more willingly give their power to. Maybe you can still make that the Papacy, but then comes the other problems traditional Historicism has.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Is it possible Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same woman?
Earlier this year I expressed the opinion that they are probably not in Bethany and The Mount of Olives. But then I considered that they could be briefly in The Sisters of Jesus. Well here I want to consider how plausible this is independent of the greater points of either of those posts.
First of all, if you're thinking "the whole point of calling them Magdalene and Of Bethany is to distinguish between different women with the same name", congratulations, you just demonstrated some casual Biblical Illiteracy. The Text of the Gospels never actually uses "Of Bethany" as an epithet for anyone, we call Mary of Bethany that because we encounter her there, and "John" 11 & 12 implies that's where she and her siblings live. But no title is ever used of Mary of Bethany in any scene viewed as being about her, she's just Mary if she's named at all.
Tradition isn't very helpful here. Eastern Orthodox tradition distinguished them. Western/Catholic tradition often merges them but also throws in women I strongly view as separate, in my view neither Mary can be Identified with the accused Adulteress of John 8, and I'm likewise skeptical of doing so with the woman from Luke 7. And most traditions have the Bethany siblings traveling to other regions like the Twelve did while I believe their remains can be found in the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives which means they probably never lest Judea, but it's not impossible.
Luke and "John" are the primary Gospels that need to be investigated here. Matthew and Mark's account of the scene from "John" 12 doesn't mention the woman by name, and in every Gospel but Luke the epithet Magdalene isn't used prior to The Cross.
The Gospel According to The Beloved Disciple (commonly called "John") can definitely be argued to make the most sense if the Sister of Lazarus and Martha is also the Mary called Magdalene. I have come to support the theory that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple (though maybe sometimes that designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, but it can't include any of the Twelve), which makes it seem natural to conclude that one of the Marys in Chapter 19 Verses 25-27 is his sister. Or even more so if Mary rather then Lazarus is the one being called the Disciple whom He Loved there. And then in chapter 20 when the word "other" is added to a verse with Mary Magdalene implying two people in that verse are a "disciple whom Jesus loved".
Luke is basically the source of every argument against them being the same woman. Well I have some thoughts on that.
First of all, we proponents of Luke's reliability as a Historical document point out how he claimed to have gathered his information by interviewing multiple Eye Witnesses. So it's possible he himself may not have always known if some of the stories about characters with the same name were really the same person or not. Luke uses the title Magdalene only in verses that also mention Joanna, so it could be Joanna called her that but his source for the story about Martha & Mary in chapter 10 did not. And this could also explain the same characters being named in some scenes but not in others.
Luke 8 associates Mary Magdalene with Jesus Galilean ministry, while "John" 11-12 is taken as making it seem like the Bethany siblings were not involved in the Galilean ministry. But the Bethany siblings seem to be pretty well off financially given how the Ointments Mary used were so expensive. So maybe this house in Bethany wasn't their only residence but one they used mainly around the time of the Pilgrimage Festivals.
Bethany isn't mentioned in Luke 10, indeed just reading it in the context of Luke's narrative without bringing in assumptions from elsewhere it seems like this is in Galilee as much as everything around it was. The Synoptic narrative is uninterested in the Judean ministry prior to them arriving there for Passover.
Analyzing Luke as a stand alone document, the only real argument against Magdalene and the sister of Martha being the same Mary is a face value assumption that Luke 10 is painting Martha's sister as awfully passive compared to the active Disciples introduced in Luke 8. But that misses the actual point of what was going on in Luke 10.
Luke 8:1-3 is clear that there were more women then just the three who are named here, likewise with 24:10 and the other Synoptic accounts of the Myrrbearers. Maybe what goes on in Luke 10 explains why Mary but not Martha would be mentioned by name in those passages.
Some people do think the Penitent Woman in the house of Simon in Luke 7 is another account of the Anointing incident from "John" 12, Mark 14 and Matthew 26. I think there are too many important differences for them to be the same event, but the idea that they involve the same Woman isn't impossible. Well the argument for that woman being Mary Magdalene is that she's the first woman named in Luke 8 which immediately follows that story.
So looking into all the available information, it is certainly possible they are the same, but by no means proven beyond any doubt.
First of all, if you're thinking "the whole point of calling them Magdalene and Of Bethany is to distinguish between different women with the same name", congratulations, you just demonstrated some casual Biblical Illiteracy. The Text of the Gospels never actually uses "Of Bethany" as an epithet for anyone, we call Mary of Bethany that because we encounter her there, and "John" 11 & 12 implies that's where she and her siblings live. But no title is ever used of Mary of Bethany in any scene viewed as being about her, she's just Mary if she's named at all.
Tradition isn't very helpful here. Eastern Orthodox tradition distinguished them. Western/Catholic tradition often merges them but also throws in women I strongly view as separate, in my view neither Mary can be Identified with the accused Adulteress of John 8, and I'm likewise skeptical of doing so with the woman from Luke 7. And most traditions have the Bethany siblings traveling to other regions like the Twelve did while I believe their remains can be found in the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives which means they probably never lest Judea, but it's not impossible.
Luke and "John" are the primary Gospels that need to be investigated here. Matthew and Mark's account of the scene from "John" 12 doesn't mention the woman by name, and in every Gospel but Luke the epithet Magdalene isn't used prior to The Cross.
The Gospel According to The Beloved Disciple (commonly called "John") can definitely be argued to make the most sense if the Sister of Lazarus and Martha is also the Mary called Magdalene. I have come to support the theory that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple (though maybe sometimes that designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, but it can't include any of the Twelve), which makes it seem natural to conclude that one of the Marys in Chapter 19 Verses 25-27 is his sister. Or even more so if Mary rather then Lazarus is the one being called the Disciple whom He Loved there. And then in chapter 20 when the word "other" is added to a verse with Mary Magdalene implying two people in that verse are a "disciple whom Jesus loved".
Luke is basically the source of every argument against them being the same woman. Well I have some thoughts on that.
First of all, we proponents of Luke's reliability as a Historical document point out how he claimed to have gathered his information by interviewing multiple Eye Witnesses. So it's possible he himself may not have always known if some of the stories about characters with the same name were really the same person or not. Luke uses the title Magdalene only in verses that also mention Joanna, so it could be Joanna called her that but his source for the story about Martha & Mary in chapter 10 did not. And this could also explain the same characters being named in some scenes but not in others.
Luke 8 associates Mary Magdalene with Jesus Galilean ministry, while "John" 11-12 is taken as making it seem like the Bethany siblings were not involved in the Galilean ministry. But the Bethany siblings seem to be pretty well off financially given how the Ointments Mary used were so expensive. So maybe this house in Bethany wasn't their only residence but one they used mainly around the time of the Pilgrimage Festivals.
Bethany isn't mentioned in Luke 10, indeed just reading it in the context of Luke's narrative without bringing in assumptions from elsewhere it seems like this is in Galilee as much as everything around it was. The Synoptic narrative is uninterested in the Judean ministry prior to them arriving there for Passover.
Analyzing Luke as a stand alone document, the only real argument against Magdalene and the sister of Martha being the same Mary is a face value assumption that Luke 10 is painting Martha's sister as awfully passive compared to the active Disciples introduced in Luke 8. But that misses the actual point of what was going on in Luke 10.
Luke 8:1-3 is clear that there were more women then just the three who are named here, likewise with 24:10 and the other Synoptic accounts of the Myrrbearers. Maybe what goes on in Luke 10 explains why Mary but not Martha would be mentioned by name in those passages.
Some people do think the Penitent Woman in the house of Simon in Luke 7 is another account of the Anointing incident from "John" 12, Mark 14 and Matthew 26. I think there are too many important differences for them to be the same event, but the idea that they involve the same Woman isn't impossible. Well the argument for that woman being Mary Magdalene is that she's the first woman named in Luke 8 which immediately follows that story.
So looking into all the available information, it is certainly possible they are the same, but by no means proven beyond any doubt.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
The Whore of Babylon is Capitalism
This is not in conflict with my prior posts on Mystery Babylon, but a separate aspect of what Mystery Babylon is. So what I've said about how Revelation 17 relates to The Bride of Christ doctrine, and whether or not Revelation 18 is geographically linked to Mesopotamia remains the same. This is about what the Sin of Mystery Babylon is. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Capitalism is the Whoredom of Babylon.
I did a post on how the words translated Fornication and Fornicator refer to Prostitution. They like the words for Whore/Harlot come from a root that means "to sell off". People seek to justify their broader interpretations of those verses by saying how words related to Prostitution are sometimes used euphemistically for sexual promiscuity that isn't about money. But the opposite euphemism is also used, people will say they feel like they're "whoring themselves out" to express the idea of "selling out".
Well if you break down Revelation 17 and 18 and look at the context outside of these "pronos" words. There is not anything that implies sex, but a lot about economics, about buying and selling.
I've been expressing my opposition to Capitalism a lot lately on my other blog. There are people like the YouTuber Renegade Cut who want to make any and all Futurist/Pre-Millenial views on Bible Prophecy seem inseparable from Right Wing politics. And yet it is exactly a Futurist and Pre-Millennial view of Revelation that makes chapters 17 and 18 a blatant condemnation of Capitalism. Also Post-Millennialism was invented to justify theocracy.
There is no labor going on in New Jerusalem, New Jerusalem is the return to Eden, it's a Communist Utopia. The founder of Communism was Gerard Winstanly in the mid 1600s who certainly held a Pre-Millenial view of Revelation. Communism is an inherently Christian ideology, it was in the 1700s that Atheists and Deists started forming a Secular version of it that was then further secularized by Karl Marx and the Bolsheviks.
Many of my fellow Anti-Capitalist might not like the implication of making Capitalism a Whore, they might prefer characterize Capitalism as a Pimp. Well the thing is Porneia as an ancient Noun form of the word for Prostitution was associated with all people taking part in that Sin. Babylon being called the "Mother of Harlots" may well imply she's a Madam rather then the Proletariat of Whoredom.
I did a post on how the words translated Fornication and Fornicator refer to Prostitution. They like the words for Whore/Harlot come from a root that means "to sell off". People seek to justify their broader interpretations of those verses by saying how words related to Prostitution are sometimes used euphemistically for sexual promiscuity that isn't about money. But the opposite euphemism is also used, people will say they feel like they're "whoring themselves out" to express the idea of "selling out".
Well if you break down Revelation 17 and 18 and look at the context outside of these "pronos" words. There is not anything that implies sex, but a lot about economics, about buying and selling.
I've been expressing my opposition to Capitalism a lot lately on my other blog. There are people like the YouTuber Renegade Cut who want to make any and all Futurist/Pre-Millenial views on Bible Prophecy seem inseparable from Right Wing politics. And yet it is exactly a Futurist and Pre-Millennial view of Revelation that makes chapters 17 and 18 a blatant condemnation of Capitalism. Also Post-Millennialism was invented to justify theocracy.
There is no labor going on in New Jerusalem, New Jerusalem is the return to Eden, it's a Communist Utopia. The founder of Communism was Gerard Winstanly in the mid 1600s who certainly held a Pre-Millenial view of Revelation. Communism is an inherently Christian ideology, it was in the 1700s that Atheists and Deists started forming a Secular version of it that was then further secularized by Karl Marx and the Bolsheviks.
Many of my fellow Anti-Capitalist might not like the implication of making Capitalism a Whore, they might prefer characterize Capitalism as a Pimp. Well the thing is Porneia as an ancient Noun form of the word for Prostitution was associated with all people taking part in that Sin. Babylon being called the "Mother of Harlots" may well imply she's a Madam rather then the Proletariat of Whoredom.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
The Far East and The Lost Tribes
In the KJV of Genesis 9:27 Noah prophecies that God shall "Enlarge" Japheth. The traditions identifying Japheth mainly with European nations have taken this to refer to Europe's political dominance of the rest of the world over the last 500 years or so. While those who seek to associate Japheth mainly with the Far East say it refers to Japheth's descendants becoming the most numerous.
Asia east of Iran and south of the former USSR is less then an Eight of the Earth's Surface but contains over half of the population of Humanity. And that's not even counting how the Native Americans are now mostly agreed to have previously been in this region.
Here is the problem though. "Enlarge" is a mis-translation in that verse. The Hebrew word is Pathah which is also the root the name Japheth comes from. But that word as a verb occurs many times in the Hebrew Scriptures but is translated "Enlarge" only here, other times you see "enlarge" or a form of that word in the KJV it's a different Hebrew word. Pathah is usually translated allure, persuade, entice, and in negative contexts deceive. In Genesis 9:27 this is followed by saying Japheth will dwell in the Tents of Shem, it was also in Shem that YHWH set up His Tabernacle.
As far as Bible Prophecy predicting certain people to be the most numerous, those promises are made exclusively to certain descendants of Shem. In Genesis 15:5 and 22:17 Abraham is promised his Seed will be multiplied as the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea shore. And this promise is repeated to Isaac in Genesis 26:4, and to Jacob in Genesis 32:12, and it's reaffirmed in Exodus 32:13, Deuteronomy 1:10, 10:22, 1 Chronicles 27:23, Nehemiah 9:23 and Isaiah 10:22 (quoted in Romans 9:27), and Hosea 1:10 which is specifically about the Northern Kingdom, and Hebrews 11:12. (Jeremiah 33:22 even says this specifically of the Seed of David, via Solomon's Daughters in 1 Kings 4 David's Seed did exist among the Northern Kingdom's population, but this promise's applicability to David could be fulfilled in how all Christian are made the Seed of Jesus regardless of actual biology).
Also Genesis 24:60 foretells Rebecca's Seed will be Thousands of Millions, that's Billions.
But we can get even more specific then that. Deuteronomy 33's blessings on the Tribes seem to give a particular promise of large populations to three of them. First in verse 6 "Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few."
Then verse 17 talking about Joseph seems to predict Ephraim to have a much larger population then Manasseh, which is also consistent with Genesis 48. But this never happened during the recorded Old Testament history of the Tribes, every Biblical Census has Manasseh being larger then Ephraim in population, and Manasseh also had twice the land Ephraim did being on both sides of the Jordan.
Finally verse 20 says Gad will be enlarged, and this Hebrew word does mean that, being translated that way most of the time in the KJV.
I've talked before on this Blog about how the Deported Northern Israelites were most likely taken east of the Euphrates River. But also how it wasn't really all of the Northern Kingdom deported by Assyria. The first Deportation was of Naphtali and the Trans-Jordan Tribes, and the second focused on part of Ephraim and some of Western Manasseh near the border with Ephraim. The Trans-Jordan Tribes were Reuben, Gad and the eastern half of Manasseh. Gad as I've talked about before is often who the Japanese are identified with.
Now I do think Japheth and Ham probably both contributed to the early populations of the Far East. The deported Israelites were mingled among the Gentiles.
Asia east of Iran and south of the former USSR is less then an Eight of the Earth's Surface but contains over half of the population of Humanity. And that's not even counting how the Native Americans are now mostly agreed to have previously been in this region.
Here is the problem though. "Enlarge" is a mis-translation in that verse. The Hebrew word is Pathah which is also the root the name Japheth comes from. But that word as a verb occurs many times in the Hebrew Scriptures but is translated "Enlarge" only here, other times you see "enlarge" or a form of that word in the KJV it's a different Hebrew word. Pathah is usually translated allure, persuade, entice, and in negative contexts deceive. In Genesis 9:27 this is followed by saying Japheth will dwell in the Tents of Shem, it was also in Shem that YHWH set up His Tabernacle.
As far as Bible Prophecy predicting certain people to be the most numerous, those promises are made exclusively to certain descendants of Shem. In Genesis 15:5 and 22:17 Abraham is promised his Seed will be multiplied as the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea shore. And this promise is repeated to Isaac in Genesis 26:4, and to Jacob in Genesis 32:12, and it's reaffirmed in Exodus 32:13, Deuteronomy 1:10, 10:22, 1 Chronicles 27:23, Nehemiah 9:23 and Isaiah 10:22 (quoted in Romans 9:27), and Hosea 1:10 which is specifically about the Northern Kingdom, and Hebrews 11:12. (Jeremiah 33:22 even says this specifically of the Seed of David, via Solomon's Daughters in 1 Kings 4 David's Seed did exist among the Northern Kingdom's population, but this promise's applicability to David could be fulfilled in how all Christian are made the Seed of Jesus regardless of actual biology).
Also Genesis 24:60 foretells Rebecca's Seed will be Thousands of Millions, that's Billions.
But we can get even more specific then that. Deuteronomy 33's blessings on the Tribes seem to give a particular promise of large populations to three of them. First in verse 6 "Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few."
Then verse 17 talking about Joseph seems to predict Ephraim to have a much larger population then Manasseh, which is also consistent with Genesis 48. But this never happened during the recorded Old Testament history of the Tribes, every Biblical Census has Manasseh being larger then Ephraim in population, and Manasseh also had twice the land Ephraim did being on both sides of the Jordan.
Finally verse 20 says Gad will be enlarged, and this Hebrew word does mean that, being translated that way most of the time in the KJV.
I've talked before on this Blog about how the Deported Northern Israelites were most likely taken east of the Euphrates River. But also how it wasn't really all of the Northern Kingdom deported by Assyria. The first Deportation was of Naphtali and the Trans-Jordan Tribes, and the second focused on part of Ephraim and some of Western Manasseh near the border with Ephraim. The Trans-Jordan Tribes were Reuben, Gad and the eastern half of Manasseh. Gad as I've talked about before is often who the Japanese are identified with.
Now I do think Japheth and Ham probably both contributed to the early populations of the Far East. The deported Israelites were mingled among the Gentiles.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Maybe The Wedding Feast isn't in Heaven like we assume?
I was watching this Sermon of Peter Hiett.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3NX-XG6dgA
Now he and I don't agree on Revelation, he isn't a Futurist so he's not likely to agree with the title of this post. But he and I agree on the subject of Universal Salvation and because of that common ground I'm still able to gain many spiritual insights watching his Sermons.
Technically this Sermon may not actually say anything to help what I'm arguing here at all. But it was on the Wedding Banquette parable from Matthew 22 so it had me thinking about this subject. And it brought up what I'd already heard before of Jewish Wedding Feasts sometimes lasting seven days.
In the context of what I've argued about The Bride of Christ, and my conviction that the Seven Years that Revelation 6-19 will play out over Nisan-Nisan years, including suggesting Jesus will have a second Triumphal Entry in the Nisan that ends this time period. It has me thinking about the Wedding Feast being the Seven Days of Unleavened bread.
We tend to think Revelation 19 is placing The Wedding Feast in heaven, including me talking about this subject in the past. But it doesn't say that, verses 7-9 say the time for the Wedding is come, then in verse 11 Heaven is opened and the Rider on the White Horse invades The Earth. And in verse 14 the armies following him are dressed the same as the Bride in verse 8.
This suggestion can be interesting to compare to me is The Rider on The White Horse someone other then Jesus theory. Especially since The Son of Man already came riding on a Cloud back in Chapter 14.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3NX-XG6dgA
Now he and I don't agree on Revelation, he isn't a Futurist so he's not likely to agree with the title of this post. But he and I agree on the subject of Universal Salvation and because of that common ground I'm still able to gain many spiritual insights watching his Sermons.
Technically this Sermon may not actually say anything to help what I'm arguing here at all. But it was on the Wedding Banquette parable from Matthew 22 so it had me thinking about this subject. And it brought up what I'd already heard before of Jewish Wedding Feasts sometimes lasting seven days.
In the context of what I've argued about The Bride of Christ, and my conviction that the Seven Years that Revelation 6-19 will play out over Nisan-Nisan years, including suggesting Jesus will have a second Triumphal Entry in the Nisan that ends this time period. It has me thinking about the Wedding Feast being the Seven Days of Unleavened bread.
We tend to think Revelation 19 is placing The Wedding Feast in heaven, including me talking about this subject in the past. But it doesn't say that, verses 7-9 say the time for the Wedding is come, then in verse 11 Heaven is opened and the Rider on the White Horse invades The Earth. And in verse 14 the armies following him are dressed the same as the Bride in verse 8.
This suggestion can be interesting to compare to me is The Rider on The White Horse someone other then Jesus theory. Especially since The Son of Man already came riding on a Cloud back in Chapter 14.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)