I have to agree with the position that the Tigris and Euphrates aren't useful for identifying Eden, since things changed at the Flood. Rob Skiba likes to say the text of Genesis is present tense, but I think that's because Moses simply edited together older sources. I believe Genesis 2-4 were written by Adam and Eve themselves. The fact is, the relationship between the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis 2 is literally the exact opposite of the Post-Flood rivers we now call by those names.
That doesn't mean I think it's hopeless to identify Eden's location. Because there are Post-Flood references to it.
I had in the past fixated on ways to read the references in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 37 and Amos 1 as placing Eden in Mesopotamia. But those verses contain qualifiers like "Scepter of" and "sons of" that may mean we're dealing with references to Eden that are not geographically useful.
What's interesting however is Ezekiel 27:23, which mentions Eden right before Sheba.
Genesis 2 says the Garden was "Eastward in Eden". Which has been debated between whether it means the Garden was in an Eastern part of Eden, or that Eden was East of where Yahuah first created Adam. What's interesting is Genesis 10 says the children of Joktan settled at mount Sephar (Zafar), a mountain known to be in Yemen, and calls it a Mountain of the East. A fact I also noted when arguing the Magi came from Arabia not Persia.
There is a region in Yemen called Aden. And their local tradition is that it's as old as Humanity and Cain and Able were buried there.
Ezekiel goes on in Chapter 28 when addressing the Melek of Tyre to say the Mountain of God was in Eden. And elsewhere in Scripture "Mountain of God" is a title used only of Sinai/Horeb, never of Zion or Moriah. I noted this once before when trying to place Sinai in Iraq.
But now this Eden/Sinai connection is perfectly compatible with my past argument that Sinai was in Yemen and is the tallest Mountain in Arabia.
In that context this post is a companion piece to the one I made earlier today. As well as this post.
Now it might be possible to make this argument compatible with connecting all the Genesis 2 names to their Post-Flood usage. After all the first river mentioned is associated with Havilah, a name that is in Yemen near Sheba and Ophir post Flood. But I'm gonna leave that to someone else to figure out since I don't find it necessary.
Friday, March 30, 2018
I may have to abandon the Mizraim in Arabia theory
Which I disused last fall in Biblical Egypt may not be Egypt.
Plenty of the issues brought forward there people do have answers to. And now I've noticed a Achilles Heel of that model in Exodus 13:17-18.
So we're told that going through the Land of the Philistines (The Gaza Strip) would be the short way. He's instead taking them the long way around the Red Sea. If they were East of the Red Sea going to where the Philistines are would not have been an inherently shorter route.
So this leads me to conclude that they were East of the Red Sea from the Red Sea Crossing to the Rejection at Kadesh-Barnea. Then following the post I made last year about the wandering in Numbers 21 were West of it when at Mount Hor and before that the Second Kadesh, the one that marks a southern boundary of Israel. And then went East of it again for their interactions with Moab and the Midianites.
I'm not sure which of my past Mount Sinai theories to return to. My closer Study of Exodus 3 and 4 have lead me to conclude it wasn't in Midian. What I've observed above does make it East of the Gulf of Aqaba. Where I had settled on for Sinai was the post about Eden, Sinai and Iraq.
I'd also forgotten during this whole phase of mine the clear evidence of the name of Moses being Kemetic in origin, being the same as the mosis part of names like Tuthmosis. Both Moses and Tuthmosis end with an S for us only because of Greek influence. Though it is note worthy that those names don't show up till the 18th Dynasty.
It might be there was an offshoot of Mizraim in Arabia and that's where the Jurham Tribe came from.
Plenty of the issues brought forward there people do have answers to. And now I've noticed a Achilles Heel of that model in Exodus 13:17-18.
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.We know because of Solomon's port that the Red Sea(Yam Suf) is or includes the Gulf of Aqaba.
So we're told that going through the Land of the Philistines (The Gaza Strip) would be the short way. He's instead taking them the long way around the Red Sea. If they were East of the Red Sea going to where the Philistines are would not have been an inherently shorter route.
So this leads me to conclude that they were East of the Red Sea from the Red Sea Crossing to the Rejection at Kadesh-Barnea. Then following the post I made last year about the wandering in Numbers 21 were West of it when at Mount Hor and before that the Second Kadesh, the one that marks a southern boundary of Israel. And then went East of it again for their interactions with Moab and the Midianites.
I'm not sure which of my past Mount Sinai theories to return to. My closer Study of Exodus 3 and 4 have lead me to conclude it wasn't in Midian. What I've observed above does make it East of the Gulf of Aqaba. Where I had settled on for Sinai was the post about Eden, Sinai and Iraq.
I'd also forgotten during this whole phase of mine the clear evidence of the name of Moses being Kemetic in origin, being the same as the mosis part of names like Tuthmosis. Both Moses and Tuthmosis end with an S for us only because of Greek influence. Though it is note worthy that those names don't show up till the 18th Dynasty.
It might be there was an offshoot of Mizraim in Arabia and that's where the Jurham Tribe came from.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
The Origins of Lent
One of the false claims you'll see among people presenting conspiracy theories about where the Holidays came from is that Lent is when the Women weeped for Tammuz.
All the evidence shows that on or soon after the Summer Solstice was when that happened. The Assyrians and Babylonians also used a lunar calendar and after the return from captivity the months of the Hebrew calendar took their names. The women weeped for Tammuz is the month that was named after Tammuz, the fourth month. Which on our calendar usually begins in late June or July.
The myth went that the Summer Solstice was when Tammuz went to the Underworld for 6 months and then at the Winter Solstice Ishtar takes his place. Fitting the point I made before that the Pre-Christian Pagans did the opposite of the traditional Christian calendar, Solstices were for deaths and resurrections and sometimes conception at the same time, while Equinoxes were for births.
Adonis was a figure in Greek mythology probably based on the Tammuz cult spreading west. The Adonia, a festival in which women weeped for him, was also in the Summer.
So where did Lent come from? I have a few ideas.
Jewish tradition eventually started preparing for Passover a full month in advance, essentially starting it right after Purim. (Interpretations for abstinence from leaven or yeast) This included a custom of refraining from eating Matza in order to build an appetite for it before the Feast.
Deuteronomy 34:8 tells us that the children of Israel wept for Moses for 30 days after he died. And the start of the Book of Joshua seems to give the impression a new year started right after that.
The traditional explanation is that Lent commemorates the 40 Days Jesus fast in the Wilderness. And I don't think it's really based on claiming this is when those 40 days actually happened. There is a Jewish tradition that one of Moses 40 days on Mount Sinai ended on Yom Kippur. And other traditions that say Yom Kippur is when the events of Genesis 3 happened. So placing Jesus Temptation on Yom Kippur fits nicely in my view. There is also my hunch that Yom Kippur is when Michael will cast Satan out of Heaven.
All the evidence shows that on or soon after the Summer Solstice was when that happened. The Assyrians and Babylonians also used a lunar calendar and after the return from captivity the months of the Hebrew calendar took their names. The women weeped for Tammuz is the month that was named after Tammuz, the fourth month. Which on our calendar usually begins in late June or July.
The myth went that the Summer Solstice was when Tammuz went to the Underworld for 6 months and then at the Winter Solstice Ishtar takes his place. Fitting the point I made before that the Pre-Christian Pagans did the opposite of the traditional Christian calendar, Solstices were for deaths and resurrections and sometimes conception at the same time, while Equinoxes were for births.
Adonis was a figure in Greek mythology probably based on the Tammuz cult spreading west. The Adonia, a festival in which women weeped for him, was also in the Summer.
So where did Lent come from? I have a few ideas.
Jewish tradition eventually started preparing for Passover a full month in advance, essentially starting it right after Purim. (Interpretations for abstinence from leaven or yeast) This included a custom of refraining from eating Matza in order to build an appetite for it before the Feast.
Deuteronomy 34:8 tells us that the children of Israel wept for Moses for 30 days after he died. And the start of the Book of Joshua seems to give the impression a new year started right after that.
The traditional explanation is that Lent commemorates the 40 Days Jesus fast in the Wilderness. And I don't think it's really based on claiming this is when those 40 days actually happened. There is a Jewish tradition that one of Moses 40 days on Mount Sinai ended on Yom Kippur. And other traditions that say Yom Kippur is when the events of Genesis 3 happened. So placing Jesus Temptation on Yom Kippur fits nicely in my view. There is also my hunch that Yom Kippur is when Michael will cast Satan out of Heaven.
Monday, March 26, 2018
The Sisters of Jesus
I've already did a post on the Brothers of Jesus where I argued that "Mary the Mother of James and Joses" of the Synoptic accounts of the Crucifixion is Mary the Mother of Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea is Jesus brother Joses. Predicated on arguing that after the events of Matthew 12&13 and Mark 5&6 the Synoptic narrative doesn't refer to Jesus immediate relatives as such.
I felt compelled to explore the possibility that one or more of Jesus Sisters who are unnamed in the Synpotic passages (Matthew 13:56 and Mark 6:3) that tell us he had Sisters could be mentioned by name elsewhere. And in the context of that post, the Women at the Cross who later found the Tomb empty are a good place to start For example Acts 1:14 refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and his Brethren. Where are the other women? Brethren can be gender neutral when it's plural so maybe they are all or mostly sisters of Jesus?
Jesus sisters are not defined as disbelieving him the way his Brothers are in John 7, so there is in my view nothing to contradict them being among the women in mind in Luke 8:1-4. And even then I already argued some of those non-believing Brethren might have changed between Tabernacles and Passover. Even my past assumption that James didn't become a Believer till after the Resurrection may have been based on a misunderstanding of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15.
People named only in Luke I think are named only in Luke because they were among the Eye Witnesses he interviewed, which here would be Joanna and Susana. So I'm not gonna argue there is good reason to suspect they were sisters of Jesus as much as it would amuse me for Him to have one named Susana which means Lily.
John's account of the Women at the Cross in 19:25 can be considered the most difficult, how many women are refereed to is disputed, and has lead tradition to assert up to three different women here were named Mary.
The Greek text does not insert the word "Kai" for "and" between the reference to "his mother's Sister" and "Mary of Clopas" (no word for Wife is used there) which has been used to argue they are the same. However the Greek text does still imply a change here in a different way.
I have come to think only two women are being refereed to here. First John tells us two relatives of Jesus were there, then it names them. I think "Mary of Clopas" refers to Jesus mother, not sure what it means to call her that, but that's what I think. Clopas could be a contraction of Cleopatras which means "Glory of the Father". Maybe either Joseph or Heli were among Jews of the time who had both a Greek and Hebrew name.
And now I come to the phrase translated "his mother's sister". In the Greek the word for Sister occurs before Mother but both are refereed to possessively. I think it's possible the intent here was to say "His sister of his mother" as in "His sister by his mother" or "His maternal sister". Meaning John was identifying Mary Magdalene as Jesus' Sister and also the daughter of Mary of Clopas. And it became traditional to interpret it different because even before Constantine the perpetual Virginity doctrine was taking hold.
I'm not the first to argue only two women are refereed to here. Someone wrote a book suggesting a strange theory that the common source material of the Gospels' Passion narrative was a lost Play by Seneca. This author still thinks the Sister refereed to was of his Mother. They were arguing that it's identifying Mary Magdalene with Jesus mother and Mary of Clopas with the Sister. My first objection there is that as common a name as Mary was I don't think two sisters would be given the same name, but being given the name of your parent was just as likely for women as it was for men.
That Author's argument for Mary Magdalene being the Mother was first dependent on them rejecting information about Magdalene unique to Luke and Mark after chapter 16 verse 8 since they wouldn't be in their hypothetical play. And then comparing this verse to a verse in the Iliad that refers to Semele and her sister by first referring to Semele then describing her sister and then referring to Semele again. The difference is in that verse Semele was still named the first time she's mentioned.
I don't think this Author's overall Seneca theory is right either. The Passion narrative makes a good play simply because it was very dramatic. Chuck Missler has suggested Mark's entire Gospel reads kind of like a Screen Play. When I was going to a Catholic school we watched an Actor actually do a one man performance based on Mark's Gospel (it annoyingly ended with 16:8) . Since we're told by early traditions that Mark based his Gospel on what Peter was preaching, maybe Peter performed The Gospel in a similar fashion?
There is another implication of seeing only two people in John 19:25 that author overlooked.
John 20:2 is often seen as refuting any theory that Mary Magdalene is the disciple whom Jesus Loved and so most people who want to argue that say the text of John was changed. First John 20:2 uses phileo not agape as the other references to this disciple do. But more importantly this verse says "the other disciple whom Jesus loved", to which I ask "other then who", elsewhere the disciple Jesus loved is in the same scene as Peter without that being needed. It seems to me like this verse is saying there were at least two disciples whom Jesus loved and they are two of the three in this scene.
If John 19:25 is only referring to two people, then 19:26 saying "Jesus saw his Mother and the disciple standing by, whom he loved" seems logically like it's referring to the same two individuals. "But he uses the word Son not Daughter?" you may ask. It's already the point of this scene that he is giving the responsibility of His Mother's Son to someone it doesn't literally belong to. It's the legal not biological definition of Son that He is using, so why not view gender as equally irrelevant? And the Pronouns may be more gender neutral in the Greek then they are in English.
Now you may grow concerned that I just overlapped my argument with arguments for Jesus being married to her. And indeed the only person before me to say Mary Magdalene was his Sister that I've found was also doing that, because they were comparing them to Osiris and Isis and other examples of Royal Incest. I do not think Jesus was in an incestuous relationship with His younger sister. But I do know that sometimes in antiquity an unmarried King would have one of his Sisters serve the ceremonial and customary role of Queen.
And that sometimes lead to accusations of Incest, that may have sometimes been true but I don't think nearly as often as Tabloid journalist style historians would want us to think. I've become skeptical even of some of the stories about Caligula, but with Caligula what stood out was his favoring Drusilla when she wasn't the oldest. More relevant here would be Herod Agrippa II and Berenice, Josephus seems to ultimately believe the scandalous reports of their incest, but they appear in Acts with Paul commending Agrippa as a student of the Torah, odd thing to do if he was violating Leviticus 18 right in front of him.
But I'm not gonna stress that analogy much since I know of no precedent for it among the Davidic Kings in the Hebrew Bible. Instead I'll just say sometimes Brothers and Sisters are close in a perfectly normal way, depictions of which in media sometimes inspire Fan Fiction, including Christian media like Narnia.
Another thing about the only person before me I found to argue Mary Magdalene was His sister was that they also identified Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. I just argued against that identification in my recent post on Bethany, but there can be counters to those arguments. So I'm not gonna definitively say one way or the other on that here, just speculate on how compatible it could be with this theory.
My Joseph of Arimathea argument already suggested that some of Jesus Siblings could have moved to Benjamite territory near Jerusalem at some point. Lazarus has been argued to be a nickname and that he's the same as Simon the Leper (or Simon the Jar-Maker in the Aramaic Peshita) of Matthew 26 and Mark 16. And a Simon was among the brothers of Jesus. And the argument for Lazarus being the Beloved Disciple is two verses in John 11 one of which also gives that designation to his sisters Mary and Martha. Maybe the first among His siblings to become believers He sent to live near Jerusalem to prepare things for Him, Joseph the Tomb and then Simon & two sisters their place of lodging.
But I still learn towards them being separate.
Luke twice and Mark in 16:9 (which I believe was always part of Mark's Gospel) refers to Mary Magdalene as someone Jesus cast seven Demons out of. Some might see this as saying this can't be a relative since this incident is implied to be how she became a follower of Jesus. But again John 7 shows Jesus siblings were not believers automatically because they were siblings. It is certainly plausible that Beelzebub would send Demons after Jesus family.
Now I shall address the designation Magdalene. If it does refer to one of the two cities called Magdalla, she could have moved there later, perhaps she married someone there. But the root is just the Hebrew word for Tower, Migdol, maybe Nazareth had it's own Tower? (Or Bethany if she's the same as Mary of Bethany?) Or Maybe it refers to the Migdol Eder in Bethlehem, maybe Mary and Joseph conceived her there before they had to flee to Aegyptos? Or speaking of that, maybe it refers to one of the Migdol of Mizraim the Hebrew Bible refers to? Or maybe it's not a location at all, maybe she was taller then average for a Woman and towered over people? Or maybe the Talmud was right and it means she was a hairdresser?
Well I've spent a lot of time on one Sister. Time I considered more.
The Synoptic Gospels all identify exactly three of the Woman at the Cross/Myrrbearers but also clearly say there were more. Matthew and Mark are the most similar to each other in how they refer to them which is why it's pretty common to believe Salome was the mother of Zebede's Children.
However the other reference to the mother of Zebede's Children is also different in Mark. Matthew introduced the mother of Zebede's children in Matthew 20:10, Mark's account of this same event in 10:35 leaves their mother out of it. To skeptics that would be a contradiction, but since she was asking on their behalf it's easy to see Mark's account as a justifiable description of what Matthew says happened. The key here though is that he would have said Salome here if Salome was simply his name for Matthew's character. And if Mark was Matthew's source material as skeptics claim, why drop the name Salome? I'm saying this even though it doesn't really conflict with anything I'm arguing to name her Salome, it's just an observation I'm making.
I have been considering models for the Nativity that could make Jesus older then we generally assume during all this (I'll be posting more on that in April). And given the Student/Teacher relationship Jesus has with the disciples, and how in Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 He refers to the Disciples as children of the Bridegroom, it can be possible to see them as young enough to be Nephews. David gave important positions to his maternal Nephews. So maybe this scene makes a lot of sense if the mother of Zebede's children is also one of Jesus' sisters? Maternal nephews of a Messianic King have been echoed in mythology since, from some of Arthur's being Knights of the Round Table, to Fili and Kili being sons of Dis the sister of Thorin Oakensheild in The Hobbit.
I'm gonna return to the subject of specifically John 19:25.
Some view a second witness for Mary the Mother of Jesus having a sister in the theory of the Elect Lady whom 2 John is addressed to being her, and that lady having a Sister. But I'm not convinced of that theory anymore. I think the Elect Lady is the Bride of Christ, whatever your view on that doctrine is. The Bride does have Children like the Elect Lady does according to Psalm 45 and Revelation 12. And so the Elect Lady's sister and her children I think may represent non Israelite Abrahamic Nations.
I'm gonna mention a Gnostic text here even though I don't like Gnosticism. But I think the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip or our preserved copies of it also represent confusion on this verse of John as you can read on Wikipedia.
I felt compelled to explore the possibility that one or more of Jesus Sisters who are unnamed in the Synpotic passages (Matthew 13:56 and Mark 6:3) that tell us he had Sisters could be mentioned by name elsewhere. And in the context of that post, the Women at the Cross who later found the Tomb empty are a good place to start For example Acts 1:14 refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and his Brethren. Where are the other women? Brethren can be gender neutral when it's plural so maybe they are all or mostly sisters of Jesus?
Jesus sisters are not defined as disbelieving him the way his Brothers are in John 7, so there is in my view nothing to contradict them being among the women in mind in Luke 8:1-4. And even then I already argued some of those non-believing Brethren might have changed between Tabernacles and Passover. Even my past assumption that James didn't become a Believer till after the Resurrection may have been based on a misunderstanding of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15.
People named only in Luke I think are named only in Luke because they were among the Eye Witnesses he interviewed, which here would be Joanna and Susana. So I'm not gonna argue there is good reason to suspect they were sisters of Jesus as much as it would amuse me for Him to have one named Susana which means Lily.
John's account of the Women at the Cross in 19:25 can be considered the most difficult, how many women are refereed to is disputed, and has lead tradition to assert up to three different women here were named Mary.
The Greek text does not insert the word "Kai" for "and" between the reference to "his mother's Sister" and "Mary of Clopas" (no word for Wife is used there) which has been used to argue they are the same. However the Greek text does still imply a change here in a different way.
I have come to think only two women are being refereed to here. First John tells us two relatives of Jesus were there, then it names them. I think "Mary of Clopas" refers to Jesus mother, not sure what it means to call her that, but that's what I think. Clopas could be a contraction of Cleopatras which means "Glory of the Father". Maybe either Joseph or Heli were among Jews of the time who had both a Greek and Hebrew name.
And now I come to the phrase translated "his mother's sister". In the Greek the word for Sister occurs before Mother but both are refereed to possessively. I think it's possible the intent here was to say "His sister of his mother" as in "His sister by his mother" or "His maternal sister". Meaning John was identifying Mary Magdalene as Jesus' Sister and also the daughter of Mary of Clopas. And it became traditional to interpret it different because even before Constantine the perpetual Virginity doctrine was taking hold.
I'm not the first to argue only two women are refereed to here. Someone wrote a book suggesting a strange theory that the common source material of the Gospels' Passion narrative was a lost Play by Seneca. This author still thinks the Sister refereed to was of his Mother. They were arguing that it's identifying Mary Magdalene with Jesus mother and Mary of Clopas with the Sister. My first objection there is that as common a name as Mary was I don't think two sisters would be given the same name, but being given the name of your parent was just as likely for women as it was for men.
That Author's argument for Mary Magdalene being the Mother was first dependent on them rejecting information about Magdalene unique to Luke and Mark after chapter 16 verse 8 since they wouldn't be in their hypothetical play. And then comparing this verse to a verse in the Iliad that refers to Semele and her sister by first referring to Semele then describing her sister and then referring to Semele again. The difference is in that verse Semele was still named the first time she's mentioned.
I don't think this Author's overall Seneca theory is right either. The Passion narrative makes a good play simply because it was very dramatic. Chuck Missler has suggested Mark's entire Gospel reads kind of like a Screen Play. When I was going to a Catholic school we watched an Actor actually do a one man performance based on Mark's Gospel (it annoyingly ended with 16:8) . Since we're told by early traditions that Mark based his Gospel on what Peter was preaching, maybe Peter performed The Gospel in a similar fashion?
There is another implication of seeing only two people in John 19:25 that author overlooked.
John 20:2 is often seen as refuting any theory that Mary Magdalene is the disciple whom Jesus Loved and so most people who want to argue that say the text of John was changed. First John 20:2 uses phileo not agape as the other references to this disciple do. But more importantly this verse says "the other disciple whom Jesus loved", to which I ask "other then who", elsewhere the disciple Jesus loved is in the same scene as Peter without that being needed. It seems to me like this verse is saying there were at least two disciples whom Jesus loved and they are two of the three in this scene.
If John 19:25 is only referring to two people, then 19:26 saying "Jesus saw his Mother and the disciple standing by, whom he loved" seems logically like it's referring to the same two individuals. "But he uses the word Son not Daughter?" you may ask. It's already the point of this scene that he is giving the responsibility of His Mother's Son to someone it doesn't literally belong to. It's the legal not biological definition of Son that He is using, so why not view gender as equally irrelevant? And the Pronouns may be more gender neutral in the Greek then they are in English.
Now you may grow concerned that I just overlapped my argument with arguments for Jesus being married to her. And indeed the only person before me to say Mary Magdalene was his Sister that I've found was also doing that, because they were comparing them to Osiris and Isis and other examples of Royal Incest. I do not think Jesus was in an incestuous relationship with His younger sister. But I do know that sometimes in antiquity an unmarried King would have one of his Sisters serve the ceremonial and customary role of Queen.
And that sometimes lead to accusations of Incest, that may have sometimes been true but I don't think nearly as often as Tabloid journalist style historians would want us to think. I've become skeptical even of some of the stories about Caligula, but with Caligula what stood out was his favoring Drusilla when she wasn't the oldest. More relevant here would be Herod Agrippa II and Berenice, Josephus seems to ultimately believe the scandalous reports of their incest, but they appear in Acts with Paul commending Agrippa as a student of the Torah, odd thing to do if he was violating Leviticus 18 right in front of him.
But I'm not gonna stress that analogy much since I know of no precedent for it among the Davidic Kings in the Hebrew Bible. Instead I'll just say sometimes Brothers and Sisters are close in a perfectly normal way, depictions of which in media sometimes inspire Fan Fiction, including Christian media like Narnia.
Another thing about the only person before me I found to argue Mary Magdalene was His sister was that they also identified Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. I just argued against that identification in my recent post on Bethany, but there can be counters to those arguments. So I'm not gonna definitively say one way or the other on that here, just speculate on how compatible it could be with this theory.
My Joseph of Arimathea argument already suggested that some of Jesus Siblings could have moved to Benjamite territory near Jerusalem at some point. Lazarus has been argued to be a nickname and that he's the same as Simon the Leper (or Simon the Jar-Maker in the Aramaic Peshita) of Matthew 26 and Mark 16. And a Simon was among the brothers of Jesus. And the argument for Lazarus being the Beloved Disciple is two verses in John 11 one of which also gives that designation to his sisters Mary and Martha. Maybe the first among His siblings to become believers He sent to live near Jerusalem to prepare things for Him, Joseph the Tomb and then Simon & two sisters their place of lodging.
But I still learn towards them being separate.
Luke twice and Mark in 16:9 (which I believe was always part of Mark's Gospel) refers to Mary Magdalene as someone Jesus cast seven Demons out of. Some might see this as saying this can't be a relative since this incident is implied to be how she became a follower of Jesus. But again John 7 shows Jesus siblings were not believers automatically because they were siblings. It is certainly plausible that Beelzebub would send Demons after Jesus family.
Now I shall address the designation Magdalene. If it does refer to one of the two cities called Magdalla, she could have moved there later, perhaps she married someone there. But the root is just the Hebrew word for Tower, Migdol, maybe Nazareth had it's own Tower? (Or Bethany if she's the same as Mary of Bethany?) Or Maybe it refers to the Migdol Eder in Bethlehem, maybe Mary and Joseph conceived her there before they had to flee to Aegyptos? Or speaking of that, maybe it refers to one of the Migdol of Mizraim the Hebrew Bible refers to? Or maybe it's not a location at all, maybe she was taller then average for a Woman and towered over people? Or maybe the Talmud was right and it means she was a hairdresser?
Well I've spent a lot of time on one Sister. Time I considered more.
The Synoptic Gospels all identify exactly three of the Woman at the Cross/Myrrbearers but also clearly say there were more. Matthew and Mark are the most similar to each other in how they refer to them which is why it's pretty common to believe Salome was the mother of Zebede's Children.
However the other reference to the mother of Zebede's Children is also different in Mark. Matthew introduced the mother of Zebede's children in Matthew 20:10, Mark's account of this same event in 10:35 leaves their mother out of it. To skeptics that would be a contradiction, but since she was asking on their behalf it's easy to see Mark's account as a justifiable description of what Matthew says happened. The key here though is that he would have said Salome here if Salome was simply his name for Matthew's character. And if Mark was Matthew's source material as skeptics claim, why drop the name Salome? I'm saying this even though it doesn't really conflict with anything I'm arguing to name her Salome, it's just an observation I'm making.
I have been considering models for the Nativity that could make Jesus older then we generally assume during all this (I'll be posting more on that in April). And given the Student/Teacher relationship Jesus has with the disciples, and how in Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 He refers to the Disciples as children of the Bridegroom, it can be possible to see them as young enough to be Nephews. David gave important positions to his maternal Nephews. So maybe this scene makes a lot of sense if the mother of Zebede's children is also one of Jesus' sisters? Maternal nephews of a Messianic King have been echoed in mythology since, from some of Arthur's being Knights of the Round Table, to Fili and Kili being sons of Dis the sister of Thorin Oakensheild in The Hobbit.
I'm gonna return to the subject of specifically John 19:25.
Some view a second witness for Mary the Mother of Jesus having a sister in the theory of the Elect Lady whom 2 John is addressed to being her, and that lady having a Sister. But I'm not convinced of that theory anymore. I think the Elect Lady is the Bride of Christ, whatever your view on that doctrine is. The Bride does have Children like the Elect Lady does according to Psalm 45 and Revelation 12. And so the Elect Lady's sister and her children I think may represent non Israelite Abrahamic Nations.
I'm gonna mention a Gnostic text here even though I don't like Gnosticism. But I think the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip or our preserved copies of it also represent confusion on this verse of John as you can read on Wikipedia.
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, who was called his companion. His sister,[60] his mother and his companion were each a Mary.[58]I think it's possible this passage originally simply refereed to Mary Magdalene as His Sister.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Firstfruits and Pentacost are the First Day of the Week
I already did a post about people like Rob Skiba who are now trying to say The Resurrection happened on The Sabbath, and every time you see “Week” in the New Testament it should be translated Sabbath.
Part of my response was simply pointing to the Feast of Firstfruits, and regardless of the accuracy of the usual ways Christians justify connecting that to the Resurrection, which I’ll get into latter, it does show that the “Sunday” after Passover is important for something. Likewise with Pentecost which indisputably fell on the same day of the week seven weeks later.
I have not yet seen someone try to argue that we’re misreading Leviticus 23:9-22 and that Firstfruits was on the Sabbath not the day after. But I want to prepare in advance for anyone who might try to.
In the King James English of Leviticus 23:9-22 I could see someone looking at “morrow” and thinking it means morning and consider that the intent might have been to say the morning of the Sabbath. But no one who really knows the Hebrew would make that mistake.
There are a few different words translated “Morning” (some might refer to the Sunrise itself while others to a broader time frame) none of them are what’s translated “morrow” here. This word is also sometimes translated “tomorrow”, it means the day following something. So even when the YLT chooses to render it "morrow of the Sabbath" that language still means the day after, however that YLT wording is bad, I like YLT often but this mistake is embarrassing.
The Rabbinic Jewish reckoning of it being the 16th of Nisan is based on saying the Sabbath meant here is the 15th of Nisan as a special Sabbath. But Leviticus 23 doesn’t describe the 15th of Nisan as a Sabbath, it only calls these special days of rest Sabbaths for the Tishri days, which I think might have to do with Tishri being the Seventh Month. I would say to both this view and the Lunar Sabbath view that if the intent was for this always to fall the same day of the Month, God would have just said that as He did for other days in the same chapter.
But that’s not what I’m dealing with today. These Sabbath Resurrection people could instead say following similar logic to what I just used “why didn’t God simply say First Day of the Week?” The difference is identifying things by a day of the Week is not as common in the Torah’s terminology as using the Day of the Month is, and is mostly only used in defining The Sabbath itself in Genesis 1&2 and Exodus 16.
Firstfruits and Pentecost are the first and last days of a period of fifty days. And we’re also clearly told there were only seven Sabbaths within that fifty days. If Firstfruits and Pentecost were on Sabbaths then Pentecost would be the Eight Sabbath not the morrow after the seventh.
Now lesser then this error is the claim of Wednesday Crucifixion supporters that Jesus Rose while it was still the Sabbath but the Women found the Tomb Empty on Sunday/Firstfruits. To me however a careful reading of Matthew 28 and Mark 16:2&9 shows Jesus Rose at Sunrise. I believe He rested on The Sabbath.
Now what can be confusing is what Firstfruits means. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the many places you see Firstfruits or “first fruits” in English are not always exactly the same in Hebrew. Sometimes it’s two words and sometimes it's one, and at least 3 different words are used. But only two of them appear in Leviticus 23:9-22 and neither of them is a word that actually means fruit.
The Spring feasts are mostly about the Wheat or Grain Harvest. the harvest of the fruits comes later. A Hebrew word for Fruit is used in Leviticus 23:40 (translated "boughs" in the KJV) talking about Tabernacles in the Seventh Month. That’s why we know this is the time of the Grape Harvest (Revelation 14).
The New Testament references to Firstfruits don’t have such variety in the Greek however, they are in verses that all use aparch or aparche, and it doesn’t etymologically actually refer to fruit either. My break down of the Greek Etymology of the word leads to me conclude it's equivalent to the Hebrew word translated Firstfruits in Leviticus 23:10 rather then Bikkurim which is more directly associated with Pentecost. And the Septuagint Translation agrees with that, I would never base a theory solely on the Septuagint but I'm glad this one lines up.
Most times the New Testament uses this word (especially Paul) it’s about the subject of the Resurrection, but exactly how kind of varies. In 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 Jesus is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection, so in that context unique of His Resurrection. But Romans 8:23 and 11:15-16 seem to use it of all the Resurrected, or all of the "First Resurrection" at least. And in my view Revelation 14:4 uses it of the 144 Thousand resurrected. But even if not every NT use of Firstfurits is about Resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15 it's definitely about how Jesus fits into The Resurrection as a whole.
None of these verses are for the purpose of saying when Jesus Rose. But since that seems to be when anyway, it works.
This Sun Worship paranoia from people like Rob Skiba who support the Mazzaroth and using Virgo to interpret Revelation 12 I find highly hypocritical. Malachi 4 calls Jesus the Sun (Shamash) of Rightness, and Mark 16’s account of the Resurrection specifically refers to Sunrise.
But more important than that, the “First day of the Week” wasn’t a Sun Worship day when the New Testament was written. Originally the Greeks and Romans didn’t have a Seven Day Week, there is no evidence of them being aware of the idea until they made contact with the Jews. That’s why the New Testament doesn’t use the modern Greek word for Week, because it wasn’t coined yet. The first Greco-Roman references to the idea of a seven day week involve them saying the Sabbath is the day to Worship Saturn/Kronos because they identified the Jewish and the Pagan Semitic El with Saturn/Kronos.
So the first day of the Week became Sunday because of people associating Jesus with the Sun, not the other way around.
I will say this. The Triumphal Entry is never referred to as being on the first day of the week. Now it might be a detailed breakdown of the timeline of the Gospels can show it probably did happen the same day of the week as the Resurrection a week earlier. But typologically I believe it happened on the 10th of Nisan when the Passover Lamb was presented. So people commemorating the Passion using a Hebrew Calendar should keep it on that day not a day of the week.
A Thursday Crucifixion on the 14th Model would fit the 10th falling on Sunday. But people emotionally invested in a Friday Crucifixion model should change it to Palm Monday. Sometimes the resurrection of Lazarus is estimated to be the previous day, though John 11 actually seems to imply more of a gap. I’ve often been attracted to associating the events of John 11 with Purim. What John 12 places the day before the Triumphal entry is Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus and Judas throwing a fit over it.
Part of my response was simply pointing to the Feast of Firstfruits, and regardless of the accuracy of the usual ways Christians justify connecting that to the Resurrection, which I’ll get into latter, it does show that the “Sunday” after Passover is important for something. Likewise with Pentecost which indisputably fell on the same day of the week seven weeks later.
I have not yet seen someone try to argue that we’re misreading Leviticus 23:9-22 and that Firstfruits was on the Sabbath not the day after. But I want to prepare in advance for anyone who might try to.
In the King James English of Leviticus 23:9-22 I could see someone looking at “morrow” and thinking it means morning and consider that the intent might have been to say the morning of the Sabbath. But no one who really knows the Hebrew would make that mistake.
There are a few different words translated “Morning” (some might refer to the Sunrise itself while others to a broader time frame) none of them are what’s translated “morrow” here. This word is also sometimes translated “tomorrow”, it means the day following something. So even when the YLT chooses to render it "morrow of the Sabbath" that language still means the day after, however that YLT wording is bad, I like YLT often but this mistake is embarrassing.
The Rabbinic Jewish reckoning of it being the 16th of Nisan is based on saying the Sabbath meant here is the 15th of Nisan as a special Sabbath. But Leviticus 23 doesn’t describe the 15th of Nisan as a Sabbath, it only calls these special days of rest Sabbaths for the Tishri days, which I think might have to do with Tishri being the Seventh Month. I would say to both this view and the Lunar Sabbath view that if the intent was for this always to fall the same day of the Month, God would have just said that as He did for other days in the same chapter.
But that’s not what I’m dealing with today. These Sabbath Resurrection people could instead say following similar logic to what I just used “why didn’t God simply say First Day of the Week?” The difference is identifying things by a day of the Week is not as common in the Torah’s terminology as using the Day of the Month is, and is mostly only used in defining The Sabbath itself in Genesis 1&2 and Exodus 16.
Firstfruits and Pentecost are the first and last days of a period of fifty days. And we’re also clearly told there were only seven Sabbaths within that fifty days. If Firstfruits and Pentecost were on Sabbaths then Pentecost would be the Eight Sabbath not the morrow after the seventh.
Now lesser then this error is the claim of Wednesday Crucifixion supporters that Jesus Rose while it was still the Sabbath but the Women found the Tomb Empty on Sunday/Firstfruits. To me however a careful reading of Matthew 28 and Mark 16:2&9 shows Jesus Rose at Sunrise. I believe He rested on The Sabbath.
Now what can be confusing is what Firstfruits means. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the many places you see Firstfruits or “first fruits” in English are not always exactly the same in Hebrew. Sometimes it’s two words and sometimes it's one, and at least 3 different words are used. But only two of them appear in Leviticus 23:9-22 and neither of them is a word that actually means fruit.
The Spring feasts are mostly about the Wheat or Grain Harvest. the harvest of the fruits comes later. A Hebrew word for Fruit is used in Leviticus 23:40 (translated "boughs" in the KJV) talking about Tabernacles in the Seventh Month. That’s why we know this is the time of the Grape Harvest (Revelation 14).
The New Testament references to Firstfruits don’t have such variety in the Greek however, they are in verses that all use aparch or aparche, and it doesn’t etymologically actually refer to fruit either. My break down of the Greek Etymology of the word leads to me conclude it's equivalent to the Hebrew word translated Firstfruits in Leviticus 23:10 rather then Bikkurim which is more directly associated with Pentecost. And the Septuagint Translation agrees with that, I would never base a theory solely on the Septuagint but I'm glad this one lines up.
Most times the New Testament uses this word (especially Paul) it’s about the subject of the Resurrection, but exactly how kind of varies. In 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 Jesus is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection, so in that context unique of His Resurrection. But Romans 8:23 and 11:15-16 seem to use it of all the Resurrected, or all of the "First Resurrection" at least. And in my view Revelation 14:4 uses it of the 144 Thousand resurrected. But even if not every NT use of Firstfurits is about Resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15 it's definitely about how Jesus fits into The Resurrection as a whole.
None of these verses are for the purpose of saying when Jesus Rose. But since that seems to be when anyway, it works.
This Sun Worship paranoia from people like Rob Skiba who support the Mazzaroth and using Virgo to interpret Revelation 12 I find highly hypocritical. Malachi 4 calls Jesus the Sun (Shamash) of Rightness, and Mark 16’s account of the Resurrection specifically refers to Sunrise.
But more important than that, the “First day of the Week” wasn’t a Sun Worship day when the New Testament was written. Originally the Greeks and Romans didn’t have a Seven Day Week, there is no evidence of them being aware of the idea until they made contact with the Jews. That’s why the New Testament doesn’t use the modern Greek word for Week, because it wasn’t coined yet. The first Greco-Roman references to the idea of a seven day week involve them saying the Sabbath is the day to Worship Saturn/Kronos because they identified the Jewish and the Pagan Semitic El with Saturn/Kronos.
So the first day of the Week became Sunday because of people associating Jesus with the Sun, not the other way around.
I will say this. The Triumphal Entry is never referred to as being on the first day of the week. Now it might be a detailed breakdown of the timeline of the Gospels can show it probably did happen the same day of the week as the Resurrection a week earlier. But typologically I believe it happened on the 10th of Nisan when the Passover Lamb was presented. So people commemorating the Passion using a Hebrew Calendar should keep it on that day not a day of the week.
A Thursday Crucifixion on the 14th Model would fit the 10th falling on Sunday. But people emotionally invested in a Friday Crucifixion model should change it to Palm Monday. Sometimes the resurrection of Lazarus is estimated to be the previous day, though John 11 actually seems to imply more of a gap. I’ve often been attracted to associating the events of John 11 with Purim. What John 12 places the day before the Triumphal entry is Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus and Judas throwing a fit over it.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Bethany and The Mount of Olives
The Gospel texts use the phrase "nigh to Jerusalem" (or "the city") to describe both the location of the Crucifixion (John 19:20) and Bethany. The Hebrew terminology that likely equates to implies approaching the East Gate. And we're also told Bethany is by or on the Mount of Olives in Mark 11:1 and Luke 11:29, and Matthew 21:1. Zechariah 14:4 is an important verse to remember here. Also Luke 19:37.
My initial post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model has become kind of incoherent as I added updates to it because of my abandoning the theory and then coming back to it. I now just made a post on another blog that mentions why I'm abandoning the Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple view. So I decided to make a new post on it. But I won't really be retreading too much, and want to also talk about other subjects related to Bethany.
What's interesting about how this connection of Hebrews 12:11-13 to Numbers 19 is how it specifically makes the Red Heifer a type of Christ. Most references to "without the camp" in the Torah are just as where the bodies of sacrificed animals were burned, only the Red Heifer was actually killed "without the camp". And it's now been archeologically confirmed that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer was killed during the Second Temple period.
What's interesting is The Red Heifer is female, so it's another example I can add of The Hebrew Bible using a female as a type of Christ.
The seven days for purification of Numbers 19:18-19 and 31:19 could correlate here to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, on the third of which I believe was The Resurrection, the 17th of Nisan. I'm unsure what Resurrection narrative event to place on the 7th day of Unleavened Bread, a possible option is the Doubting Thomas story with a different interpretation of when John 20 was counting 8 days from. Or maybe that day is when the other dead were resurrected fulfilling Matthew 27:50-53.
But speaking of the timeline, Bethany is relevant to an issue of it. When did Mary of Bethany anoint Jesus?
As much as on other issues I view John's Gospel as the least chronological, in this case John 12 clearly tells us how many days this was from the Passover and the Triumphal Entry, placing it on the 9th of Nisan in my chronology, and probably a Sabbath, the last Sabbath before the Crucifixion. Matthew 26 and Mark 14 flash back to this event right before Judas goes to see the Priests because it's largely the reason for his betrayal, Luke 22 does not record this event.
Some might try to argue this is a separate similar event, and I do believe Luke 7's anointing incident was a very different event. But I'm pretty sure this argument with Judas happened only once. Some might object citing how the woman is unnamed in Matthew and Mark's accounts, but Matthew and Mark don't mention Martha or Mary of Bethany by name at all. Luke never records this event but introduces us to sisters named Martha and Mary in Luke 10.
But on the subject of identifying different women. I don't think Mary Magdalene can be identified with Mary of Bethany for two main reasons. One, Magdalene is defined as part of the Galilean ministry in both of Luke's references to her while the Bethany sisters stayed in Bethany. Second, Mary of Bethany wouldn't have come to anoint Jesus body on Sunday morning since she knew that was taken care of, Jesus defined this anointing as for His burial.
Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected was a brother of Martha and Mary of Bethany.
I don't think he's Simon the Leper because I don't think he had any major diseases right after being risen. If Simon the Leper was a relative he was probably their father or an uncle or maybe grandfather.
I'm interested in the theory that Lazarus was the same as the Beloved Disciple, but I have reason to suspect that Disciple was named John whether or not he's the same as the John of the 12. Maybe Lazarus would have taken on a new name after being made effectively an adopted son of Mary. Or it could be Lazarus is a nick name based on how it's used in a parable in Luke 16.
But let's return to the Torah. "Without the Camp" isn't just the location of where the Red Heifer was killed and dead animals were burned, and sometimes sinners were stoned (maybe Stephen was martyred here too). Exodus 33:7 also placed a Tabernacle of Meeting here, something many people are uncomfortable with is that there were two Tabernacles. When I theorized that there were two Ark of the Covenants I suggest this other Tabernacle was where the other Ark of Deuteronomy was kept. This other Tabernacle was primarily where YHWH met with Moses.
So maybe Jesus lodging in Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary also fulfilled that typology.
And I could revive an observation from my abandoned theory about the Crucifixion being where Solomon's Temple was. That the Hebrew word that almost always refers exclusively to The Ark, is used of Joseph's Coffin in the last verse of Genesis. So maybe Jesus Tomb equates to where the second Ark would be in relation to the Second Temple.
I wonder now if the traditional location of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna could be wrong and it was on or at the foot of the Mount of Olives? We know the Mount of Olives is where Solomon set up his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch/Milcom, so it makes sense that would be where later Kings were sacrificing to Moloch in 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6 as well as Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 32:35. Jeremiah 19:2-6 says that the valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.
So that being where the bodies of sacrificed Animals were burned adds new meaning to it becoming an idiom of Hell. And Tophet, a name linked to Hinnom in many of the above passages, is used interestingly in Isaiah 30:30-33.
The notion that Gehenna could be identified with the very site of the Crucifixion, has an interesting Universalist symbolism to it.
My initial post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model has become kind of incoherent as I added updates to it because of my abandoning the theory and then coming back to it. I now just made a post on another blog that mentions why I'm abandoning the Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple view. So I decided to make a new post on it. But I won't really be retreading too much, and want to also talk about other subjects related to Bethany.
What's interesting about how this connection of Hebrews 12:11-13 to Numbers 19 is how it specifically makes the Red Heifer a type of Christ. Most references to "without the camp" in the Torah are just as where the bodies of sacrificed animals were burned, only the Red Heifer was actually killed "without the camp". And it's now been archeologically confirmed that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer was killed during the Second Temple period.
What's interesting is The Red Heifer is female, so it's another example I can add of The Hebrew Bible using a female as a type of Christ.
The seven days for purification of Numbers 19:18-19 and 31:19 could correlate here to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, on the third of which I believe was The Resurrection, the 17th of Nisan. I'm unsure what Resurrection narrative event to place on the 7th day of Unleavened Bread, a possible option is the Doubting Thomas story with a different interpretation of when John 20 was counting 8 days from. Or maybe that day is when the other dead were resurrected fulfilling Matthew 27:50-53.
But speaking of the timeline, Bethany is relevant to an issue of it. When did Mary of Bethany anoint Jesus?
As much as on other issues I view John's Gospel as the least chronological, in this case John 12 clearly tells us how many days this was from the Passover and the Triumphal Entry, placing it on the 9th of Nisan in my chronology, and probably a Sabbath, the last Sabbath before the Crucifixion. Matthew 26 and Mark 14 flash back to this event right before Judas goes to see the Priests because it's largely the reason for his betrayal, Luke 22 does not record this event.
Some might try to argue this is a separate similar event, and I do believe Luke 7's anointing incident was a very different event. But I'm pretty sure this argument with Judas happened only once. Some might object citing how the woman is unnamed in Matthew and Mark's accounts, but Matthew and Mark don't mention Martha or Mary of Bethany by name at all. Luke never records this event but introduces us to sisters named Martha and Mary in Luke 10.
But on the subject of identifying different women. I don't think Mary Magdalene can be identified with Mary of Bethany for two main reasons. One, Magdalene is defined as part of the Galilean ministry in both of Luke's references to her while the Bethany sisters stayed in Bethany. Second, Mary of Bethany wouldn't have come to anoint Jesus body on Sunday morning since she knew that was taken care of, Jesus defined this anointing as for His burial.
Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected was a brother of Martha and Mary of Bethany.
I don't think he's Simon the Leper because I don't think he had any major diseases right after being risen. If Simon the Leper was a relative he was probably their father or an uncle or maybe grandfather.
I'm interested in the theory that Lazarus was the same as the Beloved Disciple, but I have reason to suspect that Disciple was named John whether or not he's the same as the John of the 12. Maybe Lazarus would have taken on a new name after being made effectively an adopted son of Mary. Or it could be Lazarus is a nick name based on how it's used in a parable in Luke 16.
But let's return to the Torah. "Without the Camp" isn't just the location of where the Red Heifer was killed and dead animals were burned, and sometimes sinners were stoned (maybe Stephen was martyred here too). Exodus 33:7 also placed a Tabernacle of Meeting here, something many people are uncomfortable with is that there were two Tabernacles. When I theorized that there were two Ark of the Covenants I suggest this other Tabernacle was where the other Ark of Deuteronomy was kept. This other Tabernacle was primarily where YHWH met with Moses.
So maybe Jesus lodging in Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary also fulfilled that typology.
And I could revive an observation from my abandoned theory about the Crucifixion being where Solomon's Temple was. That the Hebrew word that almost always refers exclusively to The Ark, is used of Joseph's Coffin in the last verse of Genesis. So maybe Jesus Tomb equates to where the second Ark would be in relation to the Second Temple.
I wonder now if the traditional location of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna could be wrong and it was on or at the foot of the Mount of Olives? We know the Mount of Olives is where Solomon set up his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch/Milcom, so it makes sense that would be where later Kings were sacrificing to Moloch in 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6 as well as Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 32:35. Jeremiah 19:2-6 says that the valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.
So that being where the bodies of sacrificed Animals were burned adds new meaning to it becoming an idiom of Hell. And Tophet, a name linked to Hinnom in many of the above passages, is used interestingly in Isaiah 30:30-33.
The notion that Gehenna could be identified with the very site of the Crucifixion, has an interesting Universalist symbolism to it.
I think New Testament Nazareth might actually be Sepphoris.
[Update June 30 2021: I'm Abandoning this theory. I was quite confused about the Geography of Sepphoris, and now I've noticed that Jewish Tradition equates it with Kitron of Judges 1 which is a problem.]
[Update Setemper 2021: I have this new Theory instead.]
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Esther is relevant to Passover as well as Purim
It's not the origin of Passover, that's Exodus 12. But a number of passages in Scripture have added to what we know of Passover, other parts of the Torah, Joshua's Passover, the Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah, Ezra 6, and prophetically Ezekiel 45:21. And for us Christians the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, among other New Testament references.
But sometimes that time of year might be relevant even if the word isn't used. The New Holiday ordained by the Book of Esther is in Adar (the 12th month not the last month) when Israel was fully delivered. But what is often considered the core dramatic narrative of the Book of Esther actually takes place in the first month. Many seek to attack Esther's Canonocity based on it seemingly not mentioning God directly, and lacking any direct quotations in the New Testament. But I'm going to argue that Esther perhaps foreshadows the Passover of the Passion Week almost as much as Exodus 12 does.
We're told in chapter 3 specifically that the 13th day of the first month is the day the decree to kill all the Jews on the 13th of Adar was issued, and thus it's on that day chapters 3 and 4 take place. And so that makes the 14th-16th days of the Month Esther's three day Fast, and the 17th the day Haman was hanged and Mordecai was honored.
It may have been on the 13th Judas approached the Priests to betray Jesus. But more importantly since I'm a Thursday 14th of Nisan Crucifixion proponent. That makes the three days of Fasting and Mourning here correlate to the day Jesus was Crucified (as well as Gethsemane), and the two full days he was dead and buried. And then the 17th of Nisan, the true day of Deliverance in this narrative, is the day I place the Resurrection of Jesus, on the Third Day of Unleavened Bread.
One of the things that confuses people about Passover is that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't use the same terminology for the Nisan Holy Days as The Torah, or at least Leviticus 23. Leviticus 23 calls the 14th Passover because that's the day the Passover is killed, but it is eaten after sunset when the 15th has started. Rabbinic Judaism has Passover as the 7 day festival that is Unleavened Bread in Leviticus 23.
One of the more mysterious details of the Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar is that it has the 14th of Nisan as the Fast of the Firstborn. Many theories are proposed for what it's origin is, one is that the 14th was the first day of Esther's Fast but you can't regularly Fast on the 15th and 16th since they are Feast Days. I think it's interesting how often Fasts are anniversaries of deaths, and Jesus is the Firstborn of Creation.
Here is an article I found recently supporting a Thursday Crucifixion in 30 AD model. But I disagree with them on the 70th Week of Daniel. I also can't approve of their endorsement of the Shem Tob, it's a Rabbinic source.
When Were the True Dates of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?
The YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy has a good video called Easter is not Pagan. When dealing with the misinformation regarding Easter's Etymology, they mention how Esther is attacked on the same grounds. I wonder if that isn't a Coincidence?
On the subject of Purim. I've always had a hunch that maybe Purim has something to do with when Lazarus was resurrected in John 11.
BTW, I updated this older post of mine, to show that I support this year (2018) starting Nisan with the New Moon of March not the New Moon of April.
But sometimes that time of year might be relevant even if the word isn't used. The New Holiday ordained by the Book of Esther is in Adar (the 12th month not the last month) when Israel was fully delivered. But what is often considered the core dramatic narrative of the Book of Esther actually takes place in the first month. Many seek to attack Esther's Canonocity based on it seemingly not mentioning God directly, and lacking any direct quotations in the New Testament. But I'm going to argue that Esther perhaps foreshadows the Passover of the Passion Week almost as much as Exodus 12 does.
We're told in chapter 3 specifically that the 13th day of the first month is the day the decree to kill all the Jews on the 13th of Adar was issued, and thus it's on that day chapters 3 and 4 take place. And so that makes the 14th-16th days of the Month Esther's three day Fast, and the 17th the day Haman was hanged and Mordecai was honored.
It may have been on the 13th Judas approached the Priests to betray Jesus. But more importantly since I'm a Thursday 14th of Nisan Crucifixion proponent. That makes the three days of Fasting and Mourning here correlate to the day Jesus was Crucified (as well as Gethsemane), and the two full days he was dead and buried. And then the 17th of Nisan, the true day of Deliverance in this narrative, is the day I place the Resurrection of Jesus, on the Third Day of Unleavened Bread.
One of the things that confuses people about Passover is that Rabbinic Judaism doesn't use the same terminology for the Nisan Holy Days as The Torah, or at least Leviticus 23. Leviticus 23 calls the 14th Passover because that's the day the Passover is killed, but it is eaten after sunset when the 15th has started. Rabbinic Judaism has Passover as the 7 day festival that is Unleavened Bread in Leviticus 23.
One of the more mysterious details of the Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar is that it has the 14th of Nisan as the Fast of the Firstborn. Many theories are proposed for what it's origin is, one is that the 14th was the first day of Esther's Fast but you can't regularly Fast on the 15th and 16th since they are Feast Days. I think it's interesting how often Fasts are anniversaries of deaths, and Jesus is the Firstborn of Creation.
Here is an article I found recently supporting a Thursday Crucifixion in 30 AD model. But I disagree with them on the 70th Week of Daniel. I also can't approve of their endorsement of the Shem Tob, it's a Rabbinic source.
When Were the True Dates of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?
The YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy has a good video called Easter is not Pagan. When dealing with the misinformation regarding Easter's Etymology, they mention how Esther is attacked on the same grounds. I wonder if that isn't a Coincidence?
On the subject of Purim. I've always had a hunch that maybe Purim has something to do with when Lazarus was resurrected in John 11.
BTW, I updated this older post of mine, to show that I support this year (2018) starting Nisan with the New Moon of March not the New Moon of April.
Friday, March 16, 2018
The Golden Calf and The Image of The Beast
I've talked previously on this Blog about understanding the Image of the Beast in the context of Adam being made in the Image of God. And I stand by that to an extent. But in making that argument I had overlooked a detail of Revelation 13:14 talking about the Second Beast.
I have argued reasons before to see a repeat of much of the History of Exodus and Numbers going on here. So I looked over Exodus 32 to see if there is any compelling parallel between the phraseology used of The Golden Calf and of the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13, and couldn't exactly find a sufficient smoking gun. In Exodus it is the people who came to Aaron, in Revelation it is the Beast's idea.
But a passage that does later repeat verbatim language from Exodus 32 is 1 Kings 12:26-33, specifically in 28, when Jeroboam decided to go into Idolatry.
Jeroboam was of the Tribe of Ephraim, and was just given kingship over Ten Tribes, and one Calf was set up at Bethel in territory allotted to Ephraim. I have a post on this blog arguing the key to understanding the Fourth Beast could be Moses Prophecy about Joseph in Deuteronomy 33. Because of it's making Joseph an animal that is of a similar kind to a Calf, and possibly alluding to Ten Horns of Ephraim and One of Manasseh.
Jeremiah 31:18 uses the same word translated Calf to describe Ephraim. Hosea 10:11 says Ephraim is a "Heifer", the feminine form of this word in the Hebrew (not the same word for Heifer used of the Red Heifer).
And I'm now noticing that Exodus 32:20 and Deuteronomy 9:21, could be compared to Daniel 7:11. The Calf at Bethel was destroyed by Josiah.
Britam and British Israelists have noted the Calf's association with Ephraim, and from that have among other things sought to see a reflection of this in the Greek Myth of Europa and Zeus taking the form of a Bull (Some Artistic depictions of this myth have depicted Europa riding the Bull, like at the EU headquarters.) Some of these Lost Tribes speculators have even imagined that Jeroboam might have claimed to have been fathered by YHWH in the from of a Calf, he was a Widow's Son.
It may be both this and my earlier speculation could be true. The Golden Calf was a type of the Image of the Beast.
But I can no longer think the Image is simply him being Resurrected by the False Prophet, since the Image had to be made. But perhaps it will be made via cloning or something? The Beast is Osiris and the Image is Horus, or something like that.
You may notice, this potentially makes Aaron of all people a type of the Beast from the Earth.
Exodus 7:1 does have Yahuah say that he made Moses a God to Pharaoh and Aaron his Prophet. So in-spite of Aaron being usually associated with a different office, he is called a Prophet once. Number 12 involved both Aaron and Miriam citing their Prophetic status presumptuously. Plenty of Prophets have descended from Aaron, including Samuel and John The Baptist.
Remember, in New Testament times the Priesthood had become Corrupt, Caiaphas and Ananias sought to have Jesus Crucified.
But this could also hint at the Beast from the Earth being a counterfeit High Priest. Like Kore who challenged Aaron's Priesthood, or the Priesthood created by Jeroboam, a Priest of which named Amaziah during the reign of Jeroboam II of the House of Jehu is mentioned in Amos 7. Or people like Menelaus in the time of the Maccabees. Or the Maccabees themselves if you view them more negatively once they take over the Priesthood.
If The Beast from the Earth claims to be Jesus as I've speculated he might. Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek according to Hebrews. And some Fringe Theorists who want to say Jesus wasn't an Heir to David argue Luke implies Him to have Aaronic descent.
And I've already speculated that Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 may be possibly relevant to the Mark of the Beast subject. Those verses are about Aaron's Crown.
Rabbinic Jewish eschatological expectations have sometimes said there could be up to four Messiahs. Ben-David and Ben-Joseph as the Princely or Kingly ones. Elijah as the Prophet. And a Priestly Messiah, sometimes called the "War Priest" citing Deuteronomy 20.
Islamic Eschatology mentions a descendant of Aaron mediating a peace between the Muslims and the Romans.
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.I had made a flat out wrong statement that there was no account of the Image being created, and for that I feel really stupid.
I have argued reasons before to see a repeat of much of the History of Exodus and Numbers going on here. So I looked over Exodus 32 to see if there is any compelling parallel between the phraseology used of The Golden Calf and of the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13, and couldn't exactly find a sufficient smoking gun. In Exodus it is the people who came to Aaron, in Revelation it is the Beast's idea.
But a passage that does later repeat verbatim language from Exodus 32 is 1 Kings 12:26-33, specifically in 28, when Jeroboam decided to go into Idolatry.
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."He made his own Golden Calves, and repeats what was said of The Golden Calf in Exodus 32, and also proclaimed his own Feast.
Jeroboam was of the Tribe of Ephraim, and was just given kingship over Ten Tribes, and one Calf was set up at Bethel in territory allotted to Ephraim. I have a post on this blog arguing the key to understanding the Fourth Beast could be Moses Prophecy about Joseph in Deuteronomy 33. Because of it's making Joseph an animal that is of a similar kind to a Calf, and possibly alluding to Ten Horns of Ephraim and One of Manasseh.
Jeremiah 31:18 uses the same word translated Calf to describe Ephraim. Hosea 10:11 says Ephraim is a "Heifer", the feminine form of this word in the Hebrew (not the same word for Heifer used of the Red Heifer).
And I'm now noticing that Exodus 32:20 and Deuteronomy 9:21, could be compared to Daniel 7:11. The Calf at Bethel was destroyed by Josiah.
Britam and British Israelists have noted the Calf's association with Ephraim, and from that have among other things sought to see a reflection of this in the Greek Myth of Europa and Zeus taking the form of a Bull (Some Artistic depictions of this myth have depicted Europa riding the Bull, like at the EU headquarters.) Some of these Lost Tribes speculators have even imagined that Jeroboam might have claimed to have been fathered by YHWH in the from of a Calf, he was a Widow's Son.
It may be both this and my earlier speculation could be true. The Golden Calf was a type of the Image of the Beast.
But I can no longer think the Image is simply him being Resurrected by the False Prophet, since the Image had to be made. But perhaps it will be made via cloning or something? The Beast is Osiris and the Image is Horus, or something like that.
You may notice, this potentially makes Aaron of all people a type of the Beast from the Earth.
Exodus 7:1 does have Yahuah say that he made Moses a God to Pharaoh and Aaron his Prophet. So in-spite of Aaron being usually associated with a different office, he is called a Prophet once. Number 12 involved both Aaron and Miriam citing their Prophetic status presumptuously. Plenty of Prophets have descended from Aaron, including Samuel and John The Baptist.
Remember, in New Testament times the Priesthood had become Corrupt, Caiaphas and Ananias sought to have Jesus Crucified.
But this could also hint at the Beast from the Earth being a counterfeit High Priest. Like Kore who challenged Aaron's Priesthood, or the Priesthood created by Jeroboam, a Priest of which named Amaziah during the reign of Jeroboam II of the House of Jehu is mentioned in Amos 7. Or people like Menelaus in the time of the Maccabees. Or the Maccabees themselves if you view them more negatively once they take over the Priesthood.
If The Beast from the Earth claims to be Jesus as I've speculated he might. Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek according to Hebrews. And some Fringe Theorists who want to say Jesus wasn't an Heir to David argue Luke implies Him to have Aaronic descent.
And I've already speculated that Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 may be possibly relevant to the Mark of the Beast subject. Those verses are about Aaron's Crown.
Rabbinic Jewish eschatological expectations have sometimes said there could be up to four Messiahs. Ben-David and Ben-Joseph as the Princely or Kingly ones. Elijah as the Prophet. And a Priestly Messiah, sometimes called the "War Priest" citing Deuteronomy 20.
Islamic Eschatology mentions a descendant of Aaron mediating a peace between the Muslims and the Romans.
Friday, March 9, 2018
Solomon is never mentioned very Positively in The New Testament.
Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31 are both about Jesus proclaiming himself greater than Solomon. Of course the next verse does the same with Jonah, and elsewhere Jesus also refers to Jonah in a sense clearly making him a type of Christ, but there is no equivalent to that for Solomon.
Matthew 6:28-29 and Luke 12:27 are outright dismissive of Solomon’s glory, declaring it inferior to the Lilies of the Field.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus in chapter 1 verses 6 and 7 mentions Solomon. But it also mentions Manasseh and Amon and Ahaz, even though Matthew made a point to skip some of the bad kings of Judah, he didn't skip them all. There is disagreement about if Jeconiah was skipped. 2 Chronicles tells us Manasseh repented, but 2 Kings doesn't mention that.
Three verses that use the name of Solomon are just referencing Solomon's Porch as a location, those include the only time you see it in John, and the other two are in Acts 3 and 5.
Solomon isn't mentioned in Hebrews 11, or by James in his parallel passage. He's never mentioned by Paul, not even in Acts 13 where he mentions Saul and David.
But the key reference to Solomon in the New Testament I want to draw attention to is Stephen’s in Acts 7:47, in his summary of Israel's history.
Acts 7:44-50
II Samuel 7 is the origin of David's desire to build a House of some type for Yahuah. And even if he didn't change his mind on that based on what Nathan said, what David wanted to build was a House of Cedar, of Wood. Cedar Trees were involved in the construction of Solomon's Temple, but it wasn't mainly a Wooden structure, it was a Stone building. 1 Kings 5:18 and 6:7, and 7 :9-12.
Now David mentioned Stone in his instructions to Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22, but it's possible their intended involvement was minimal compared to what Solomon did. In fact 1 Chronicles 22 account of David preparing much of the material in advance is interesting given how in 1 Kings especially Solomon didn't use those but got his own.
It's possible that Solomon even used the wrong location. 2 Chronicles 3:1 tells us Solomon's Temple was built on Mount Moriah, the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (also called Araunah) that David purchased. But the earlier accounts of David buying that land in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, are not said to be where The Temple would be, just an Altar for a special Sacrifice to atone the Sin of the Census.
Well that's the case with Samuel, without the modern Chapter divisions 1 Chronicles 22 can be assumed to be referring to that same location from 1 Chronicles 21. But Samuel has no equivalent to 1 Chronicles 22.
Psalm 132 tells us where David found the place for his Tabernacle, Ephratah which is also Zion The City of David. Most people think the Tabernacle of David was never called a Mishkan, but that's because they're leaving Psalm 132 out of that subject. The New Testament quotes Davidic Psalms a lot, but never the actual narrative of Samuel, Kings or Chronicles.
I've expressed support before for the Tabernacle being a Dome as some have argued. In the past I'd felt that maybe that was true of Solomon's Temple also. Now I'm thinking maybe not, maybe Solomon was influenced by the design of Pagan temples like the one at Ain Dara.
The Hebrew word Dbiyr (Translated Oracle in the KJV) could be a clue to Solomon’s Temple not following the intended design. It’s never used in The Torah or of The Tabernacle, or in David’s instructions for Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22. It’s used mainly in descriptions of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles, seemingly as a synonym for the Holy of Holies. It is used in one Davidic Psalm, but that’s poetic language. The references referring to the Oracle do seemingly make the Holy of Holies a separate room, in contrast to what I observed about The Mosaic Tabernacle in my Vail of the Tabernacle post.
Those are conjectures for why. Maybe they’re wrong but the point is Stephen said Solomon didn’t do as David intended.
Solomon has been argued to be a type of The Antichrist based on 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 saying the amount of Gold that came to him in one year was Six Hundred and Sixty Six talents.
My argument that the Second Temple might not have been built over Solomon’s Temple but over part of Solomon’s Royal Palace, could have interesting implications for the Abomination of Desolation. The Antonia Fortress was also over it in that view, with Solomon’s Judgment Seat possibly being where Pilate’s was.
Now this goes against my own personal biases a bit since one of the books attributed to Solomon, The Song of Songs that is Solomon's, has been important to arguments I've made on my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty Blog. However The Holy Spirit spoke genuine Prophecies through the mouth of Balaam, and even Caiaphas in John 11:49-52. So this negative painting of Solomon need not require rejecting the Canonicity of the Scriptures that Solomon wrote. 2 Peter 2:22 does quote Proverbs 26:11, and Romans 12:20 quotes Proverbs 25:21-22, and Hebrews 12:5-6 quotes Proverbs 3:11-21.
Update March 20th 2018: I've posted a follow up of sorts here.
Matthew 6:28-29 and Luke 12:27 are outright dismissive of Solomon’s glory, declaring it inferior to the Lilies of the Field.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus in chapter 1 verses 6 and 7 mentions Solomon. But it also mentions Manasseh and Amon and Ahaz, even though Matthew made a point to skip some of the bad kings of Judah, he didn't skip them all. There is disagreement about if Jeconiah was skipped. 2 Chronicles tells us Manasseh repented, but 2 Kings doesn't mention that.
Three verses that use the name of Solomon are just referencing Solomon's Porch as a location, those include the only time you see it in John, and the other two are in Acts 3 and 5.
Solomon isn't mentioned in Hebrews 11, or by James in his parallel passage. He's never mentioned by Paul, not even in Acts 13 where he mentions Saul and David.
But the key reference to Solomon in the New Testament I want to draw attention to is Stephen’s in Acts 7:47, in his summary of Israel's history.
Acts 7:44-50
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Joshua into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.According to this, what Solomon did in building his Temple was NOT what David intended. Why would he say that? (BTW, the Prophet Stephen was quoting was Isaiah, chapter 66 verses 1 and 2.)
But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?"
II Samuel 7 is the origin of David's desire to build a House of some type for Yahuah. And even if he didn't change his mind on that based on what Nathan said, what David wanted to build was a House of Cedar, of Wood. Cedar Trees were involved in the construction of Solomon's Temple, but it wasn't mainly a Wooden structure, it was a Stone building. 1 Kings 5:18 and 6:7, and 7 :9-12.
Now David mentioned Stone in his instructions to Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22, but it's possible their intended involvement was minimal compared to what Solomon did. In fact 1 Chronicles 22 account of David preparing much of the material in advance is interesting given how in 1 Kings especially Solomon didn't use those but got his own.
It's possible that Solomon even used the wrong location. 2 Chronicles 3:1 tells us Solomon's Temple was built on Mount Moriah, the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (also called Araunah) that David purchased. But the earlier accounts of David buying that land in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, are not said to be where The Temple would be, just an Altar for a special Sacrifice to atone the Sin of the Census.
Well that's the case with Samuel, without the modern Chapter divisions 1 Chronicles 22 can be assumed to be referring to that same location from 1 Chronicles 21. But Samuel has no equivalent to 1 Chronicles 22.
Psalm 132 tells us where David found the place for his Tabernacle, Ephratah which is also Zion The City of David. Most people think the Tabernacle of David was never called a Mishkan, but that's because they're leaving Psalm 132 out of that subject. The New Testament quotes Davidic Psalms a lot, but never the actual narrative of Samuel, Kings or Chronicles.
I've expressed support before for the Tabernacle being a Dome as some have argued. In the past I'd felt that maybe that was true of Solomon's Temple also. Now I'm thinking maybe not, maybe Solomon was influenced by the design of Pagan temples like the one at Ain Dara.
The Hebrew word Dbiyr (Translated Oracle in the KJV) could be a clue to Solomon’s Temple not following the intended design. It’s never used in The Torah or of The Tabernacle, or in David’s instructions for Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22. It’s used mainly in descriptions of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles, seemingly as a synonym for the Holy of Holies. It is used in one Davidic Psalm, but that’s poetic language. The references referring to the Oracle do seemingly make the Holy of Holies a separate room, in contrast to what I observed about The Mosaic Tabernacle in my Vail of the Tabernacle post.
Those are conjectures for why. Maybe they’re wrong but the point is Stephen said Solomon didn’t do as David intended.
Solomon has been argued to be a type of The Antichrist based on 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 saying the amount of Gold that came to him in one year was Six Hundred and Sixty Six talents.
My argument that the Second Temple might not have been built over Solomon’s Temple but over part of Solomon’s Royal Palace, could have interesting implications for the Abomination of Desolation. The Antonia Fortress was also over it in that view, with Solomon’s Judgment Seat possibly being where Pilate’s was.
Now this goes against my own personal biases a bit since one of the books attributed to Solomon, The Song of Songs that is Solomon's, has been important to arguments I've made on my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty Blog. However The Holy Spirit spoke genuine Prophecies through the mouth of Balaam, and even Caiaphas in John 11:49-52. So this negative painting of Solomon need not require rejecting the Canonicity of the Scriptures that Solomon wrote. 2 Peter 2:22 does quote Proverbs 26:11, and Romans 12:20 quotes Proverbs 25:21-22, and Hebrews 12:5-6 quotes Proverbs 3:11-21.
Update March 20th 2018: I've posted a follow up of sorts here.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Will there be Believers after The Rapture?
First of all I don't like to use the term "Tribulation Saints" since in my view the Great Tribulation ends at the Rapture. You certainly could call the situation of the post Rapture world a tribulation, but as far as the technical use of that word as part of Bible Prophecy goes, it's primarily pre-Rapture.
However since my view is a type of Mid-Trib, the question of if there are Post-Rapture believers is something I need to address. Things I might have said a few years ago on this subject on this Blog I'm not likely to still agree with since my attitude towards Dispensationalism has changed.
I do not believe Israel and the Church are totally separate like Chuck Missler does. I do believe that Romans 11 clearly teaches that Gentile Believers are grafted into Israel. So in that sense I'm not a full Dispensationalist.
But I suppose you could call me a type of Dispensationalist since I do believe NT era believers have special promises and benefits (like that the Holy Spirit won't leave us) OT believers didn't have. And that Romans 11 does also promise a future revival among the Biological descendants of Israel.
Now the key to my Rapture view is my Chronological view of Revelation, and that The Parusia and the Rapture happen between the Seventh Trumpet and the First Bowl of God's Wrath. I believe Israel is The Woman of Revelation 12 as well as The Bride of Christ and The Church is The Man Child. But I've talked on my other Blog about how Gentile Believers aren't limited to the Church Age. So at the end of Revelation 12 when it speaks of "the rest of her Seed that keep the Commandments of Jesus", I think those are Gentile believers that may pop up after The Rapture.
In Revelation 18 when God calls His People out of Babylon, I believe that is physical Israel not Believers.
I just did a post on Revelation 16:15.
Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 15, and Revelation 20:4 deal with those who are martyred for not taking The Mark or worshiping the Beast or his Image.
Revelation 20:4 is the reason I need to view them being Post-Rapture saints since they're specifically Resurrected right when the Millennium starts. But Post-Tribbers see that as proof that that's when The Rapture happens, because they abuse the use of the word "first" in that verse. Hence my post on The First Resurrection.
Revelation 14 introduces this subject after it depicts the 144 Thousand in the Throne Room of God on the Heavenly Zion, and describes them with clear Resurrection terminology, being the First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
I have considered before that most of these Martyrs may be killed very early on, perhaps all before the first Bowl is poured out, since the effects of the Bowls will greatly preoccupy The Beast. But that's a hunch I can't really prove.
Because Post Tribbers completely reject Dispensationalism, they feel any evidence of believers on Earth during the Bowls must refute everything but Post-Trib. But I'm afraid that is an oversimplification. The dependence of Post-Trib on garbling the chronology is the reason I can't take it seriously anymore.
Which is why I refer readers again to my post on Revelation 14:14-20.
However since my view is a type of Mid-Trib, the question of if there are Post-Rapture believers is something I need to address. Things I might have said a few years ago on this subject on this Blog I'm not likely to still agree with since my attitude towards Dispensationalism has changed.
I do not believe Israel and the Church are totally separate like Chuck Missler does. I do believe that Romans 11 clearly teaches that Gentile Believers are grafted into Israel. So in that sense I'm not a full Dispensationalist.
But I suppose you could call me a type of Dispensationalist since I do believe NT era believers have special promises and benefits (like that the Holy Spirit won't leave us) OT believers didn't have. And that Romans 11 does also promise a future revival among the Biological descendants of Israel.
Now the key to my Rapture view is my Chronological view of Revelation, and that The Parusia and the Rapture happen between the Seventh Trumpet and the First Bowl of God's Wrath. I believe Israel is The Woman of Revelation 12 as well as The Bride of Christ and The Church is The Man Child. But I've talked on my other Blog about how Gentile Believers aren't limited to the Church Age. So at the end of Revelation 12 when it speaks of "the rest of her Seed that keep the Commandments of Jesus", I think those are Gentile believers that may pop up after The Rapture.
In Revelation 18 when God calls His People out of Babylon, I believe that is physical Israel not Believers.
I just did a post on Revelation 16:15.
Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 15, and Revelation 20:4 deal with those who are martyred for not taking The Mark or worshiping the Beast or his Image.
Revelation 20:4 is the reason I need to view them being Post-Rapture saints since they're specifically Resurrected right when the Millennium starts. But Post-Tribbers see that as proof that that's when The Rapture happens, because they abuse the use of the word "first" in that verse. Hence my post on The First Resurrection.
Revelation 14 introduces this subject after it depicts the 144 Thousand in the Throne Room of God on the Heavenly Zion, and describes them with clear Resurrection terminology, being the First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
I have considered before that most of these Martyrs may be killed very early on, perhaps all before the first Bowl is poured out, since the effects of the Bowls will greatly preoccupy The Beast. But that's a hunch I can't really prove.
Because Post Tribbers completely reject Dispensationalism, they feel any evidence of believers on Earth during the Bowls must refute everything but Post-Trib. But I'm afraid that is an oversimplification. The dependence of Post-Trib on garbling the chronology is the reason I can't take it seriously anymore.
Which is why I refer readers again to my post on Revelation 14:14-20.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Who is speaking in Revelation 16:15?
What's said here includes some terminology used a few times elsewhere in Scripture. At least once by Jesus himself. But most importantly it is phraseology assumed to be associated with the Parusia, the "Second Coming" and the Rapture. And therefore Post-Tribbers and others may use this as evidence that the Parusia hasn't happened yet when the 6th Bowl of God's Wrath is poured out.
Before this verse it talks about the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet using Frog like messengers to gather the Kings of the East for the coming Battle. Then verse 16 says "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." It sounds like the one doing the gathering is maybe the one who said that, and that was clearly defined as what some have dubbed the "Satanic Trinity".
And don't many interpretations of Revelation presume one of these three personages is pretending to be Jesus?
But even if it is Jesus speaking, there are still a few assumptions involved.
Parusia is not the word for "come" used in the "come as a thief" verses, it's usually either Heko or Ercomai.
The only time Paul uses this kind of phrase it is of the Day of the Lord not of the Parusia/Rapture. He used it in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, when he's already talked about the Rapture in the prior chapter. Same with 2 Peter 3:10.
Also at least once I've seen this verse cited specifically as evidence there are Believers on Earth at this time. The subject of Post Rapture believers in my model is something I will make a separate post on eventually. But this verse I don't think proves anything one way or the other on that, even if it is Jesus who is talking, I don't see it being worded as something addressed only to Believers. In other "come as a thief" verses the point is that it is to Unbelievers he'll be coming as a thief.
But ya know what's interesting, this is the only of these thief verses to directly lead people to think the Thief is Jesus, and only because of an assumption it's Jesus talking. But Jesus said in John 10:7-14 that He does NOT come as a Thief to steal kill and destroy, He is the Good Shepherd and the Hireling is the Thief. The Hireling here could be the same as the Idol Shepherd of Zechariah 11, which many have taken to be the Antichrist and I've considered could be the False Prophet.
The only time Jesus own words are cited as part of this 'He comes as a Thief at the Second Coming' theme is in Matthew 24:42-50. It's easy to see why the Lord and the Thief are presumed to be synonymous here. But remember this passage also gets used by Pre-Tribbers to support their imminence doctrine, even though others clearly see the moral of the story as saying the opposite.
And a core teaching of Pre-Trib is their insistence that The Antichrist doesn't appear till after The Rapture. While we know that II Thessalonians 2 clearly teaches the opposite.
Meanwhile to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same thing as the regathering of Israel. While a theme of my Blog has been that this very part of Revelation 16 is the Beast gathering the Lost Tribes as a counterfeit Messiah-Ben Joseph. And the true regathering of Israel is not completed till the end of or after the Millennium.
Update August 2018: So I'd somehow completely forgotten to consider the Thief imagery being brought in the letter to Sardis. So that weakens an aspect of this argument.
"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."Some Bibles have put this verse in Red, but not all. So what is the context?
Before this verse it talks about the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet using Frog like messengers to gather the Kings of the East for the coming Battle. Then verse 16 says "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." It sounds like the one doing the gathering is maybe the one who said that, and that was clearly defined as what some have dubbed the "Satanic Trinity".
And don't many interpretations of Revelation presume one of these three personages is pretending to be Jesus?
But even if it is Jesus speaking, there are still a few assumptions involved.
Parusia is not the word for "come" used in the "come as a thief" verses, it's usually either Heko or Ercomai.
The only time Paul uses this kind of phrase it is of the Day of the Lord not of the Parusia/Rapture. He used it in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, when he's already talked about the Rapture in the prior chapter. Same with 2 Peter 3:10.
Also at least once I've seen this verse cited specifically as evidence there are Believers on Earth at this time. The subject of Post Rapture believers in my model is something I will make a separate post on eventually. But this verse I don't think proves anything one way or the other on that, even if it is Jesus who is talking, I don't see it being worded as something addressed only to Believers. In other "come as a thief" verses the point is that it is to Unbelievers he'll be coming as a thief.
But ya know what's interesting, this is the only of these thief verses to directly lead people to think the Thief is Jesus, and only because of an assumption it's Jesus talking. But Jesus said in John 10:7-14 that He does NOT come as a Thief to steal kill and destroy, He is the Good Shepherd and the Hireling is the Thief. The Hireling here could be the same as the Idol Shepherd of Zechariah 11, which many have taken to be the Antichrist and I've considered could be the False Prophet.
The only time Jesus own words are cited as part of this 'He comes as a Thief at the Second Coming' theme is in Matthew 24:42-50. It's easy to see why the Lord and the Thief are presumed to be synonymous here. But remember this passage also gets used by Pre-Tribbers to support their imminence doctrine, even though others clearly see the moral of the story as saying the opposite.
And a core teaching of Pre-Trib is their insistence that The Antichrist doesn't appear till after The Rapture. While we know that II Thessalonians 2 clearly teaches the opposite.
Meanwhile to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same thing as the regathering of Israel. While a theme of my Blog has been that this very part of Revelation 16 is the Beast gathering the Lost Tribes as a counterfeit Messiah-Ben Joseph. And the true regathering of Israel is not completed till the end of or after the Millennium.
Update August 2018: So I'd somehow completely forgotten to consider the Thief imagery being brought in the letter to Sardis. So that weakens an aspect of this argument.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
I'll be keeping an eye out this Spring.
I'm not predicting it will happen, I still think it most likely will not. But in case something does happen this Spring, I want to be on record that I did have reasons to suspect it.
So the history of my 2018-2025 70th Week Model began with my post Suleiman and the 70-weeks of Daniel. Then I made a post about possible other reasons for it. Then I did a post how some very specific things have to happen for it to be true. Then I made a post where I pretty much abandoned it.
The main reason for that abandonment was the impossibility of The Temple being rebuilt by then. However last year I decided I no longer necessarily considered a "Third Temple" necessary. Which was supplemental to my post I Don't think there will be a Millennial Temple.
Interestingly I've found there popped on the net Pre-Tribbers predicting the "Tribulation" to being in Nisan of 2018, for much more convoluted reasons then what lead me to this theory. I'm not Pre-Trib so I am NOT Predicting The Rapture, if my theory is True then I expect The Rapture to happen in September or October of 2021, on the 1st of 10th of Tishri. Or if the Mid-Seventh year theory I'd considered were true, then that same point in 2024.
A Post Tribber believing same 7th Week model would be placing the Rapture in Spring of 2025. I think the Fulfillment of Revelation 19 could happen anywhere between Hanukkah and late Adar, second Adar if there are two. But I also expect a possible second Triumphal Entry on the 10th of Nisan, and the Resurrection of Revelation 20:4 I think will happen on First Fruits (Sunday Morning following Passover) and/or the 17th of Nisan.
The official Hebrew Calendar is going to observe Passover around the end of March this year. However those Pre-Trib sites I just mentioned say the Hebrew Calendar is a month off this year, and the First of Nisan will be April 18th. My personal beliefs about the Biblical Calendar would pretty much not allow Nisan to ever start that late. But there is a change Karaites might up agreeing with that April 18th calculation, it depends when the Aviv happens, but either way I don't strictly agree with the Karaite view on this anymore, but I do agree the Rabbinic calendar can sometimes be off.
At least one of the following has to happen for me consider this theory vindicated.
1. Some invasion or disaster destroys the Wall of Jerusalem that Suleiman built.
2. The Two Witnesses begin their Ministry in Nisan, possibly on the 7th but the exact day doesn't matter. This could happen before Nisan begins, or as late as the 28th of Nisan (traditionally the date Jericho's walls fell).
3. A possible Antichrist or Decoy-Antichrist (perhaps as a Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or Mahdi claimant) does his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, possibly on the 10th of Nisan. Fulfilling the First Seal of Revelation 6.
3a. Perhaps soon after said False Messiah is killed, maybe by a literal Sword wound, by an enemy, possibly tied to the Second Seal. Perhaps on the 14th of Nisan, or maybe the 26th.
4. The Sixth Seal of Revelation 6 is fulfilled on the 14th of Nisan, or maybe 15th. But that would need to be not just any Earthquake, it would probably have to be by a large margin top any Quake that has happened since well over a century ago. And be accompanied by Meteors or Asteroids hitting the Earth. And most importantly the Sun being Darkened and Moon looking Blood Red at the same time!
4a. Something could happen in Iyar, the second Month, possibly on Second Passover. But I'm not sure what. It could work as a second possible date for the beginning of the Ministry of the Witnesses.
5. The 144 Thousand being Sealed on Pentecost (Hebrew Calendar not Catholic or Orthodox Pentecost). Which I believe will look a lot like Acts 2 but on a larger scale.
5a. Not sure how long after that it'll take the disasters associated with the Golden Censor to happen.
5b. A high probably that the First of the Seven Trumpets will sound either on that same Pentecost, or on one of the Tishri Holidays this Fall.
But I'm not gonna wait till Fall to decide whether or not I can consider this debunked. If nothing happens by the end of Nisan I'll declare it to probably be debunked. And if nothing happens by the time Pentecost is past I'll declare it definitively debunked.
Again, I'm not predicting these things to happen. Right now I consider unlikely. I'm not even going to promote this unless something happens.
So the history of my 2018-2025 70th Week Model began with my post Suleiman and the 70-weeks of Daniel. Then I made a post about possible other reasons for it. Then I did a post how some very specific things have to happen for it to be true. Then I made a post where I pretty much abandoned it.
The main reason for that abandonment was the impossibility of The Temple being rebuilt by then. However last year I decided I no longer necessarily considered a "Third Temple" necessary. Which was supplemental to my post I Don't think there will be a Millennial Temple.
Interestingly I've found there popped on the net Pre-Tribbers predicting the "Tribulation" to being in Nisan of 2018, for much more convoluted reasons then what lead me to this theory. I'm not Pre-Trib so I am NOT Predicting The Rapture, if my theory is True then I expect The Rapture to happen in September or October of 2021, on the 1st of 10th of Tishri. Or if the Mid-Seventh year theory I'd considered were true, then that same point in 2024.
A Post Tribber believing same 7th Week model would be placing the Rapture in Spring of 2025. I think the Fulfillment of Revelation 19 could happen anywhere between Hanukkah and late Adar, second Adar if there are two. But I also expect a possible second Triumphal Entry on the 10th of Nisan, and the Resurrection of Revelation 20:4 I think will happen on First Fruits (Sunday Morning following Passover) and/or the 17th of Nisan.
The official Hebrew Calendar is going to observe Passover around the end of March this year. However those Pre-Trib sites I just mentioned say the Hebrew Calendar is a month off this year, and the First of Nisan will be April 18th. My personal beliefs about the Biblical Calendar would pretty much not allow Nisan to ever start that late. But there is a change Karaites might up agreeing with that April 18th calculation, it depends when the Aviv happens, but either way I don't strictly agree with the Karaite view on this anymore, but I do agree the Rabbinic calendar can sometimes be off.
At least one of the following has to happen for me consider this theory vindicated.
1. Some invasion or disaster destroys the Wall of Jerusalem that Suleiman built.
2. The Two Witnesses begin their Ministry in Nisan, possibly on the 7th but the exact day doesn't matter. This could happen before Nisan begins, or as late as the 28th of Nisan (traditionally the date Jericho's walls fell).
3. A possible Antichrist or Decoy-Antichrist (perhaps as a Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or Mahdi claimant) does his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, possibly on the 10th of Nisan. Fulfilling the First Seal of Revelation 6.
3a. Perhaps soon after said False Messiah is killed, maybe by a literal Sword wound, by an enemy, possibly tied to the Second Seal. Perhaps on the 14th of Nisan, or maybe the 26th.
4. The Sixth Seal of Revelation 6 is fulfilled on the 14th of Nisan, or maybe 15th. But that would need to be not just any Earthquake, it would probably have to be by a large margin top any Quake that has happened since well over a century ago. And be accompanied by Meteors or Asteroids hitting the Earth. And most importantly the Sun being Darkened and Moon looking Blood Red at the same time!
4a. Something could happen in Iyar, the second Month, possibly on Second Passover. But I'm not sure what. It could work as a second possible date for the beginning of the Ministry of the Witnesses.
5. The 144 Thousand being Sealed on Pentecost (Hebrew Calendar not Catholic or Orthodox Pentecost). Which I believe will look a lot like Acts 2 but on a larger scale.
5a. Not sure how long after that it'll take the disasters associated with the Golden Censor to happen.
5b. A high probably that the First of the Seven Trumpets will sound either on that same Pentecost, or on one of the Tishri Holidays this Fall.
But I'm not gonna wait till Fall to decide whether or not I can consider this debunked. If nothing happens by the end of Nisan I'll declare it to probably be debunked. And if nothing happens by the time Pentecost is past I'll declare it definitively debunked.
Again, I'm not predicting these things to happen. Right now I consider unlikely. I'm not even going to promote this unless something happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)