I've laid already why I can't accept The Day=Year Theory.
One Historicist argument I can relate to is their rejecting the idea that God's Prophetic calendar simply paused from 30 or 70 AD till some time still in the future.
I do think The Beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are Kingdoms that exist in some form right now and always have. I don't see Gaps in Daniel 2 and 7 just as I don't see any in Daniel 9 or 11 anymore.
In Revelation I think chapters 2-3 are about the conditions of the Church Age, but I have rejected the Seven Church Ages version of that. In every period I feel there have been Churches that can fit into each of those Seven basic types.
I also view the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite Discourse as a description of the entire period between 70 AD and when the End Times scenario will truly begin. And maybe the first 5 Seals can also correlate to that.
It's once you reach Revelation chapter 9 that arguing these conditions are either already fulfilled or in the process of fulfillment I view as completely not workable.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Amillennial and Post Millennialism
If you have trouble telling the difference between these two eschatological models, it's not just cause they seem effectively the same to us Pre-Millenialists, even unbiased scholars are unsure which of these best describes the Eschatology of Augustine of Hippo.
The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium. Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time. And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog.
My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself. And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.
But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.
Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones. And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.
That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism. So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die. Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself. Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.
This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists. In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term. I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.
The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation. You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity. The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.
Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4. Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic. The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.
And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14. And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.
And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.
Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark. So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.
On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether. I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.
The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before. The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was. So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.
What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter. Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question. And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial. They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.
But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it. He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were. But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.
It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.
Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium. They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.
The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium. Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time. And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog.
My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself. And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.
But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.
Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones. And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.
That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism. So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die. Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself. Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.
This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists. In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term. I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.
The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation. You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity. The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.
Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4. Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic. The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.
And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14. And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.
And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.
Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark. So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.
On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether. I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.
The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before. The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was. So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.
What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter. Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question. And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial. They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.
But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it. He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were. But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.
It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.
Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium. They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians
[Update July 2023: The better version of this argument is here.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David
Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption. Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David. But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what". Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.
But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians. Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?
Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her. That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.
I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family. They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible. This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.
Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.
In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God. And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.
Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite. It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.
II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed. But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere. The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died. What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God. So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David. And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.
The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity. The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David. Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.
I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37. As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.
I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul. In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.
Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's. But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World. David became a Son of Saul regardless.
Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal. To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son". This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.
But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.
What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism. It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected. Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh. For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.
But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David. Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot. These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom. So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.
But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians. Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?
Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her. That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.
I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family. They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible. This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.
Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.
In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God. And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.
Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite. It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.
II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed. But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere. The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died. What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God. So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David. And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.
The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity. The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David. Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.
I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37. As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.
I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul. In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.
Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's. But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World. David became a Son of Saul regardless.
Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal. To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son". This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.
But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.
What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism. It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected. Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh. For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.
But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David. Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot. These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom. So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Curse on Jeconiah?
My addressing the Genealogies of Jesus on this Blog has generally mostly focused on dealing with Luke's Genealogy for various reasons. But I've come to realize that it's about time I paid more attention to Matthew's as well.
This particular topic however can be viewed as a transitional one, since the names of Sheatiel and Zerubabel being in Luke 3 means the Curse on Jeconiah issue has been used against both (though both names being common during the Persian period means there's no proof they're meant to be the same individuals).
I'm not going to use the usual Chuck Missler tactic of talking about how God worked around it.
In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.
Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole. But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.
Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse. And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18. Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.
Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.
And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.
People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.
So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.
This particular topic however can be viewed as a transitional one, since the names of Sheatiel and Zerubabel being in Luke 3 means the Curse on Jeconiah issue has been used against both (though both names being common during the Persian period means there's no proof they're meant to be the same individuals).
I'm not going to use the usual Chuck Missler tactic of talking about how God worked around it.
In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah. Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.
Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole. But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.
Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse. And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18. Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.
Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.
As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.
In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai. And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.
And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.
People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.
So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)