Some in the past have argued for seeing some kind of thematic connection between The Fifth Trumpet in Revelation 9 and The Flood account in Genesis 7 and 8 based on parallel time periods. First 40 days and then five months. I'd noticed this months ago and mentioned it on this blog.
More recently (it came up while I was engaging with Flat Earthers) I've realized that the Abyss/Bottomless Pit could possibly be the same place as The Great Deep where much of the Flood waters were before The Flood. Abyss has sometimes been translated as Deep. There is no water there now, it's all on The Earth's surface, but it's interesting.
That makes the possibility of a connection here even stronger. A period of 40 days of something coming out of the Deep to punish mankind for five months. Very different but an interesting connection.
In the very first post on this blog I argued that the opening of The Abyss in Revelation 9 is the removal of Restraint mentioned in II Thessalonians 2. And I've discussed how the Antichrist's Resurrection is defined as him ascending out of The Bottomless Pit. I do not consider those arguments dependent on identifying The Antichrist or False Prophet with anyone specific in Revelation 9, we can debate Apollyon all day. The point is nothing can ascend out of The Abyss before Revelation 9 happens. I'll return to this later.
Could this connection mean the 40 days of Revelation 9 happen on the Hebrew calendar about the same time as the 40 days of rain from The Flood account?
The Rain began on the 17th day of what was the Second month but is now the Eight. I believe back in Pre-Flood times all months had 30 days because the Lunar and solar cycles were in sync putting the end of the rain on the 26th of Kislev. But a repeat of that today would put 40 days that began on the 17th of the Eight month as ending on the 27th of Kislev.
Both of those days have in common that they are part of the the Eight Days of Hanukkah.
In my discussion of Winter Pagan holidays I pointed out that the claims of Anitochus Epiphanes being born on the 25th of Kislev or December are spurious, but that he did die seemingly during or near the first Hanukkah according to the accounts in both books of Maccabees.
I had also pointed out in that post that the Solstices were when pagans placed deaths and resurrections/conceptions, not births. And I have also argued that IF The Antichrist is someone from the past who already lived coming back, it would most likely be be Antiochus Epiphanes, and certainly could only be a Seleucid ruler.
If this theory is true, I believe it would be the Hanukkah that occurs 9 months before the Yom Teruah that marks the Midway Point of the Week, when the Seventh Trumpet will be sounded and The Rapture will happen.
The first of Tishri is when Noah removed the Cover of the Ark in Genesis 8:13. That fits being connected to the 7th Trumpet. Perhaps the 6th Trumpet will then be linked to the first day of Tammuz (Genesis 8:5).
Further Update: Reading Maccabees more carefully it seems less likely Epiphanies died that close to Hanukkah. The First Hanukkah celebration being at the end of Chapter 4 in First Maccabees, with the account of Epiphanies demise being Chapter 6.
However Second Maccabees tells the story of Epiphanies Demise in Chapter 9 and then the first Hanukkah celebration at the beginning of Chapter 10 right after. I generally consider Second Maccabees less reliable however.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
The Seven Spirits are The Holy Spirit
Christ White has gone and argued against the Seven Spirits of Revelation 1:4 and other verses being The Holy Spirit. Arguing they are the Seven Angels who sound The Trumpets.
First he suggests it's confusing that in Revelation 8 these Seven Angels show up apparently with no prior introduction if you don't identify them with the Seven Spirits. I never felt that way at all, new things are showing up constantly in Revelation. The Angels I have always pictured standing on or by the Altar of Incense, which was not in the scope of chapters 4 and 5. They are clearly not between the 24 Elders and the Four Beasts as the seven Lamps are.
Also Angels are NOT Spirits, not the good ones anyway, they all have physical tangible forms, we can entertain them unawares. Demonic Spirits are distinctly different kinds of beings.
He attacks the connection of this verse to Isaiah 11:2, repeating a common mistake an English first glance reading will give you, that only Six Spirits are described there.
The intimate relationship between The Lamb and the Seven Spirits in Chapter 5 makes clear they are The Lamb's Spirit just as he described The Holy Spirit as His Spirit. The means by which He communicates with and guides believers still on Earth.
The problem I have with this bad interpretation is that when you read Revelation 1 without being distorted by the man made verse divisions, verses 4 and 5 have a clear expression of The Trinity.
Update April 2016: Maybe you could make an argument the Spirits are the same because the Angels mentioned are the Holy Spirit, because again Angel must means messenger and we need to quite thinking of it as a technical term.
The Angels of the Seven Churches are I believer Believers in those congregations with the Gift of Prophecy, White is right that the Early Churches weren't monarchical, but that doesn't rule out that Angel can mean a human messenger, as it was used of John The Baptist.
I have a new theory about the Seven Trumpets, Shofars, explained in my The Ram study.
There is still no doubt in my mind the Seven Spirits are The Holy Spirit.
First he suggests it's confusing that in Revelation 8 these Seven Angels show up apparently with no prior introduction if you don't identify them with the Seven Spirits. I never felt that way at all, new things are showing up constantly in Revelation. The Angels I have always pictured standing on or by the Altar of Incense, which was not in the scope of chapters 4 and 5. They are clearly not between the 24 Elders and the Four Beasts as the seven Lamps are.
Also Angels are NOT Spirits, not the good ones anyway, they all have physical tangible forms, we can entertain them unawares. Demonic Spirits are distinctly different kinds of beings.
He attacks the connection of this verse to Isaiah 11:2, repeating a common mistake an English first glance reading will give you, that only Six Spirits are described there.
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORDThe Six are additional Spirits that come from but are sort of distinct from the First Spirit mentioned.
The intimate relationship between The Lamb and the Seven Spirits in Chapter 5 makes clear they are The Lamb's Spirit just as he described The Holy Spirit as His Spirit. The means by which He communicates with and guides believers still on Earth.
The problem I have with this bad interpretation is that when you read Revelation 1 without being distorted by the man made verse divisions, verses 4 and 5 have a clear expression of The Trinity.
from him which is, and which was, and which is to come
from the seven Spirits which are before his throne
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.It's absurd to think beings that aren't God would be sandwiched in between titles which clearly apply only to God.
Update April 2016: Maybe you could make an argument the Spirits are the same because the Angels mentioned are the Holy Spirit, because again Angel must means messenger and we need to quite thinking of it as a technical term.
The Angels of the Seven Churches are I believer Believers in those congregations with the Gift of Prophecy, White is right that the Early Churches weren't monarchical, but that doesn't rule out that Angel can mean a human messenger, as it was used of John The Baptist.
I have a new theory about the Seven Trumpets, Shofars, explained in my The Ram study.
There is still no doubt in my mind the Seven Spirits are The Holy Spirit.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Jesus ministry was only about a year
I argued for that when arguing for a 30 AD Crucifixion. Other have btw argued for a 30 AD Crucifixion while keeping a 3-3.5 year ministry, but there are other chronological reasons I can't accept that.
Problem is others out there are arguing for an only 1 year ministry but doing so in a completely different way, that ignores the not so chronological nature of John and still thinks the John 2 Passover was a separate Passover from the Passion which is absurd as I argued before.
But worse then that, they argue that John 6 has a scribal error thus casting doubt on the preservation of God's Word. Which is why I fear this is a Satanic ploy to discredit arguing for a 1 year ministry at all.
The verse in John 6 mentioning Passover is apparently missing from some manuscripts, but I'll bet as usual these are chiefly the Alexandrian Manuscripts. I base my view of Scripture on the Received Text.
They say this can't actually be Passover because Jesus would have to be in Jerusalem if it's Passover. The wording in John 6:4 doesn't say it is on Passover exactly, it says the Passover is nigh. For the Passion week Jesus entered Jerusalem on the preceding Sunday, which I believe fell on the 10th of Nisan, the day the Passover Lamb is presented.
Passover could be nigh certainly if it's Nisan already, but in time Jewish tradition came to think of the Passover Season as beginning in a sense as soon as Purim ended around the 15-17th of Adar. Not unlike how in modern America the Christmas season begins as soon as Thanksgiving ends. Also the Samaritans had developed a tradition of having a build up to Passover that begins 10-11 weeks in advance, recounting the entire Exodus narrative from when Moses first came before Pharaoh.
For all these reasons I have decided, though I hadn't decided this firmly yet when I first made the 30 AD post, that I believe the Passover of John 6 is also the same Passover as the Crucifixion. But I do think for reasons explained elsewhere Jesus Baptism was possibly near the Passover of the previous year.
I believe the break between chapter 6 and 7 should be moved up a verse, that 7:2 starts the Tabernacles narrative and 7:1 ends the John 6 narrative. So I feel justified in speculating that John 7 took place 5 or 6 months before John 6.
They say the Synoptic accounts of the same Miracle that is the centerpiece of John 6 clearly place it at the end of Summer, I disagree, I don't see that. The basis seems to be thinking the Synoptics account refers to the Feast approaching after this account correlates to John 7 depicting Tabernacles next. As I feel the cleansing of The Temple issue proves, John isn't always chronological, even if a face value reading of his transitions seem that way.
The Synoptics unlike John are only concerned with that one Passover where he was Crucified, no other Feasts. So any reference to a Feast or Festival approaching in the Synoptics I'm certain means that Passover not any other.
I'll go ahead and repeat what I said before on the cleansing.
____________________________________________________________________
The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.
So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptic Gospels does not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus' Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.
John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's presented as his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period of time.
What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the Scribes and the Pharisees and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2 or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days) in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it. But my point here is it's presented as something he recently said.
So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less. And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself."Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovation of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D. Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.
____________________________________________________________
Luke 4:19 refers to the acceptable year of The Lord. Exodus 12 said the Passover Lamb should be of the first year.
What annoys me is how the 3 to 4 year ministry continues to be accepted by people who do not have a preterist view of the 70th Week. Since it's origin (yes even among Early Church Fathers who taught it, Eusebius was the first) is in trying to justify a Preterist view of the 70th Week, that Jesus ministry was the first half.
But it's mistaken even as a Preterist view, I've decided a Preterist interpretation of the 70 Weeks isn't impossible (I see it as a dual fulfillment), but that when you clarify certain misunderstandings there is still no doubt that the Crucifixion was where the 69th ends and 70th begins, not the middle of a Week.
The Crucifixion being in Nisan makes it being the middle of a year impossible.
Problem is others out there are arguing for an only 1 year ministry but doing so in a completely different way, that ignores the not so chronological nature of John and still thinks the John 2 Passover was a separate Passover from the Passion which is absurd as I argued before.
But worse then that, they argue that John 6 has a scribal error thus casting doubt on the preservation of God's Word. Which is why I fear this is a Satanic ploy to discredit arguing for a 1 year ministry at all.
The verse in John 6 mentioning Passover is apparently missing from some manuscripts, but I'll bet as usual these are chiefly the Alexandrian Manuscripts. I base my view of Scripture on the Received Text.
They say this can't actually be Passover because Jesus would have to be in Jerusalem if it's Passover. The wording in John 6:4 doesn't say it is on Passover exactly, it says the Passover is nigh. For the Passion week Jesus entered Jerusalem on the preceding Sunday, which I believe fell on the 10th of Nisan, the day the Passover Lamb is presented.
Passover could be nigh certainly if it's Nisan already, but in time Jewish tradition came to think of the Passover Season as beginning in a sense as soon as Purim ended around the 15-17th of Adar. Not unlike how in modern America the Christmas season begins as soon as Thanksgiving ends. Also the Samaritans had developed a tradition of having a build up to Passover that begins 10-11 weeks in advance, recounting the entire Exodus narrative from when Moses first came before Pharaoh.
For all these reasons I have decided, though I hadn't decided this firmly yet when I first made the 30 AD post, that I believe the Passover of John 6 is also the same Passover as the Crucifixion. But I do think for reasons explained elsewhere Jesus Baptism was possibly near the Passover of the previous year.
I believe the break between chapter 6 and 7 should be moved up a verse, that 7:2 starts the Tabernacles narrative and 7:1 ends the John 6 narrative. So I feel justified in speculating that John 7 took place 5 or 6 months before John 6.
They say the Synoptic accounts of the same Miracle that is the centerpiece of John 6 clearly place it at the end of Summer, I disagree, I don't see that. The basis seems to be thinking the Synoptics account refers to the Feast approaching after this account correlates to John 7 depicting Tabernacles next. As I feel the cleansing of The Temple issue proves, John isn't always chronological, even if a face value reading of his transitions seem that way.
The Synoptics unlike John are only concerned with that one Passover where he was Crucified, no other Feasts. So any reference to a Feast or Festival approaching in the Synoptics I'm certain means that Passover not any other.
I'll go ahead and repeat what I said before on the cleansing.
____________________________________________________________________
The biggest chronological mistake made when dealing with the Crucifixion is when people incorrectly state that John refers to three or four Passovers occurring during Jesus's ministry. (The discrepancy between three and four is a Feast being refereed to that isn't identified.) John 2 (It's second story), John 6 and 12 all refer to Passover clearly, the last the Passover season of the Crucifixion. John 5 refers to a Jewish feast but doesn't identify which, many then assume this is Passover. Since the Passover is largely the thematic heart of John's narrative I believe he would have identified it if it was Passover. I believe the one in John 5 is possibly Purim or Pentecost.
So John has three at most. The problem is the basic narrative of the Synoptic Gospels does not seem to allow more then a Year and a few months for Jesus' Ministry. The thing people overlook is that John's Gospel is the most Mystical of the Gospels, and because of that it's not always purely Chronological, sometimes events are described next to each other for symbolic reasons, not because they actually happened side by side.
John 2 describes two stories. The first is the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding banquet. That story clearly seems to be at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, since it's presented as his first public miracle. The second story involves The Temple. I believe they're told side by side because together they make John 2 a Beth chapter. Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it also means house. So John 2 deals with both The House as in the Family and The House as in the House of God. Both also refer to a three day period of time.
What is so often and to me annoyingly overlooked is that John 2 gives clearly a more detailed account of the Cleansing of The Temple. Which the Synoptics clearly place in the same week as the Crucifixion. Some would suggest it happened twice, but in the Synoptics it's clearly the last straw that drives the Scribes and the Pharisees and the Priesthood to want Jesus dead, if he'd done the same thing 2 or 3 years before that wouldn't make much sense. It's also interesting that the Synoptic account alludes to what only John records Jesus saying here, (About destroying this Temple and rebuilding it in 3 days) in the form of false witnesses misrepresenting it. But my point here is it's presented as something he recently said.
So in truth John gives a Ministry of only just over a year (many Atheists criticize the Gospels by saying the Synoptics clearly depict a ministry of only about a year and that John's three year model is then a contradiction. I've provided the means to refute that,) or maybe even less. And since John 2 is recording the Passover season of the Crucifixion, that is very useful since John 2 dates itself."Forty and six years has this temple been in building". The renovation of the Temple Herod started wasn't finished till the 60s, so this is referring to them speaking 46 years after Herod's renovations began. 20/19 BC is when Herod first announced the project, but as a careful study of Josephus shows it really began in late 18 or early 17 B.C. So 46 years latter on Passover brings us to 30 A.D. Ussher dated John 2's Temple incident to the same year, but repeated the error I explained above.
____________________________________________________________
Luke 4:19 refers to the acceptable year of The Lord. Exodus 12 said the Passover Lamb should be of the first year.
What annoys me is how the 3 to 4 year ministry continues to be accepted by people who do not have a preterist view of the 70th Week. Since it's origin (yes even among Early Church Fathers who taught it, Eusebius was the first) is in trying to justify a Preterist view of the 70th Week, that Jesus ministry was the first half.
But it's mistaken even as a Preterist view, I've decided a Preterist interpretation of the 70 Weeks isn't impossible (I see it as a dual fulfillment), but that when you clarify certain misunderstandings there is still no doubt that the Crucifixion was where the 69th ends and 70th begins, not the middle of a Week.
The Crucifixion being in Nisan makes it being the middle of a year impossible.
Which wrong view on The Rapture is the most dangerous?
The popular answer is the Pre-Trib view, the one thing all non Pre-Tribbers seem to agree on.
I really don't understand how the people who are now not believers or believers who are uninterested in Prophecy talk about being raised on the Pre-Tirb Rapture and being constantly terrified by it. They clearly did not truly understand what The Rapture is if they found it frightening.
But what I'm going to discus here is how most of my fellow non Pre-Trib Futurists seem to think, simply by virtue of it being currently the mainstream view, that Pre-Trib is the most dangerous view. That once we're clearly in the 70th Week and no Rapture happens countless formally faithful Pre-Tribbers will lose their faith and fall away.
Post-Tribbers particularly then see the dangers of Pre-Trib as innate in any more obscure view that has the Rapture as distinct from Revelation 19, even though I am adamant Christians will face Great Tribulation. They are unwilling to listen to anything I have to say on Prophecy so long as I'm not Post-Trib like them.
I don't think so low of Pre-Tribbers, or anyone else who disagrees with me. But especially Pre-Tribbers because I've grown a lot in the Spirit listening to other issues talked about by Pre-Tirbbers like Chuck Missler. Pre-Tribbers are often the most likely to agree with me on Eternal Security, it seems the Pre-Wrath camp has a lot of Calvinism in it.
I've listened to a lot of Pre-Tribbers, many do believe American Christians will face persecution first. I'm confident they will simply get over it and rework their understanding once Pre-Trib is proven wrong.
I don't think there is any risk of truly Saved people being "deceived" by the II Thessalonians 2 event. I certainly don't think it's possible for a saved person to take the Mark, if you think that 100% of people who take The Mark are damned, but also believe in Eternal Security, then you have to believe no Saved person could take the Mark. I think the Mark is instituted after The Rapture has just happened, and the awakening Israelites are fleeing to the wilderness. So no one already saved will be presented with that dilemma.
Rob Skiba likes to say that the warning to Believers to not be deceived clearly means it's possible for us to be deceived. That is true but it's not about the II Thessalonians 2 event, that event isn't a deception at all, that's when the Deception ends and the enemy just comes right out and says what he means, he will not claim to be Jesus or The God of The Bible he will claim to be better then The God of The Bible.
Before that, during the first half of the Week it might, MIGHT, be possible for Believers to wind up being tricked into helping/supporting the Man of Sin.
Pre-Trib will be proven wrong pretty much as soon as the 70th Week starts. I believe The Temple will be standing before we enter it, and all of the first Six Seals will be opened before the Nisan that starts it is over.
So I'm more concerned that the default position among people is that IF Pre-Trib is wrong Post-Trib must be the only other option. Then after that is the trendy Pre-Wrath view. And also that movie from the Pastor I do not like to name that is presenting a model technically Mid-Trib in form but is really a hybridization of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath ideas. Pre-Wrathers especially love to brag about Mid-Trib being a "defunct view". Well they should remember that it'd suit Satan well if the correct view is the least popular.
All three of those models place the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the 70th Week rather then The Mid-Way point as a plain reading of Revelation clearly shows. Post-Trib sometimes sees the sixth or seventh Seal as the same event but not always. Pre-Wrath places the Sixth Seal some indeterminate amount of time after the Mid-Way point.
Meanwhile there are also people arguing that there is no 70th Week, that the entire period is only 3.5 years and so every 3.5 year period referenced is the same. And most who do believe in a 70th Week have this wrong idea that those years will begin and end on Yom Teruah, when Yom Teruah should Biblically mark the midway point.
I've talked to Pre-Wrathers who think it's possible we're already in the 70th Week now and aren't aware of it. I firmly believe it can't start till The Temple (it could be just a Tabernacle) is standing in Jerusalem. Pre-Wrathers also tend to think the Persecution only starts at the Abomination of Desolation.
Basically what I'm saying is I fear once Pre-Trib is firmly debunked people may be deceived into thinking we're already at or past the Mid-Way point when the 70th Week has really only just started.
The only issue there is how can people be tricked into thinking The Abomination of Desolation has happened already when it really hasn't? Paul certainly makes what it is unmistakable in II Thessalonians 2. But lots of people are already trying to alegorize or twist that.
I think there will be plenty of Christians who won't fall for this deception, even if their current views make them vulnerable to aspects of it. But we need to be aware of how that deception could work.
1. Thanks to how the 1290 days reference from Daniel 12 is commonly misunderstood, most people assume the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation when it's really 1290 days before it.
2. The Anti-Semites of the world may well think the Temple being rebuilt itself is the Abomination of Desolation. That's what some of Texe Marrs logic seems to imply. And since many other Dispensationalist and Zionsit Christians think it's possible The Temple won't be rebuilt till very soon before it happens, they are not prepared to refute that argument timing wise.
3. Then there are the people who allegorize what The Temple means in II Thessalonians to being The Church. Don't assume that view will lose credibility once a Third Temple is standing, many of them are clarifying they do think The Jews might get their Temple rebuilt, but that Christians should not be tricked into thinking that is prophetically relevant.
4. Rob Skiba has gone and wrongly defined what The Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes was, saying it refers to when he offered the Pig on the Altar (a legend that is apocryphal to begin with) not the Idol. So imagine if it's Nisan, perhaps on Passover, someone invades Jerusalem, enters the Temple and kills a Pig on the Brazen Altar. Rob Skiba is set up to be deceived, especially if that same Decoy Antichrist claims to be Nimrod.
5. I've also seen someone argue (with the intent of supporting a Prestist view however) that when Jesus said "The Holy Place" really means "A Holy Place" and that the Abomination need not happen in specifically the Inner Sanctuary at all. This is especially tempting to fall for once you notice Antiochus Epiphanes lesser Abomination Idol wasn't in the Holy Place but on the Brazen Altar. That's probably why Rob Skiba got confused. But II Thessalonians 2:4 says he sits in The Temple, the only sitting Place in The Temple was the Ark itself which lid was the mercy Seat, this Temple I don't think will have the real Ark.
6. I also think some might get confused by a person deifying himself or giving Messianic status to himself and forget that The Beast will also speak AGAINST the True God.
All of these could be relevant, since Satan will probably try to have multiple deceptions going on with multiple Decoy Antichrists. Maybe even relevant in ways that sometimes overlap.
I really don't understand how the people who are now not believers or believers who are uninterested in Prophecy talk about being raised on the Pre-Tirb Rapture and being constantly terrified by it. They clearly did not truly understand what The Rapture is if they found it frightening.
But what I'm going to discus here is how most of my fellow non Pre-Trib Futurists seem to think, simply by virtue of it being currently the mainstream view, that Pre-Trib is the most dangerous view. That once we're clearly in the 70th Week and no Rapture happens countless formally faithful Pre-Tribbers will lose their faith and fall away.
Post-Tribbers particularly then see the dangers of Pre-Trib as innate in any more obscure view that has the Rapture as distinct from Revelation 19, even though I am adamant Christians will face Great Tribulation. They are unwilling to listen to anything I have to say on Prophecy so long as I'm not Post-Trib like them.
I don't think so low of Pre-Tribbers, or anyone else who disagrees with me. But especially Pre-Tribbers because I've grown a lot in the Spirit listening to other issues talked about by Pre-Tirbbers like Chuck Missler. Pre-Tribbers are often the most likely to agree with me on Eternal Security, it seems the Pre-Wrath camp has a lot of Calvinism in it.
I've listened to a lot of Pre-Tribbers, many do believe American Christians will face persecution first. I'm confident they will simply get over it and rework their understanding once Pre-Trib is proven wrong.
I don't think there is any risk of truly Saved people being "deceived" by the II Thessalonians 2 event. I certainly don't think it's possible for a saved person to take the Mark, if you think that 100% of people who take The Mark are damned, but also believe in Eternal Security, then you have to believe no Saved person could take the Mark. I think the Mark is instituted after The Rapture has just happened, and the awakening Israelites are fleeing to the wilderness. So no one already saved will be presented with that dilemma.
Rob Skiba likes to say that the warning to Believers to not be deceived clearly means it's possible for us to be deceived. That is true but it's not about the II Thessalonians 2 event, that event isn't a deception at all, that's when the Deception ends and the enemy just comes right out and says what he means, he will not claim to be Jesus or The God of The Bible he will claim to be better then The God of The Bible.
Before that, during the first half of the Week it might, MIGHT, be possible for Believers to wind up being tricked into helping/supporting the Man of Sin.
Pre-Trib will be proven wrong pretty much as soon as the 70th Week starts. I believe The Temple will be standing before we enter it, and all of the first Six Seals will be opened before the Nisan that starts it is over.
So I'm more concerned that the default position among people is that IF Pre-Trib is wrong Post-Trib must be the only other option. Then after that is the trendy Pre-Wrath view. And also that movie from the Pastor I do not like to name that is presenting a model technically Mid-Trib in form but is really a hybridization of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath ideas. Pre-Wrathers especially love to brag about Mid-Trib being a "defunct view". Well they should remember that it'd suit Satan well if the correct view is the least popular.
All three of those models place the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the 70th Week rather then The Mid-Way point as a plain reading of Revelation clearly shows. Post-Trib sometimes sees the sixth or seventh Seal as the same event but not always. Pre-Wrath places the Sixth Seal some indeterminate amount of time after the Mid-Way point.
Meanwhile there are also people arguing that there is no 70th Week, that the entire period is only 3.5 years and so every 3.5 year period referenced is the same. And most who do believe in a 70th Week have this wrong idea that those years will begin and end on Yom Teruah, when Yom Teruah should Biblically mark the midway point.
I've talked to Pre-Wrathers who think it's possible we're already in the 70th Week now and aren't aware of it. I firmly believe it can't start till The Temple (it could be just a Tabernacle) is standing in Jerusalem. Pre-Wrathers also tend to think the Persecution only starts at the Abomination of Desolation.
Basically what I'm saying is I fear once Pre-Trib is firmly debunked people may be deceived into thinking we're already at or past the Mid-Way point when the 70th Week has really only just started.
The only issue there is how can people be tricked into thinking The Abomination of Desolation has happened already when it really hasn't? Paul certainly makes what it is unmistakable in II Thessalonians 2. But lots of people are already trying to alegorize or twist that.
I think there will be plenty of Christians who won't fall for this deception, even if their current views make them vulnerable to aspects of it. But we need to be aware of how that deception could work.
1. Thanks to how the 1290 days reference from Daniel 12 is commonly misunderstood, most people assume the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation when it's really 1290 days before it.
2. The Anti-Semites of the world may well think the Temple being rebuilt itself is the Abomination of Desolation. That's what some of Texe Marrs logic seems to imply. And since many other Dispensationalist and Zionsit Christians think it's possible The Temple won't be rebuilt till very soon before it happens, they are not prepared to refute that argument timing wise.
3. Then there are the people who allegorize what The Temple means in II Thessalonians to being The Church. Don't assume that view will lose credibility once a Third Temple is standing, many of them are clarifying they do think The Jews might get their Temple rebuilt, but that Christians should not be tricked into thinking that is prophetically relevant.
4. Rob Skiba has gone and wrongly defined what The Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes was, saying it refers to when he offered the Pig on the Altar (a legend that is apocryphal to begin with) not the Idol. So imagine if it's Nisan, perhaps on Passover, someone invades Jerusalem, enters the Temple and kills a Pig on the Brazen Altar. Rob Skiba is set up to be deceived, especially if that same Decoy Antichrist claims to be Nimrod.
5. I've also seen someone argue (with the intent of supporting a Prestist view however) that when Jesus said "The Holy Place" really means "A Holy Place" and that the Abomination need not happen in specifically the Inner Sanctuary at all. This is especially tempting to fall for once you notice Antiochus Epiphanes lesser Abomination Idol wasn't in the Holy Place but on the Brazen Altar. That's probably why Rob Skiba got confused. But II Thessalonians 2:4 says he sits in The Temple, the only sitting Place in The Temple was the Ark itself which lid was the mercy Seat, this Temple I don't think will have the real Ark.
6. I also think some might get confused by a person deifying himself or giving Messianic status to himself and forget that The Beast will also speak AGAINST the True God.
All of these could be relevant, since Satan will probably try to have multiple deceptions going on with multiple Decoy Antichrists. Maybe even relevant in ways that sometimes overlap.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
2018-2025 Seventieth Week Theory
The basic reasoning behind my developing this theory I have laid out in my Suleiman The Magnificent post. Of course one needs to understand my reasons for disagreeing with those who say Date-Setting is inherently wrong. At any-rate I'm not saying I know, it's a theory.
I'm not making any money off talking about this theory, I'm not writing a book about it, everything I have to say on it is up for free on this Blog. And I do not have any kind of advertising arrangement that allows me to make money off of the clicks I get.
The gist is, it seems that the entire 70 weeks could have a double fulfillment not just the first. And Sulieman's decree was issued possibly in Nisan of 1535. 490 years latter is 2025 putting the last week beginning in 2018. Potential support for this comes from it being more then 70 but less then 80 years since 1948.
This puts the Mid-Way point and sounding of the Seventh Trumpet on Yom Teruah/First of Tishri 2021 AD. Because the 70 Weeks all begin and end in Nisan. Now we can't know for certain when Yom Teruah falls in 2021 because of what I explained about the Biblical Reckoning not always agreeing with The Rabbis. At any-rate though, the Rabbis currently expect Yom Teruah of 2021 to fall on September 7th or 8th, the moon will be under Virgo's Feet on September 10th.
(Update: On further Stelarium study, I think 2021 is likely one of those years the Rabbinic Calendar is a month off. So I think Yom Teruah will be October 6th or 7th, the Moon will be under Virgo's feet on the 7th.)
I speculate on how the 70th Week could play out here.
I recently explained why I feel The Rapture of The Man-Child is The Rapture of The Church. That view is not at all dependent on adding any Virgo related speculation for the signs, but I decided to use Stelarium and take a look.
When The Moon is under Virgo's Feet on September 14th 2021, Venus will be between The Moon and Spica. And the time Venus will be visible will be less then an hour.
Now in the Man-Child study I felt Revelation 2:27 and it's Rod of Iron reference was important, well the very next verse Jesus also says "I will give him The Morning Star". How linked are those? Could Venus represent the Rod of Iron in some way?
I don't know if this model will happen, but I will be paying attention. I have an important follow up here.
I'm not making any money off talking about this theory, I'm not writing a book about it, everything I have to say on it is up for free on this Blog. And I do not have any kind of advertising arrangement that allows me to make money off of the clicks I get.
The gist is, it seems that the entire 70 weeks could have a double fulfillment not just the first. And Sulieman's decree was issued possibly in Nisan of 1535. 490 years latter is 2025 putting the last week beginning in 2018. Potential support for this comes from it being more then 70 but less then 80 years since 1948.
This puts the Mid-Way point and sounding of the Seventh Trumpet on Yom Teruah/First of Tishri 2021 AD. Because the 70 Weeks all begin and end in Nisan. Now we can't know for certain when Yom Teruah falls in 2021 because of what I explained about the Biblical Reckoning not always agreeing with The Rabbis. At any-rate though, the Rabbis currently expect Yom Teruah of 2021 to fall on September 7th or 8th, the moon will be under Virgo's Feet on September 10th.
(Update: On further Stelarium study, I think 2021 is likely one of those years the Rabbinic Calendar is a month off. So I think Yom Teruah will be October 6th or 7th, the Moon will be under Virgo's feet on the 7th.)
I speculate on how the 70th Week could play out here.
I recently explained why I feel The Rapture of The Man-Child is The Rapture of The Church. That view is not at all dependent on adding any Virgo related speculation for the signs, but I decided to use Stelarium and take a look.
When The Moon is under Virgo's Feet on September 14th 2021, Venus will be between The Moon and Spica. And the time Venus will be visible will be less then an hour.
Now in the Man-Child study I felt Revelation 2:27 and it's Rod of Iron reference was important, well the very next verse Jesus also says "I will give him The Morning Star". How linked are those? Could Venus represent the Rod of Iron in some way?
I don't know if this model will happen, but I will be paying attention. I have an important follow up here.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
I think The Man-Child is The Church
I did a post on the subject of The Rapture of The Man-Child before. But my thinking has changed since then. First read this so you understand that all of this follows The Seventh Trumpet.
Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ. And that remains an important part of the argument. But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.
The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him. But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.
I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate. My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate. Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is. That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture. Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.
And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses. But John used it only here. Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.
I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne. Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room. Read chapters 14 and 15.
Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19. But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.
I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong. We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved. We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved. So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected. Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.
Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming. But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.
Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.
As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved. The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD. The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.
Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect. The Church is the same situation. We are definitely The Bride. And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times. They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine. Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we? Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ. That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself. Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.
There were no chapter divisions in the original text. Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead. I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah. The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.
Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of. Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.
And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here). It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.
As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo. While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical. Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo. I've posted on related conjectures before. However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.
Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ. And that remains an important part of the argument. But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.
The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him. But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.
I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate. My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate. Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is. That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture. Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.
And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses. But John used it only here. Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.
I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne. Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room. Read chapters 14 and 15.
Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19. But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.
I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong. We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved. We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved. So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected. Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.
Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming. But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.
Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.
As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved. The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD. The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.
Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect. The Church is the same situation. We are definitely The Bride. And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times. They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.
Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine. Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we? Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ. That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself. Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.
There were no chapter divisions in the original text. Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead. I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah. The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.
Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of. Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.
And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here). It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.
As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo. While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical. Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo. I've posted on related conjectures before. However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.
We should follow the Karaite reckoning rather then the Rabbinic calander
There is no call in The Bible to try and predict in advance when various days will fall.
The first of Nisan is the only new year that is Biblical. And it should always be the first New Moon after the Barley Harvest in Israel starts. When the Barley Harvest happens in Adar (or second Adar if they have one) then the Rabbinic calendar happens to be right. And the Karaite reckoning does wind up corresponding with the Rabbinic calendar more often the Samaritan Calendar does.
If the Barley Harvest happens late and i doesn't occur in Adar, then that is when you do a second Adar, whether or not it was expected. And if the Barley harvest happens in first Adar, then there shouldn't be a second Adar whether or not the Rabbinics had planned one.
http://www.karaite-korner.org/holidays.shtml
Likewise for the months. The Rabbinics have complicated way of counting things, and because of that even when the month is right Tabernacles often doesn't fall on the true Astronomical Full Moon. If the New Moon happens sooner then expected then that months ends early, if it happens latter then expected then that months has an extra day or two.
Now today we can predicts New Moons and Full Moon pretty accurately with our astronomical sciences that the Ancient Hebrews didn't have. How nature cooperates for the Barley Harvest is not as dependable however.
Christians who think The Biblical calendar still has significance, should start as soon as it's February looking for the Barley Harvest in Israel.
Karaites aren't Christians, but they are the Protestants of the Jewish world in terms of Sola Sicprtura. Some may at times be like many Protestants who pay lip service to Sola Sciprtura while attacking Catholics but then just build traditions of their own. But it looks from the website I linked to that they have a pretty solid understanding of the Biblical reckoning of the times and seasons.
Update Jan2016: Knowing that the Rabbis are doing can still help predict some basic things, the New Moons are not likely be off by any more then 2 days. And from there using Stellarium from a view point in Israel can maybe help one predict if the New Moons will be off. The Rabbis are expecting 2016 to have a Second Adar. And with Shevet beginning less then half way into January I think it's likely there will be one for the Karaites too.
Some Karaites have chosen to outright identify themselves with the Sadducees and deny the Resurrection of the Dead The Afterlife and a coming Messiah. But not all take that position.
The first of Nisan is the only new year that is Biblical. And it should always be the first New Moon after the Barley Harvest in Israel starts. When the Barley Harvest happens in Adar (or second Adar if they have one) then the Rabbinic calendar happens to be right. And the Karaite reckoning does wind up corresponding with the Rabbinic calendar more often the Samaritan Calendar does.
If the Barley Harvest happens late and i doesn't occur in Adar, then that is when you do a second Adar, whether or not it was expected. And if the Barley harvest happens in first Adar, then there shouldn't be a second Adar whether or not the Rabbinics had planned one.
http://www.karaite-korner.org/holidays.shtml
Likewise for the months. The Rabbinics have complicated way of counting things, and because of that even when the month is right Tabernacles often doesn't fall on the true Astronomical Full Moon. If the New Moon happens sooner then expected then that months ends early, if it happens latter then expected then that months has an extra day or two.
Now today we can predicts New Moons and Full Moon pretty accurately with our astronomical sciences that the Ancient Hebrews didn't have. How nature cooperates for the Barley Harvest is not as dependable however.
Christians who think The Biblical calendar still has significance, should start as soon as it's February looking for the Barley Harvest in Israel.
Karaites aren't Christians, but they are the Protestants of the Jewish world in terms of Sola Sicprtura. Some may at times be like many Protestants who pay lip service to Sola Sciprtura while attacking Catholics but then just build traditions of their own. But it looks from the website I linked to that they have a pretty solid understanding of the Biblical reckoning of the times and seasons.
Update Jan2016: Knowing that the Rabbis are doing can still help predict some basic things, the New Moons are not likely be off by any more then 2 days. And from there using Stellarium from a view point in Israel can maybe help one predict if the New Moons will be off. The Rabbis are expecting 2016 to have a Second Adar. And with Shevet beginning less then half way into January I think it's likely there will be one for the Karaites too.
Some Karaites have chosen to outright identify themselves with the Sadducees and deny the Resurrection of the Dead The Afterlife and a coming Messiah. But not all take that position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)