In terms of all the arguments that make up the peculiar Britam variety of British-Israelism, the thematic reasons (rather then historical and genealogical reasons) for associating America with Manasseh were always the most compelling to me.
I addressed this briefly in the American Antichrist post. I'll go over them again, probably in more detail.
The continental United States like the land allotted to Manasseh is divided between East and West by a major River (Mississippi/Jordan).
People have suggested a possible etymological connection between HaMakir (Makir/Machir was the first born son of Manasseh) and America. The only issue I have there is how the k/c and the r became switched around. It's been suggested the concept of Representative democracy is implied in the very name of Manasseh, as well as Machir. Those claims seem questionable to me however.
What's most interesting is how I felt long before I heard of British Israelism that George Washington had a lot in common with Gideon. Both were military leaders of successful rebellions, both were offered to be King but declined the Crown, and both become symbolically represented by a Tree.
Now I'm not a believer in British-Israelism. I think rather that the deported Northern Israelites went East rather then West. But that could potentially include them coming to the Americas and contributing to the Native American gene pool. I also think well before the deportation the Israelites had awareness of the Americas via their complex relationship with Tyre and the Phoenicians. I highly recommend the book America BC for documenting much evidence of the Phoenicians being among the Pre-Colombian travelers to the Americas.
Lots of intermingling between Native Americans and the Western colonists went on, really a majority of even "white" people in America today likely have some degree of Naive American ancestry. That does not take away that by looking White we still have White privilege.
In Genesis 48:19 Jacob Prophesied that a Great Nation would come out of Manasseh and that many nations would come out of Ephraim.
Making America Manasseh in the context of Western Nations as the Lost Tribes usually goes with making Ephraim the British Isles and the other Commonwealth nations, Queen Elizabeth II is in fact the Queen of 16 different nations. However I only see Edom and Dan when I look at England, (well also some Japheth clearly). The Lion as a symbol of theirs is used to justify connecting them to Judah/David, but in Deuteronomy 33 Dan was also called a Lion's Whelp, and the current British Royal family is really Danish, both the Queen and her consort descent from different children of King Christian IX. And before that the Angles and Saxons came from Denmark.
However if it's through Native Americans that the United States could possibly claim Manassehite heritage, then perhaps Mesoamerica/Latin America (Mexico, Central and South America, and some of the Caribbean Islands) is Ephraim. Mexico is to the south of the Western United States just like Ephraim was to Western Manasseh.
There seemed to be some shifts at different times in terms of what was Manasseh and what was Ephraim, Shechem and possibly Samaria seemed to be affiliated with both. That area was originally allotted to Ephraim in the time of Joshua, but in Gideon's time it seemed like the capital of Western Manasseh. But it seems to be Ephraim again by the time of Jeroboam.
Likewise the Southwestern United States once belonged to Mexico.
In the American Antichrist post I made a thing out of the Bald Eagle being associated with Samaria in Micah chapter 1. Well Mexico has an Eagle on it's Flag derived from Aztec legend. Aztlan is frequently speculated to have been in the American South West. It's interesting that the South West is where the LDS Church ultimately set up it's headquarters. Mormonism uses and twists for their own purposes the idea of the Native Americans being Israelites, in particular of Manasseh, yet at the same time identifies itself with Ephraim.
Shiloh and Bethel were both in what was pretty consistently Ephraim. Perhaps the analogue to Shiloh which was Israel's capital often during the Judges period is Mexico City. And Bethel's would be Teotihuacan. Or visa versa.
On the subject of Manasseh and the Jordan/Mississippi connection. Since I now support a north of the Dead Sea location for Sodom and Gomorrah, it might amuse some to know that puts them in relation to the Jordan about where New Orleans is in relation to the Mississippi.
Britam's desire to affiliate Ephriam with monarchical form of Government is also weak. They talk like all the Kings of the Northern Kingdom were of Ephriam or at least Joseph, but really only Jeroboam is confirmed, Bassha we know was Issachar and there is evidence Menahem came from Gad. Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 gives Royal Promises only to Judah and Gad, and maybe Dan and Asher. Samuel was of Ephriam and voiced a strong anti-royalist sentiment.
None of this takes away the Edomite Heritage that the modern American Nations have via Europe/Rome. In the days of Gideon the Amalakites had a fortress in the Mountains of Ephriam. And a connection between Ephriam and Edom is implied is implied in Obadiah as well.
Another thing I think Britam might be right on is Moab and Ammon being Spain and Portugal, Moab is also affiliated with Eagle imagery in Jeremiah. Britam however wants to take from that expanding it to Latin America. But Moab and Ammon were among the nations that oppressed the Israelites during the Judges period. So perhaps Ephraim was under the yoke of Moab and Ammon for centuries, but then after the American Revolution (because Manasseh was the first born) Ephraim started throwing off the yoke of Moab and Ammon under leaders like Simon Bolivar.
One thing I want to make clear is my speculating on Northern Israelite heritage for any Asian or Native American peoples does not take away that other people were there first, with possible Genesis 10 ancestry independent of Shem much less Abraham. But after the deportation most of the northern Israelites lost their identity and were absorbed into and intermingled with various other peoples.
Update December 1st 2017:
First of all, it seems from my research since I made this, that it was chiefly and possibly just Shechem that was affiliated with both Ephraim and Manasseh. Shechem is also where Joseph was buried. Samaria being usually placed north of Shechem is most likely Manasseh territory. It seems the confusion is added to because the mountain range called the "Mountains of Ephraim" (Sometimes translated as if it were singular in English) extend into Manasseh's territory.
Given the elaborations that have since been made to my Lost Tribes views. I no longer think Native Americans are the only means by which Manasseh came to America. It was those carried away by Assyria that were taken East and wound up in the Mississippi region.
In a future post I'll be talking more on what I think about the fates of the Northern Israelites who weren't carried away by Assyria. Where I will explain that I think descendants of Western Manasseh (and to an extent other tribes) wound up in America via Irish&Scottish Immigrants (Welsh and Bretans as well) and African Slaves (and also Irish Slaves).
Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that Edomites and Mizraimites who come to dwell among the Israelites should be let into the congregation after the third generation. By the American Revolution quite a few colonists had been here for more then three generations.
I've argued on this Blog that the Scandanavins, and other Germanic Tribes including the Anglo-Saxons and Dutch chiefly descend from Dan and Mizraim (Jeremiah foretold Mizraim winding up in the North). There is also likely a strong Danite element still in Greece.
I also still feel inclined towards identifying Edom with Rome, in-spite of that recent Daniel 7 post I made. Rome contributed to the population of the British Isles and other parts of Europe, but they would chiefly be Italians (and Corsicans). There were some Italians already here before the Revolution, they mostly came from northern Italy, the waves of Italian Immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s were chiefly from southern Italy and Sicily.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
I have two conflicting Antichrist views I'm leaning towards now
I still like the one that had been a central developing theme of this blog for most of it's history. That I lay out in posts like this. About a western leader who'll claim to be or be claimed to be Messiah Ben-Joseph, I've even argued that he could be American. That it'll be us conservative Judeo-Christians he's chiefly trying to seduce, not The World. But the main thing not compatible with the other view is that his Mortal Wounding/death will be at the start of the 70th week, in Nisan.
But I've developed more recently from my Daniel 7 study, a view that he could be a Seleucid Ruler, probably Epiphanes himself, who will ascend from the Bottomless Pit. I even speculated at the end of my recent Daniel 11 study that he might have been sent there in 30 AD. For fairly obvious reasons however that view can't have The Antichrist present at all when the 70th Week begins, the Fifth Trumpet is the soonest he can show up if he's anyone who's death already happened.
Aspects of both views can still certainly overlap. If the first view is true I'm certain he'll have Seleucid descent through Charlemagne and that that'll be relevant. I'm growing more and more interested in what I suggested in the American Anitchrist post about the Royal Family of modern Greece. They are also Danish royalty and descend from the same clan of German Royal families as the Windsors and the rulers of the Netherlands, who had ties to 18th Century Freemasonry and The Illuminati.
The second theory could still have him going for the ideological viewpoint I suggested. But what I would need to explain since I am firmly convinced of the 70th Week having a dual fulfillment now (and possibly all 70 Weeks, leading to a theory of when it could be) is who the Prince that will come and be cut off in the Nisan that starts the week could be if he's not the Antichrist. Maybe still an Antichrist, my belief in there being Decoy Antichrists remains intact either way.
But I've developed more recently from my Daniel 7 study, a view that he could be a Seleucid Ruler, probably Epiphanes himself, who will ascend from the Bottomless Pit. I even speculated at the end of my recent Daniel 11 study that he might have been sent there in 30 AD. For fairly obvious reasons however that view can't have The Antichrist present at all when the 70th Week begins, the Fifth Trumpet is the soonest he can show up if he's anyone who's death already happened.
Aspects of both views can still certainly overlap. If the first view is true I'm certain he'll have Seleucid descent through Charlemagne and that that'll be relevant. I'm growing more and more interested in what I suggested in the American Anitchrist post about the Royal Family of modern Greece. They are also Danish royalty and descend from the same clan of German Royal families as the Windsors and the rulers of the Netherlands, who had ties to 18th Century Freemasonry and The Illuminati.
The second theory could still have him going for the ideological viewpoint I suggested. But what I would need to explain since I am firmly convinced of the 70th Week having a dual fulfillment now (and possibly all 70 Weeks, leading to a theory of when it could be) is who the Prince that will come and be cut off in the Nisan that starts the week could be if he's not the Antichrist. Maybe still an Antichrist, my belief in there being Decoy Antichrists remains intact either way.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
The Fifth Trumpet, The Flood and Hanukkah
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)