I've talked about the Gap Theory before on this Blog. Starting with my Fall of Satan post. Where I discussed it's ancient's precedents. But the key difference between the Ancient and Medieval versions, and the more Pseudo-Scientific version that emerged in the late 18th Century. Is where the Gap is.
The idea of a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 you won't find in any pre-modern concepts. Instead the Gap was usually placed between Genesis 2:3 and 2:4. It's tied to the idea that the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 were not the same Adam.
Sometimes there is an attempt to gain New Testament support for such a doctrine by quoting when Paul called Jesus the Last Adam, saying the first Adam created was the last to enter our world. However Paul was just talking about typology here, Jesus is another Adam because as in Adam all die, so in Jesus all shall live again.
In Kaballah and Gnosticism and other mystical traditions. The Genesis 1 Adam is often called something like Adam Kadmon. He might be a sort of Cosmic Man, or an ancestor of the gods like Izanagi. Philo of Alexandria linked Adam Kadmon to the Logos. But there may also be versions where he's just the progenitor of what we would now call a Pre-Adamic race. Adam Kadmon is also sometimes defined as being the pre-incarnate Messiah.
There are two main philosophical ideas that are important to understanding the Creation of Adam, being made in God's Image, and being made from the Dust of the Earth. But when you make the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 separate, those two ideas no longer refer to the same creation. Genesis 1's Adam is the Image of God, and Genesis 2's is made from the dust of the earth, with the word for earth being Adamah. This is how the Genesis 1 Adam can become a Cosmic Man, or tie into a Platonic idea that our world is just in inferior replication of a Spiritual realm.
This two Adam theology can also be analogized to Egyptian mythology. Where the Genesis 1 Adam could be identified with Atum, who's name has a phonetic similarity to Adam, and who has some Cosmic Man traits with the Sun being one of his eyes. And every soul was believed to come from his Ka. While the Genesis 2 Adam could be identified with Geb/Keb/Seb, who's name has a similar meaning to Adam, Earth. And who had a son named Seth and another son who was murdered by his brother.
Today the standard Young Earth Creationist approach to explaining how the allegedly separate Creation accounts fit together is to call Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 a more detailed account of part of what happened on day 6. I kind of lean toward that still, but have considered that the day refereed to in Genesis 2:4 could be the Eight Day. But I will never consider any compromise that has death before Adam Sinned in Genesis 3.
This dual Adam theory can also play a role in false belief systems where Jesus does have a Pre-Existence but is a created being, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Origen. It may not always be brought up in such systems, but the door is there to say that the Genesis 1 Adam is Jesus. And that's the main reason I'm uncomfortable with making Genesis 2 the eight day, because it leaves that door open. But I would never use that Adam was created "male and female" in Genesis 1 as an argument against that, since I have argued Jesus has a Feminine aspect.
Yet on the other hand I tend to oppose the Pre-Exstence of Human Souls in general as much as I support the Pre-Existence of Jesus. So I also wouldn't like saying Genesis 1 was the creation of Adams' Soul and Genesis 2 of his body. That can also lead to Gnosticism. So that's a second reason to not go with the 8th Day theory.
The idea that Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 is the Eight Day of creation, is one I'd consider only in the context of how that might fit Traducianism. The view that Adam's was the only Soul/Spirit directly Created by God from scratch, just as obviously his Body was the only one directly created by God from scratch. And that other souls are formed from the Souls of their parents, just as their bodies are, basically that Souls reproduce like bodies do. And Eve was cloned from Adam. A view I'm kind of leaning towards at the moment.
When studying these issues you'll find the word "Creationism" used with a different meaning, referring not to belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. But to belief that each individual Soul/Spirit is directly created by God from scratch at the conception or birth (or somewhere in-between) of every individual person.
But either way, Jesus individual Pre-Existence is because He is God, it's part of how He's distinct from other humans. In John 1 The Word created everything, while in Genesis 1 Adam was the last thing created on Day Six.
I want now however to address those who think viewing most of Genesis 2 as more details on Day Six is somehow an absurd torturing of the text.
It makes sense when you understand that Genesis was mostly much earlier accounts edited together by Moses. Genesis 25 records the Death and Burial of Abraham before the births of Jacob and Esau, even though the timeline based on math from this same chapter tells use they were born before before Abraham died. Genesis isn't always strictly chronological.
Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth". Occurrences in Genesis of "These are the generation of..." are often taken to indicate a change in the Pre-Mosiac source text, though I think they may not quite account for all of them. There seems to be disagreement on if these verses should mark the end of the previous section or beginning of the next section. Either way, we have one right here where it should be.
If you want to consider how these doctrines might play a role in the End Times deception. The Two Beasts of Revelation may be an attempt to echo two Adams. The second Beast comes from the Earth, and then gives life to the Image of the first Beast. Either way, I have already considered how The Image of the Beast doctrine could tie into an attempt to make "The Antichrist" a counterfeit "Last Adam". In my Which Beast is actually in control post, and my Can Sunday Worship be the Mark of the Beast post, where I explain that if you want to tie the Mark to a day of the Week, it should be the Sixth Day not the first.
Update December 7th 2017: The Image of God
In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul calls Christ the "Image of God". That is an aspect of the Jesus as Genesis 1 Adam argument I wasn't aware of before. And now it's enough to totally recalibrate how open I am to it. And he says it again in Colossians 1:15.
However, Genesis 9:6 uses the phrase "Image of God" for the Adam who's blood is shed when you commit murder. So that ties that title to the same Adam we descend from. So what Paul is talking about is probably still just in the context of Jesus as the Son of Adam.
Update August 10th 2018: Genesis 5 also makes it difficult to separate the Genesis 1 Adam and Genesis 2 Adam.
And Psalm 8 clearly talks about the Dominion given to Adam in Genesis 1 and attributes it to Enosh Ben Adam from Genesis 4 and 5.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Venus could be the Star of Bethlehem
One of the earliest Christmas related posts on this blog was an argument for Jupiter being the Star of Bethlehem. It was made back when I still favored the September 11th 3 BC birth-date that I now reject, as I now believe Jesus was born near December 25th, (but I've been rethinking my exact chronology). Even after that change I stuck by the basic Star of Bethlehem theory since it still fit, it brought the Magi to Jerusalem on December 25th 2 BC.
I remain strongly convinced that the terminology of "We have seen (Observed) His Star" implies a Star that was always there and always considered His. And that logically as one that moves around it would be a planet.
But I have since considered that given my belief in using Scripture to interpret Scripture. To note that when The Bible associates Jesus with a star, it associates Him with the Morning Stat/Light Bringer. Something I talked about in my post on why it's incorrect to associate The Morning Star with Satan in Isaiah 14.
The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19). The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which refers to the same thing Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin. Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.
The Morning Star is a title of Venus, the closest Planet to Earth. Also 1 John 4:7-16 twice says that God is Love.
I still don't know exactly what movements of Venus Matthew refers to. Many existing theories revolving around Jupiter also involve interesting movements of Venus. If I come to a solid theory I'll make a follow up post.
People who believe in the Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theory, believe naturally that (at least some of) the Pagan associations of the stars and constellations are corruptions of their original meanings. But they desire to see some logic in how that happened. Which combined with patriarchal biases of mainstream Christianity makes them uncomfortable with the idea of the main star to represent Jesus being the one that most commonly becomes Feminine.
The Planet Venus was not universally Feminine. The Canaanites also had a male deity for that Planet, Ashtar, who I mentioned in the other post. Even in the Greco-Roman tradition there is a paradox, where it is associated with Venus/Aphrodite, but yet the star itself is viewed as a male offspring of the Dawn Goddess, also a subject of that post. Interestingly Quetzacoatl was also associated with the Planet Venus, (maybe that's the basis for the Anime Dragon-Maid making him a woman). Another male mythological personification of Venus is the Egyptian Sopdu, often associated with Horus (though this star name referring to Venus may be spurious). In Japanese mythology there is Amatsu-Mikaboshi, which seems inconsistent on if it refers to Venus or the Pole-Star, Ame-No is also associated with the Pole-Star. The Journey to The West also features Taibai Jinxing (The Gold Star of Venus). And then there is the Norse Aurvandil who helped inspire Tolkien's Earendil.
But I also want to talk about the fact that while Jesus did incarnate as a Male, He is ultimately God/Yahuah and so ultimately gender-less. In fact the Tetragramaton itself is arguably a Grammatically feminine name since it ends with a Heh, as are Elah and Eloah.
When Haggai calls Jesus the Desire of the Nations, the word for Desire there appears in it's Feminine form. Most places where you see "Salvation" in the KJV, the Hebrew word is Yeshua, but in it's Feminine form, Yeshuah. Chuck Missler argues Jesus is the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs, all three Hebrew words for Wisdom used there are grammatically feminine, and even the English Translation shows that feminine pronouns were used.
But most interestingly is that I on another blog argued for a reversal of the usual Typological Interpretation of The Song of Solomon, and argued that Shulamith is the type of Christ and The Beloved as Israel/The Church. Chapter 2 calls Shulamith both a Rose and a Lily, both those plants have also been used to represent Aphrodite/Venus, as have Pomegranates.
I have also argued that the Biblical significance of The Lily could be where the Six Pointed Star of David came from. And I've argued that Bethlehem is The City of David, so it fits for the Star of David to be the Star of Bethlehem.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher site was a Temple to Venus built by Hadrian. Many doubt that is the actual site of Golgotha, but there is evidence Christians venerated it before the time of Constantine.
Update March 2018: Stuff I confirmed using Stelarium.
I believe Jesus rose from the Dead at Sunrise on Sunday Morning. The day I believe that happened, April 9th 30 AD, was a day that Venus was visible in Israel in the morning as a Morning Star.
And my current 12 BC Nativity model has Venus visible in Israel as an Evening Star through when Hanukkah probably happened in December of 12 BC.
Update October 2018: Venus was also visible as an Evening Star during the early part of Hanukkah, and again for awhile after Hanukkah, in December of 26 BC. And was specifically in the leg of Ophiuchus that is stepping on Antares the head of Scorpio. A pretty ideal circumstance for the birth of the Seed of The Woman.
I remain strongly convinced that the terminology of "We have seen (Observed) His Star" implies a Star that was always there and always considered His. And that logically as one that moves around it would be a planet.
But I have since considered that given my belief in using Scripture to interpret Scripture. To note that when The Bible associates Jesus with a star, it associates Him with the Morning Stat/Light Bringer. Something I talked about in my post on why it's incorrect to associate The Morning Star with Satan in Isaiah 14.
The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19). The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which refers to the same thing Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin. Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.
The Morning Star is a title of Venus, the closest Planet to Earth. Also 1 John 4:7-16 twice says that God is Love.
I still don't know exactly what movements of Venus Matthew refers to. Many existing theories revolving around Jupiter also involve interesting movements of Venus. If I come to a solid theory I'll make a follow up post.
People who believe in the Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theory, believe naturally that (at least some of) the Pagan associations of the stars and constellations are corruptions of their original meanings. But they desire to see some logic in how that happened. Which combined with patriarchal biases of mainstream Christianity makes them uncomfortable with the idea of the main star to represent Jesus being the one that most commonly becomes Feminine.
The Planet Venus was not universally Feminine. The Canaanites also had a male deity for that Planet, Ashtar, who I mentioned in the other post. Even in the Greco-Roman tradition there is a paradox, where it is associated with Venus/Aphrodite, but yet the star itself is viewed as a male offspring of the Dawn Goddess, also a subject of that post. Interestingly Quetzacoatl was also associated with the Planet Venus, (maybe that's the basis for the Anime Dragon-Maid making him a woman). Another male mythological personification of Venus is the Egyptian Sopdu, often associated with Horus (though this star name referring to Venus may be spurious). In Japanese mythology there is Amatsu-Mikaboshi, which seems inconsistent on if it refers to Venus or the Pole-Star, Ame-No is also associated with the Pole-Star. The Journey to The West also features Taibai Jinxing (The Gold Star of Venus). And then there is the Norse Aurvandil who helped inspire Tolkien's Earendil.
But I also want to talk about the fact that while Jesus did incarnate as a Male, He is ultimately God/Yahuah and so ultimately gender-less. In fact the Tetragramaton itself is arguably a Grammatically feminine name since it ends with a Heh, as are Elah and Eloah.
When Haggai calls Jesus the Desire of the Nations, the word for Desire there appears in it's Feminine form. Most places where you see "Salvation" in the KJV, the Hebrew word is Yeshua, but in it's Feminine form, Yeshuah. Chuck Missler argues Jesus is the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs, all three Hebrew words for Wisdom used there are grammatically feminine, and even the English Translation shows that feminine pronouns were used.
But most interestingly is that I on another blog argued for a reversal of the usual Typological Interpretation of The Song of Solomon, and argued that Shulamith is the type of Christ and The Beloved as Israel/The Church. Chapter 2 calls Shulamith both a Rose and a Lily, both those plants have also been used to represent Aphrodite/Venus, as have Pomegranates.
I have also argued that the Biblical significance of The Lily could be where the Six Pointed Star of David came from. And I've argued that Bethlehem is The City of David, so it fits for the Star of David to be the Star of Bethlehem.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher site was a Temple to Venus built by Hadrian. Many doubt that is the actual site of Golgotha, but there is evidence Christians venerated it before the time of Constantine.
Update March 2018: Stuff I confirmed using Stelarium.
I believe Jesus rose from the Dead at Sunrise on Sunday Morning. The day I believe that happened, April 9th 30 AD, was a day that Venus was visible in Israel in the morning as a Morning Star.
And my current 12 BC Nativity model has Venus visible in Israel as an Evening Star through when Hanukkah probably happened in December of 12 BC.
Update October 2018: Venus was also visible as an Evening Star during the early part of Hanukkah, and again for awhile after Hanukkah, in December of 26 BC. And was specifically in the leg of Ophiuchus that is stepping on Antares the head of Scorpio. A pretty ideal circumstance for the birth of the Seed of The Woman.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
The First Ressurection
Post-Tribbers like to insist that Revelation 20 tells us when the
First Resurrection happens. I
The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14.
It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium. It is an inherently specific group, only those Marytered by The Beast, unless your an Historicist, you can't say that refers to all Believers.
The term "first resurrection" is a classification more so then a sequence. Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard grandson of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence. Or saying something is First Class.
It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did. Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" in chapter 20.
This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.
The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14.
It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium. It is an inherently specific group, only those Marytered by The Beast, unless your an Historicist, you can't say that refers to all Believers.
The term "first resurrection" is a classification more so then a sequence. Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard grandson of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence. Or saying something is First Class.
It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did. Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" in chapter 20.
This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Those who receive The Mark of The Beast will have been deceived
Revelation 19:20.
This was something that was a product of Chuck Missler's influence. How he said those who took the Mark were making a conscious decision to knowingly choose The Beast over Jesus.
This however strengthens another premise on this Blog. The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume. Where I suggested the possibly that The Beast's system may be a form of Torah observance. Because as far as The Bible is concerned the only Deception it's worried about is something masquerading as true Biblical Worship.
The question however remains. How is this Compatible with II Thessalonians 2, and part of Revelation 13, describing The Beast as speaking against The God of The Bible? I don't know exactly. Maybe they're not as literal as I took them, claiming to be God is speaking against God. Maybe it's a heresy with a Gnostic aspect of separating Elohim from Yahuah to it. There are a few aspects to consider. Or given the emphasis on Blastphemeing His Name, maybe it's about the deception that YHWH is a Pagan name added to the Torah by later scribes. Or maybe the Name being Blasphemed is Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus not YHWH.
But the big thing about taking The Mark being defined as a deception. Is how that fits in the context of Revelation 14 guaranteeing all who take The Mark go into the Lake of Fire.
I finally noticed what I overlooked here well before I made this post. Because you see I was uncomfortable with this before I became a Universalist. That these people are defined as not fully knowing exactly what they were doing, yet are eternally damned anyway.
But now that I no longer view the Lake of Fire as Eternal Damnation, but merely a purging fire that will not be the same for all who enter it. It no longer feels as inherently illogical.
"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."I had completely overlooked this in many past studies on this Blog where I was adamant in saying the deception is over when The Abomination of Desolation happens.
This was something that was a product of Chuck Missler's influence. How he said those who took the Mark were making a conscious decision to knowingly choose The Beast over Jesus.
This however strengthens another premise on this Blog. The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume. Where I suggested the possibly that The Beast's system may be a form of Torah observance. Because as far as The Bible is concerned the only Deception it's worried about is something masquerading as true Biblical Worship.
The question however remains. How is this Compatible with II Thessalonians 2, and part of Revelation 13, describing The Beast as speaking against The God of The Bible? I don't know exactly. Maybe they're not as literal as I took them, claiming to be God is speaking against God. Maybe it's a heresy with a Gnostic aspect of separating Elohim from Yahuah to it. There are a few aspects to consider. Or given the emphasis on Blastphemeing His Name, maybe it's about the deception that YHWH is a Pagan name added to the Torah by later scribes. Or maybe the Name being Blasphemed is Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus not YHWH.
But the big thing about taking The Mark being defined as a deception. Is how that fits in the context of Revelation 14 guaranteeing all who take The Mark go into the Lake of Fire.
I finally noticed what I overlooked here well before I made this post. Because you see I was uncomfortable with this before I became a Universalist. That these people are defined as not fully knowing exactly what they were doing, yet are eternally damned anyway.
But now that I no longer view the Lake of Fire as Eternal Damnation, but merely a purging fire that will not be the same for all who enter it. It no longer feels as inherently illogical.
Monday, February 27, 2017
The shape of The Tabernacle, YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem
Project314.org is a website arguing that The Tabernacle was not shaped how we usually assume it was, but was rather a Dome. I've also listened to the author of the site interviewed by Rob Skiba. I've become pretty convinced of the theory, (but people like Skiba want to make it also an argument for their Flat Earth Model, which I do not agree with).
They haven't done much yet in terms of trying to see if this means The Temples of Solomon or Zerubabel were also a Dome rather then the shape we usually assume. But I have an observation to make.
The Popularity of Domes in the design of Islamic Mosques actually comes from them later taking over and copying Byzantine/Eastern Roman Churches that were centered around Domes. And this being a fixture of Byzantine architecture primarily goes back to the building projects of Emperor Jusitnian.
The Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos was one of Jusitnian's major projects. It was built in Jerusalem. Procopius’s account of Justinian's building projects deliberately makes the account of this Church echo the Biblical Account of the construction of Solomon's Temple. And it was a Church dedicated to Mary, who Catholic and Orthodox theology often viewed The Ark, Tabernacle and Temple to be types of.
So is it possible that that church had a Dome because of a deliberate attempt to model it after Solomon's Temple? And that influenced other Byzantine architecture? And is indirectly the reason we have Domes on The Temple Mount today?
I've made much on my Blog before about how Yahuah-Shammah of Ezekiel 48 and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 have the same shape. And back then went along with the usual assumption it was a Cube. But the thing, is others talking about their shape being a Cube are also assuming that was the shape of The Holy of Holies.
Many people including Rob Skiba and Chuck Missler (last I checked) seem to think the description of these two cities (which I view as the same) can only be either a Cube or a Pyramid. Basically something Squared at the bottom. But I think that is a flawed assumption. It's based on referring to there being three gates on each side.
But a Circle with 12 evenly distributed gates could also be described that way. Just use what a clock looks like as your frame of reference, the 3 is the central eastern gate, the 6 the central southern gate, the 9 the central western gate, and the 12 the central northern gate.
And if you believe in Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theories, the 12 signs of the Zodiac form a circle. Often also believed to correlate to the Israelites encampment around The Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers.
The last verse of the Book of Ezekiel says in the KJV "It was round about eighteen 6240 thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there". Well the reason the word "round" is there is because the Hebrew word Cabyib (Strong Number 5439) is used. That word is often translated things like Circuit and Compass. It is inherently terminology of a round shape.
Revelation 21 uses the term "foursquared" which in the Greek is related to the terminology that refers to Four Corners. You might think that rules out a Circular shape, but not really. Remember these Flat Earthers think The Bible is describing a Flat Circle shaped Earth as having Four Corners. The gist of the description is that it's the same size in all three directions. And that can fit a Dome as well as it can a Cube or Pyramid. In fact it can fit a Dome best, as it would be the same distance from the central grounded spot it's built around in every possible direction.
Here is a site arguing New Jerusalem is shaped like a Mountain.
I've heard of an interesting book that deals with Geometry and New Jerusalem that may be useful to this topic. The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order on Earth by John Mitchell.
They haven't done much yet in terms of trying to see if this means The Temples of Solomon or Zerubabel were also a Dome rather then the shape we usually assume. But I have an observation to make.
The Popularity of Domes in the design of Islamic Mosques actually comes from them later taking over and copying Byzantine/Eastern Roman Churches that were centered around Domes. And this being a fixture of Byzantine architecture primarily goes back to the building projects of Emperor Jusitnian.
The Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos was one of Jusitnian's major projects. It was built in Jerusalem. Procopius’s account of Justinian's building projects deliberately makes the account of this Church echo the Biblical Account of the construction of Solomon's Temple. And it was a Church dedicated to Mary, who Catholic and Orthodox theology often viewed The Ark, Tabernacle and Temple to be types of.
So is it possible that that church had a Dome because of a deliberate attempt to model it after Solomon's Temple? And that influenced other Byzantine architecture? And is indirectly the reason we have Domes on The Temple Mount today?
I've made much on my Blog before about how Yahuah-Shammah of Ezekiel 48 and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 have the same shape. And back then went along with the usual assumption it was a Cube. But the thing, is others talking about their shape being a Cube are also assuming that was the shape of The Holy of Holies.
Many people including Rob Skiba and Chuck Missler (last I checked) seem to think the description of these two cities (which I view as the same) can only be either a Cube or a Pyramid. Basically something Squared at the bottom. But I think that is a flawed assumption. It's based on referring to there being three gates on each side.
But a Circle with 12 evenly distributed gates could also be described that way. Just use what a clock looks like as your frame of reference, the 3 is the central eastern gate, the 6 the central southern gate, the 9 the central western gate, and the 12 the central northern gate.
And if you believe in Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theories, the 12 signs of the Zodiac form a circle. Often also believed to correlate to the Israelites encampment around The Tabernacle in the Book of Numbers.
The last verse of the Book of Ezekiel says in the KJV "It was round about eighteen 6240 thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there". Well the reason the word "round" is there is because the Hebrew word Cabyib (Strong Number 5439) is used. That word is often translated things like Circuit and Compass. It is inherently terminology of a round shape.
Revelation 21 uses the term "foursquared" which in the Greek is related to the terminology that refers to Four Corners. You might think that rules out a Circular shape, but not really. Remember these Flat Earthers think The Bible is describing a Flat Circle shaped Earth as having Four Corners. The gist of the description is that it's the same size in all three directions. And that can fit a Dome as well as it can a Cube or Pyramid. In fact it can fit a Dome best, as it would be the same distance from the central grounded spot it's built around in every possible direction.
Here is a site arguing New Jerusalem is shaped like a Mountain.
I've heard of an interesting book that deals with Geometry and New Jerusalem that may be useful to this topic. The Dimensions of Paradise: Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science, and the Heavenly Order on Earth by John Mitchell.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model
I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations. I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that. But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html
https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/
It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price.
Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location. It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple. And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's. I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.
John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified. We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself. Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible. Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea. Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel. Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem? Well let's get into that.
Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives. I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse. But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives. (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.) And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ. So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.
I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD. What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?
That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after. Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.
The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)
Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.". That would be the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah. That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.
Update October 22nd 2017: I may abandon this.
Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view. I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple. However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction. The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death. He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.
And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here. And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there. Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.
As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference. They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp. I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.
Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer
I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately. I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage. I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to. But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.
My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon. But not entirely. I"m still uncertain about much of this.
Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models. Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it. The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.
Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.
So I've still come to reject this theory.
Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany
BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.
But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany. So that becomes an interesting connection.
Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.
Update December 2018: Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.
Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however. Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general. But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah. And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David. So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.
Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20. 2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash. Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16. So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.
Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem. Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.
The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah. This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html
https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/
It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price.
Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location. It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple. And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's. I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.
John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified. We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself. Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible. Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea. Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel. Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem? Well let's get into that.
Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives. I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse. But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives. (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.) And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ. So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.
I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD. What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?
That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after. Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.
The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)
Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.". That would be the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah. That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet. Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.
Update October 22nd 2017: I may abandon this.
Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view. I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple. However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction. The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death. He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.
And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here. And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there. Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.
As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference. They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp. I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.
Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer
I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately. I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage. I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to. But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.
My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon. But not entirely. I"m still uncertain about much of this.
Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models. Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it. The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.
Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.
So I've still come to reject this theory.
Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany
BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.
But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany. So that becomes an interesting connection.
Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.
Update December 2018: Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.
Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however. Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general. But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah. And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David. So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.
Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20. 2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash. Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16. So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.
Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem. Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.
The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah. This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Is The White Horseman of Revelation 19 someone other than Jesus?
I realize this suggestion is going to be very controversial. There is a phrase we think of as a Title of Christ mainly because of it's usage in this passage, and yet under that assumption has inspired the title of two Hollywood films. "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". That title is also clearly applied to The Lamb in Revelation 17:14. But in Revelation 19 the person being described has that name written on their vesture and thigh, making their relation to that name perhaps more complicated.
Plus that term is secular in origin, being a term for an "emperor" a King who rules other Kings. And as such can apply to David and Solomon.
Plus that term is secular in origin, being a term for an "emperor" a King who rules other Kings. And as such can apply to David and Solomon.
First of all this does not change that I think The Arnion (Lamb in the KJV) mentioned as getting married just before this is Jesus.
Second of all regardless of if this is Jesus or not, this is not the Parusia, I've already noted the significance of how that word does not appear in this passage and it has nothing in common with the passages that define the Parusia. The defining traits of the Parusia occurred in chapters 11-14.
In Revelation 19:12 we read "and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself." I can understand why that sounds like it could be a title of Jesus at first. But in Revelation 2:17 that is a promise Jesus makes to faithful Church believers. "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it." Revelation 3:12 also speaks of Faithful Believers having a New Name written on them.
Another promise to the Faithful in the messages to the Seven Churches is also used here. The promise to rule with a Rod of Iron, in 2:27 and 19:15. That is also said of The Man-Child in 12:5. I've already argued strongly that The Man-Child is The Church citing 2:27 (But the biggest Proof Text of that is Isaiah 65), yet people retort that Revelation 19 makes that clearly of Jesus.
The only appearance of this phrase outside Revelation is Psalm 2. Chuck Missler likes to argue Psalm 2 is a dialogue between the Trinity, but an argument can also be made that Psalm 2 is about the same thing as Psalm 8, God's promised Dominion of The Earth to the faithful of mankind. Also it's a Davidic Psalm and so Yahuah's Anointed here could be David. David anticipates some promises generally unique to New Testament believers, like being promised The Holy Spirit wouldn't leave him.
The only appearance of this phrase outside Revelation is Psalm 2. Chuck Missler likes to argue Psalm 2 is a dialogue between the Trinity, but an argument can also be made that Psalm 2 is about the same thing as Psalm 8, God's promised Dominion of The Earth to the faithful of mankind. Also it's a Davidic Psalm and so Yahuah's Anointed here could be David. David anticipates some promises generally unique to New Testament believers, like being promised The Holy Spirit wouldn't leave him.
But, the term "Faithful and True" is used only three times in all of Scripture, all of them in Revelation. Revelation 19:11 is the second of them. The third is at the end not being used of a personage. And Revelation 3:14 is clearly using it as a Title of Christ.
As I was pondering these conflicting clues, I noticed something in verse 11 of chapter 19. The Horse itself is described as a "him".
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."
So I started wondering, is it possible that verses 12-16 are describing The Horse rather than The Rider? And then there is 19:11’s parallel to 6:2, and how that White Horseman is viewed as possibly a False Christ. Could it be chapter 6 is the Church and/or Israel being lead astray by a False Messiah, and then 19 is the true Messiah back in control?
Isaiah 63 is a passage often taken as being the main Hebrew Bible counterpart to this part of Revelation 19. In Isaiah 63:13, Israel is symbolically described as a Horse. Zechariah 10:3 repeats this analogy in a more positive context, representing Judah as Yahuah's goodly Horse. And I should note that Rabbinic Jews who accept the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine might view Isaiah 63 as about Messiah Ben-Joseph rather than Ben-David.
Certain things are applicable potentially to both Jesus and Faithful Believers. Being called “Faithful and True” could work as one of those. As well as the imagery of a Two Edged Sword coming out of His Mouth, referencing the idea of the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit from Ephesians 6. And as I’ve considered that I’m maybe leaving the argument that the Rider is Jesus and the Horse the Church.
Many assume it’s the armies following in 19:14 that are Believers. But Rob Skiba believes those are the Angels and maybe I should now consider him more right on that then I used to (but still not how he ties that into his Flat Earth arguments). But also this may tie into how Believers will have different classes based on Rewards.
Maybe the Rider is the most Faithful of the Church and the Horse are those who lacked rewards, or Old Testament believers?
I’m not sure entirely what to make of these observations.
But it has the potential to totally destroy Post-Trib, as even if a version of Post-Trib could be formed that interprets Revelation chronologically, it is dependent on the assumption that Revelation 19 clearly places a Return of Jesus after the Bowls of God’s Wrath. I believe The Second Coming already happened before the Bowls were poured out.
And again on my Man-Child argument, this removes the only solid counter argument and seals the deal on The Man-Child being The Church.
Update March 4th 2017:
One more layer I could add here is how The Hebrew Bible uses Messiah meaning Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, of more then just The Messiah. It's used of Kings, Priests and Prophets, and sometimes seemingly refers to Believers as God's Anointed.
The New Testament is generally assumed to have phased that out (though Believers being called Christians could reflect it). But Revelation is again often viewed as more Old Testament in style. Twice the word Christ appears in Revelation 20, in verses 4 and 6, neither uses the Greek definite article before the word. How the KJV translated verse 6 leaves out the word "his". It should read "of God and of His Christ".
Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah. And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium. (From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.) Zechariah possibly calls the Horse Judah, David's Tribe.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that. But it's not a question I feel we can ignore.
Update November 8th 2018: Revelation 19:14 has the armies following the Rider dressed the same as The Bride in Verse 8. So maybe the Horseman is the New Testament Church and the armies Old Testament Israel?
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/08/maybe-wedding-feast-isnt-in-heaven-like.html
Update March 4th 2017:
One more layer I could add here is how The Hebrew Bible uses Messiah meaning Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, of more then just The Messiah. It's used of Kings, Priests and Prophets, and sometimes seemingly refers to Believers as God's Anointed.
The New Testament is generally assumed to have phased that out (though Believers being called Christians could reflect it). But Revelation is again often viewed as more Old Testament in style. Twice the word Christ appears in Revelation 20, in verses 4 and 6, neither uses the Greek definite article before the word. How the KJV translated verse 6 leaves out the word "his". It should read "of God and of His Christ".
Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah. And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium. (From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.) Zechariah possibly calls the Horse Judah, David's Tribe.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that. But it's not a question I feel we can ignore.
Update November 8th 2018: Revelation 19:14 has the armies following the Rider dressed the same as The Bride in Verse 8. So maybe the Horseman is the New Testament Church and the armies Old Testament Israel?
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/08/maybe-wedding-feast-isnt-in-heaven-like.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)