My take on this has kinda changed since I last did a post on this subject, so I'm making this new post.
Post-Tribbers like to mock mainly Pre-Tribbers, but the Mid-Trib view would fit into this as well, for believing in "Two Second Comings".
My first response to that, as someone who's view can be considered a variation of Mid-Trib, is that the term "Second Coming" is not Biblical at all. There are various references to His Parousia, translated Coming, but never with a numerical designation.
However the big problem here is that Pre-Tribbers like to call the Rapture and the Second Coming distinct. And on that I strongly disagree with them. They are correct that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are not about the same event. But 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15 both clearly refer to the event in question as the Parousia.
Here is the big perhaps shocking point of this post.
Revelation 19 is NOT the Second Coming.
It does not use the word Parousia, in fact Parousia isn't used in Revelation at all. And chapter 19 has nothing of any real substance in common with the passages that do. At the Parousia He comes on a Cloud or Clouds, in Revelation 19 He's riding on a White Horse. At the Parousia his feet never touch The Earth, He gathers His Church and takes them to Heaven (Mark 13:27). In Revelation 19 His Saints are already in Heaven and follow Him as He leaves (though The Bride as New Jerusalem doesn't descend till the New Heaven and New Earth).
So yes it's technically an event where Jesus "comes" to a certain location. But when it comes to The New Testament using the Greek word Parusia as a technical term for a specific Biblical Event, it is not that Parusia.
Jude 1:14 may be about the same event as Revelation 19, and uses Cometh, a form of the word, but still ultimately not the same word. But in the Greek it's not even that similar, it's not a form of Parusia, it's elquen, and actually means Apeareth.
Isaiah 63 also uses Cometh and is seemingly in close proximity to Revelation 19, but that Hebrew word seems more similar in meaning to elquen then Parousia. And there He "Cometh" from Edom, not Heaven..
The Parousia is about Revelation 14 not 19.
Revelation chapter 14 is where The Son of Man is riding on a Cloud. The Seven Bowls of God's Wrath are poured out between that event and the Revelation 19 event.
I'd made before the observation that you can technically say he had more
then one "coming" at his first Advent. In fact it's only the Triumphal
Entry that is refereed to with a form of the word "come", in Daniel 9,
and that wasn't even the first time he came to Jerusalem. But that is in light of all this a very minor point.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Monday, January 9, 2017
Chad Schafer's The World in the Bondage of Egypt: Under the Triumphal Arch of Titus
Is a book that came out recently.
The World in the Bondage of Egypt: Under the Triumphal Arch of Titus Paperback – September 15, 2016
And here is him on Rob Skiba's Radio Show talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFwo3YkkIOs
[Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]
A part two may happen in the future, if so once it's up on YouTube I'll edit this post to add it.
[Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]
I'm also going to add here some Screencaps of Comments I left there that aren't visible on the video for some reason.
This idea has the potential to tie into a lot of what I've talked about on this Blog about Egypt (and also Edom with the Eagle on the Arch of Titus).
However I still believe actual geographical Egypt is important. That where ever the Beast of The Sea comes from, or whatever nation he first takes over. He will set up his Capital in Egypt, where Satan's Seat will be his Throne.
Update.
In part two he makes some Jordan Maxwell level etymology errors, but I can give him a bit of a pass on that.
It is amusing to me how this is mostly evidence of the whole world becoming Roman.
I also think he's mistaken that Jesus was alluding to Daniel 9 in Matthew 24, the exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" is in Daniel 11 and 12. Daniel 9 uses a similar term about possibly the same thing, but not that exact phrase. The 70th Week of Daniel is not about 70 AD or the End Times, it's about 30-37 AD.
The World in the Bondage of Egypt: Under the Triumphal Arch of Titus Paperback – September 15, 2016
And here is him on Rob Skiba's Radio Show talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFwo3YkkIOs
[Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]
A part two may happen in the future, if so once it's up on YouTube I'll edit this post to add it.
[Update: here is part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUb08RIbj0g]
I'm also going to add here some Screencaps of Comments I left there that aren't visible on the video for some reason.
This idea has the potential to tie into a lot of what I've talked about on this Blog about Egypt (and also Edom with the Eagle on the Arch of Titus).
However I still believe actual geographical Egypt is important. That where ever the Beast of The Sea comes from, or whatever nation he first takes over. He will set up his Capital in Egypt, where Satan's Seat will be his Throne.
In part two he makes some Jordan Maxwell level etymology errors, but I can give him a bit of a pass on that.
It is amusing to me how this is mostly evidence of the whole world becoming Roman.
I also think he's mistaken that Jesus was alluding to Daniel 9 in Matthew 24, the exact phrase "Abomination of Desolation" is in Daniel 11 and 12. Daniel 9 uses a similar term about possibly the same thing, but not that exact phrase. The 70th Week of Daniel is not about 70 AD or the End Times, it's about 30-37 AD.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Isaac Newton's Historicism connected the End TImes to 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton#2016_vs_2060
I reject the Day=Year theory this was dependent on. But it's amusing given how many feel about 2016 now that someone Predicted it to be Apocalyptic Centuries ago.2016 vs 2060
However, between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[48]
F.A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
“The author adopts the hypothesis of Fleming, Sir Isaac Newton, and Lowman, that the 1260 years commenced in A.d. 756; and consequently that the millennium will not begin till the year 2016.”[49]Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
“Mr. Lowman, though an earlier commentator, is (we believe) far more generally followed ; and he commences the 1260 days from about 756, when, by aid of Pepin, King of France, the Pope obtained considerable temporalities. This carries on the reign of Popery to 2016, or sixteen years into the commencement of the Millennium, as it is generally reckoned.”[50]In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "...but he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy with not be caused by any human action.[51] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[52]
"Antichrist will retain some part of his dominion over the nations till about the year 2016." "And when the 1260 years are expired, Rome itself, with all its magnificence, will be absorbed in a lake of fire, sink into the sea, and rise no more at all for ever*."[53]In 1870 the newly formed Kingdom of Italy annexed the remaining Papal States, depriving the Popes of any temporal rule for the next 59 years. Unaware that Papal rule would be restored, (albeit on a greatly diminished scale) in 1929 as head of the Vatican City state, the historicist view that the Papacy is the Antichrist, and the associated timelines delineating his rule rapidly declined in popularity as one of the defining characteristics of the Antichrist (i.e. that he would also be a political temporal power at the time of the return of Jesus) were no longer met.
Eventually, the prediction was largely forgotten and no major Protestant denomination currently subscribes to this timeline.
Despite the dramatic nature of a prediction of the end of the world, Newton may not have been referring to the 2060 date as a destructive act resulting in the annihilation of the earth and its inhabitants, but rather one in which he believed the world was to be replaced with a new one based upon a transition to an era of divinely inspired peace. In Christian theology, this concept is often referred to as The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of Paradise by The Kingdom of God on Earth.[43]
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Lilith and Edom
Obviously I do not believe Adam had a wife before Eve. But I do like to speculate on the origins of the whole Lilith mythology. My previous references to her on these blogs have been in the context of her possible connection to Izanami of Japanese mythology.
The fact that the name comes from a Hebrew word for Night leads me to consider that she might be related to other Night goddesses. Like Nyx from Greek mythology, called Nox by the Romans, from whom comes Noc as the modern German word for night. And Egyptian Mythology has three goddesses who are sometimes defined as night goddesses. Nut, Nebthet, and Kauket. Nut is the wife of Geb who could be argued to be an Adam figure of sorts since his name means earth, and with him the mother of Osiris, Isis, Seth and Nebthet.
I've noticed recently how the name is technically in a plural form (the feminine singular would be Lilah), ending with a th is a feminine plural in Hebrew. Lots of feminine Hebrew names end that way without it being significant, possibly just so female names can have variety, so they don't all end with H. But for a mythological context however it may be worth noting. Likewise if you want to speculate it's a code for something.
And also, I can't believe it took so long to occur to me that it might be significant that the one verse that gives the name a Biblical precedent is in a Prophecy about Edom, Isaiah 34 (the "Screech Owl" of the KJV). Edom is in the Hebrew spelled the same as Adam, but pronounced differently. Edom is the name of a the nation, but also a name for Esau himself, like Israel is for Jacob.
Esau first married at least two Canaanite women, but then because his parents didn't like that, he married a third wife, a daughter of Ishmael. I said at least two, because either these women go by multiple names, or there could be up to 6 wives involved. Genesis 26/28 names them all differently from Genesis 36.
Is it possible the Lilith mythology might have it's origins in the Canaanite wives of Esau feeling displaced by the Ishmaelite?
There has also been a tendency to depict Lilith as having Red Hair, I'm not sure how far back that goes. And Esau has also been associated with Red Hair, since Red is is what Edom, when pronounced that way, means.
In Genesis 36 one of them seems to descend from the Horite clan, which I've speculated elsewhere could be the origin of some of the deities of Egyptian mythology. Thus allowing a possible connection to the Egyptian goddesses I mentioned above.
But it's the connection to Nox that could be interesting to the Edom/Rome connection. The Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia however, which can be interpreted to mean Nocturnal spirit. Lamia is sometimes in mythology the daughter of Belos/Belus of Egypt, who might be connected to the Hyksos, who might have included Amalekites. Lemures could also be a variation of Lamia.
Coming full circle, the traditional burial place of Izanami of Japanese mythology is in Izumo which is sometimes archaically pronounced Idumo. If the Japanese were partly descended from the lost tribes (and maybe some Edomites came with them) then this could have come from a tradition about Lilith being buried in Edom.
The fact that the name comes from a Hebrew word for Night leads me to consider that she might be related to other Night goddesses. Like Nyx from Greek mythology, called Nox by the Romans, from whom comes Noc as the modern German word for night. And Egyptian Mythology has three goddesses who are sometimes defined as night goddesses. Nut, Nebthet, and Kauket. Nut is the wife of Geb who could be argued to be an Adam figure of sorts since his name means earth, and with him the mother of Osiris, Isis, Seth and Nebthet.
I've noticed recently how the name is technically in a plural form (the feminine singular would be Lilah), ending with a th is a feminine plural in Hebrew. Lots of feminine Hebrew names end that way without it being significant, possibly just so female names can have variety, so they don't all end with H. But for a mythological context however it may be worth noting. Likewise if you want to speculate it's a code for something.
And also, I can't believe it took so long to occur to me that it might be significant that the one verse that gives the name a Biblical precedent is in a Prophecy about Edom, Isaiah 34 (the "Screech Owl" of the KJV). Edom is in the Hebrew spelled the same as Adam, but pronounced differently. Edom is the name of a the nation, but also a name for Esau himself, like Israel is for Jacob.
Esau first married at least two Canaanite women, but then because his parents didn't like that, he married a third wife, a daughter of Ishmael. I said at least two, because either these women go by multiple names, or there could be up to 6 wives involved. Genesis 26/28 names them all differently from Genesis 36.
Is it possible the Lilith mythology might have it's origins in the Canaanite wives of Esau feeling displaced by the Ishmaelite?
There has also been a tendency to depict Lilith as having Red Hair, I'm not sure how far back that goes. And Esau has also been associated with Red Hair, since Red is is what Edom, when pronounced that way, means.
In Genesis 36 one of them seems to descend from the Horite clan, which I've speculated elsewhere could be the origin of some of the deities of Egyptian mythology. Thus allowing a possible connection to the Egyptian goddesses I mentioned above.
But it's the connection to Nox that could be interesting to the Edom/Rome connection. The Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia however, which can be interpreted to mean Nocturnal spirit. Lamia is sometimes in mythology the daughter of Belos/Belus of Egypt, who might be connected to the Hyksos, who might have included Amalekites. Lemures could also be a variation of Lamia.
Coming full circle, the traditional burial place of Izanami of Japanese mythology is in Izumo which is sometimes archaically pronounced Idumo. If the Japanese were partly descended from the lost tribes (and maybe some Edomites came with them) then this could have come from a tradition about Lilith being buried in Edom.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
England and Egypt
In all this speculation about The Lost Tribes, we sometimes forget that Israel isn't the only Biblical nation The Bible foretells to be carried away captive or scattered from their original homeland. And in Ezekiel 29-30 one of those nations is Egypt.
The extent to which the population of modern Egypt descends from the original Ancient Egyptians is a frequent subject of controversy.
I believe ethnic or so called "racial" features are determined largely by where a people live, so people living in Egypt I think would possibly in time come to look like Ancient Egyptians did regardless of how much they descend from them. And likewise when suggesting a certain currently "White" populations may descend partly from ancient Egyptians does not mean I think Ancient Egyptians were White, I think when they lived in Egypt they were Brown or Light-Skinned Black like modern Egyptians are.
Historically the modern Population of Egypt seems to descend largely from Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans and others who settled there in classical antiquity, and then Arabs who migrated there after the Islamic conquest.
It is popular to claim that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt as Jeremiah and Ezekiel foretold. This is because Egypt is the pillar of how we research Ancient History, and so rarely do we know Egyptian history from anything other then Egyptian propaganda. Even among the Classical historians, Herodotus just based his whole history of Egypt on what Egyptian Priests told him, and then Manetho was an Egyptian Priest, though one who had his own criticisms of Herodotus.
On another blog I've argued that Amasis was Nebuchadnezzar's governor of Egypt. And I think Amasis conquering of Cyprus around 570 BC was really Egypt being exiled there. After 40 years some of them returned, but perhaps not all just as not all of Judah returned after their 70 years were over.
So perhaps one of the nations it's popular to identify with the Lost Tribes is actually Mizraim? While modern Egypt is still a head of Javan's Leopard?
I did a post on ways America could be viewed as Egypt. Thing is much of that could overlap with England aka Great Britain aka The United Kingdom, and arguably fit them better. Including the relationship with modern Israel to some extent. Britam and British Israelists love to obsess over their perception that Anglo-Saxons are the most pro-semtic people.
England also had a division between north and south, York and London/Somerset. And the interpretation of Isaiah 19 I alluded to there is one I've criticized elsewhere, so I kinda felt like cheating mentioning that.
And then there is the role of Freemasonry. While America and Modern France are nations who's history has been shaped by Freemasonry, Britain is where Freemasonry comes from, and London is still the supreme grand lodge of all Masonry. It was in Brittan that Cagliostro founded his Egyptian Freemasonry in 1776. Nicolas Bonnevile was involved in Masonry in Britain before becoming a leader of the French Revolution. Karl of Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick, leaders of German Freemasonry who also joined the Illuminati, where grandchildren of King George II. And Albert of Saxe-Gotha who harbored Weishaupt is the ancestor of the current British Royal Family. Mazzini was also harbored in Britain. And Albert Pike's Freemasonry is what ruled the Confederacy, which Britain secretly supported but couldn't openly.
And it is Britain not America or Modern France that has Ancient Egypt's form of Government, Monarchy. Theirs is the one Monarchy the Revolutions never sought to overthrow. And their Monarchy is firmly tied to their state religion, Anglicanism. And it was among Anglicans of the 19th century that the desire to co-opt the Pyramid as a Christian symbol saying Enoch built it started.
England was originally seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that were eventually united. In Genesis 10 Misraim had seven sons. And with that correlation we could view York as Upper Egypt and London/Somerset as Lower Egypt, now switched geographically because in Egypt up and down were viewed differently then most places because of how The Nile works.
Many looking for Biblical significance to Modern Britain will site them being represented as a Lion, and also heraldry that shows a Lion and a Dragon. Ezekiel 32:2 says.
Perhaps those whom Britam identifies with Joseph are really Misraim. While the true identity of Joseph is as Native Americans and perhaps other Israelites wound up in America via the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, enslaved by Egypt once again. Hosea 9:3 does say "Ephraim shall return to Egypt".
I mentioned France a couple times because there is a school of thought out there that identifies France with Egypt, spiritually at least. This mostly comes from a desire to see France as the source of modern Atheism thanks to people like Voltaire, and the Reason worshipers of the Revolution. And then saying that Ancient Egypt was the most Atheistic nation of antiquity. The former accusation I could nitpick, but the latter is what is truly absurd. Egypt was anything but Atheistic, in fact at times Ptah came close to resembling a Monotheistic concept of God. But their main contribution to modern religious trends is Gnosticism.
During World War I, Britain's military operations in the Near East were carried out from Egypt. You can see this demonstrated in the film Lawrence of Arabia.
Herodotus Histories Book 2:159 records that after Pharaoh Necho's victory at Megiddo, he sent his cloths to Branchidae of Miletus in Ionia for some reason. Bill Cooper in After The Flood dates 509 BC as when the Milesians came to Ireland from Miletus. The leaders of that colonization were already Grandparents when they reached Ireland and their mother was a daughter of Pharaoh. Necho as Rameses II (who is confirmed to have had red hair) had plenty of daughters to spare, over 40. And the Egyptian royal-line unlike Judah's was traditionally passed through the daughter of Pharaoh. So perhaps the same royal line British Israelism claims to be heirs to the Throne of David, are actually heirs to the throne of Egypt?
Jeremiah 46:24 says the daughter of Egypt will be delivered to the people of the north, through their father Scota's children were traced back to Magog, The Bible associates Magog with the North. Or it could be alluding to scattered offspring of the Northern Kingdom.
Also in After The Flood, Bill Cooper documents how all seven Anglo-Saxon royal houses traced their ancestry back to Odin. Similar sources have lead many others to speculate a real King named Odin may have lived about 100 BC-300 AD.
I may feel the need to place Odin a little earlier then that, his worship was entrenched among Germanic peoples from Rome's very earliest contact with them during the last century BC. Though strictly speaking the Greco-Roman sources just say they worshiped Mercury/Hermes. Maybe they identified this deified King with that planet later.
The genealogies further traces Odin back to a Geat and then Geat back to Sceaf, only needing around 17 generations. Bill Cooper is convinced Sceaf is Japheth, I'm not so much. He sites one source that rendered Sceaf as Seth, and then tries to argue that Seth could be a corruption of Japheth, an argument that in the Hebrew is only them ending with the same letter.
But maybe he was Seth/Set of Egyptian Mythology? The Egyptians did consider red hair a sign of descent from Seth. Or perhaps this reflects the name Seti/Sethos, a Set theophoric name.
As a supporter of revised Chronology I place Seti I in 664-609 BC, and Seti II in the 570s BC. But Seti II had a son called Seti-Merneptah who's fate is unknown. This is the same time period as Egypt's foretold scattering. Seti II's grandfather was Rameses II. And the time the historical Odin is speculated to have lived could be defined as 17 generations later. Matthew recounts 14 generations from the Captivity to Jesus, but he'd already demonstrated a willingness to skip generations. Luke has more then that in the same time frame.
Now the Pross Edda traced Sceaf back to Memnon of Greek mythology. That is generally viewed as something made up by the medieval writer. But I did recently argue for the Ethiopia of Memnon and Cepheus being around Seir, where the Horites lived. And have also argued for the gods of Egypt coming from the Horites. And also it is known that the Ancient Greeks identified a large statue of Amenhotep III in Thebes with Memnon.
But still. Mainly my hunch now is Sceaf/Seth identifies a Seti of the 19th Dynasty as the progenitor of Anglo-Saxon royalty. A Seti was also one of the lesser known sons of Rameses II. And Ramses firstborn by Nefertari (who I discussed on the revised chronology blog, linking him to Ezekiel 30) had a son named Seti. A Seti had also been Viceroy of Kush, who may have been of the royal family since he's called a hereditary Prince. Perhaps he's the same as one of the before mentioned Setis.
For this scenario the descent from Egypt overlaps with who I've argued elsewhere to descend from Dan. It's interesting typologically that Leviticus 24 talks about a Blasphemous Israelite who's mother was Danite and Father was an Egyptian. Meanwhile Scota's descendants I think intermarried with remnants of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun & Issachar. Manasseh's mother was also an Egyptian.
Of course it's not just English Royalty and Nobility that claims descent from Scota, it's the same with Irish and Scottish Royal and Noble houses. And descent from Odin can also be claimed by continental Royal Families of Denmark and Norway and some in Germany, there were Saxons who remained in Germany (Queen Victoria and her Husband both descended from Royalty of Saxony). But it was in King James I that the English Crown become the one to unite these two Royal lines together.
All the ways in which British Royalty can be traced back to the Seleucid Dynasty, also involve Ptolemaic Queens and Princesses, Cleopatra Thea, Tryphanea, and the children of Anthony and Cleopatra. The Ptolemies including the most famous Cleopatra also tended to have red hair.
The extent to which the population of modern Egypt descends from the original Ancient Egyptians is a frequent subject of controversy.
I believe ethnic or so called "racial" features are determined largely by where a people live, so people living in Egypt I think would possibly in time come to look like Ancient Egyptians did regardless of how much they descend from them. And likewise when suggesting a certain currently "White" populations may descend partly from ancient Egyptians does not mean I think Ancient Egyptians were White, I think when they lived in Egypt they were Brown or Light-Skinned Black like modern Egyptians are.
Historically the modern Population of Egypt seems to descend largely from Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans and others who settled there in classical antiquity, and then Arabs who migrated there after the Islamic conquest.
It is popular to claim that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt as Jeremiah and Ezekiel foretold. This is because Egypt is the pillar of how we research Ancient History, and so rarely do we know Egyptian history from anything other then Egyptian propaganda. Even among the Classical historians, Herodotus just based his whole history of Egypt on what Egyptian Priests told him, and then Manetho was an Egyptian Priest, though one who had his own criticisms of Herodotus.
On another blog I've argued that Amasis was Nebuchadnezzar's governor of Egypt. And I think Amasis conquering of Cyprus around 570 BC was really Egypt being exiled there. After 40 years some of them returned, but perhaps not all just as not all of Judah returned after their 70 years were over.
So perhaps one of the nations it's popular to identify with the Lost Tribes is actually Mizraim? While modern Egypt is still a head of Javan's Leopard?
I did a post on ways America could be viewed as Egypt. Thing is much of that could overlap with England aka Great Britain aka The United Kingdom, and arguably fit them better. Including the relationship with modern Israel to some extent. Britam and British Israelists love to obsess over their perception that Anglo-Saxons are the most pro-semtic people.
England also had a division between north and south, York and London/Somerset. And the interpretation of Isaiah 19 I alluded to there is one I've criticized elsewhere, so I kinda felt like cheating mentioning that.
And then there is the role of Freemasonry. While America and Modern France are nations who's history has been shaped by Freemasonry, Britain is where Freemasonry comes from, and London is still the supreme grand lodge of all Masonry. It was in Brittan that Cagliostro founded his Egyptian Freemasonry in 1776. Nicolas Bonnevile was involved in Masonry in Britain before becoming a leader of the French Revolution. Karl of Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick, leaders of German Freemasonry who also joined the Illuminati, where grandchildren of King George II. And Albert of Saxe-Gotha who harbored Weishaupt is the ancestor of the current British Royal Family. Mazzini was also harbored in Britain. And Albert Pike's Freemasonry is what ruled the Confederacy, which Britain secretly supported but couldn't openly.
And it is Britain not America or Modern France that has Ancient Egypt's form of Government, Monarchy. Theirs is the one Monarchy the Revolutions never sought to overthrow. And their Monarchy is firmly tied to their state religion, Anglicanism. And it was among Anglicans of the 19th century that the desire to co-opt the Pyramid as a Christian symbol saying Enoch built it started.
England was originally seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that were eventually united. In Genesis 10 Misraim had seven sons. And with that correlation we could view York as Upper Egypt and London/Somerset as Lower Egypt, now switched geographically because in Egypt up and down were viewed differently then most places because of how The Nile works.
Many looking for Biblical significance to Modern Britain will site them being represented as a Lion, and also heraldry that shows a Lion and a Dragon. Ezekiel 32:2 says.
Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, "Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a dragon in the seas"So that fits too.
Perhaps those whom Britam identifies with Joseph are really Misraim. While the true identity of Joseph is as Native Americans and perhaps other Israelites wound up in America via the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, enslaved by Egypt once again. Hosea 9:3 does say "Ephraim shall return to Egypt".
I mentioned France a couple times because there is a school of thought out there that identifies France with Egypt, spiritually at least. This mostly comes from a desire to see France as the source of modern Atheism thanks to people like Voltaire, and the Reason worshipers of the Revolution. And then saying that Ancient Egypt was the most Atheistic nation of antiquity. The former accusation I could nitpick, but the latter is what is truly absurd. Egypt was anything but Atheistic, in fact at times Ptah came close to resembling a Monotheistic concept of God. But their main contribution to modern religious trends is Gnosticism.
During World War I, Britain's military operations in the Near East were carried out from Egypt. You can see this demonstrated in the film Lawrence of Arabia.
Herodotus Histories Book 2:159 records that after Pharaoh Necho's victory at Megiddo, he sent his cloths to Branchidae of Miletus in Ionia for some reason. Bill Cooper in After The Flood dates 509 BC as when the Milesians came to Ireland from Miletus. The leaders of that colonization were already Grandparents when they reached Ireland and their mother was a daughter of Pharaoh. Necho as Rameses II (who is confirmed to have had red hair) had plenty of daughters to spare, over 40. And the Egyptian royal-line unlike Judah's was traditionally passed through the daughter of Pharaoh. So perhaps the same royal line British Israelism claims to be heirs to the Throne of David, are actually heirs to the throne of Egypt?
Jeremiah 46:24 says the daughter of Egypt will be delivered to the people of the north, through their father Scota's children were traced back to Magog, The Bible associates Magog with the North. Or it could be alluding to scattered offspring of the Northern Kingdom.
Also in After The Flood, Bill Cooper documents how all seven Anglo-Saxon royal houses traced their ancestry back to Odin. Similar sources have lead many others to speculate a real King named Odin may have lived about 100 BC-300 AD.
I may feel the need to place Odin a little earlier then that, his worship was entrenched among Germanic peoples from Rome's very earliest contact with them during the last century BC. Though strictly speaking the Greco-Roman sources just say they worshiped Mercury/Hermes. Maybe they identified this deified King with that planet later.
The genealogies further traces Odin back to a Geat and then Geat back to Sceaf, only needing around 17 generations. Bill Cooper is convinced Sceaf is Japheth, I'm not so much. He sites one source that rendered Sceaf as Seth, and then tries to argue that Seth could be a corruption of Japheth, an argument that in the Hebrew is only them ending with the same letter.
But maybe he was Seth/Set of Egyptian Mythology? The Egyptians did consider red hair a sign of descent from Seth. Or perhaps this reflects the name Seti/Sethos, a Set theophoric name.
As a supporter of revised Chronology I place Seti I in 664-609 BC, and Seti II in the 570s BC. But Seti II had a son called Seti-Merneptah who's fate is unknown. This is the same time period as Egypt's foretold scattering. Seti II's grandfather was Rameses II. And the time the historical Odin is speculated to have lived could be defined as 17 generations later. Matthew recounts 14 generations from the Captivity to Jesus, but he'd already demonstrated a willingness to skip generations. Luke has more then that in the same time frame.
Now the Pross Edda traced Sceaf back to Memnon of Greek mythology. That is generally viewed as something made up by the medieval writer. But I did recently argue for the Ethiopia of Memnon and Cepheus being around Seir, where the Horites lived. And have also argued for the gods of Egypt coming from the Horites. And also it is known that the Ancient Greeks identified a large statue of Amenhotep III in Thebes with Memnon.
But still. Mainly my hunch now is Sceaf/Seth identifies a Seti of the 19th Dynasty as the progenitor of Anglo-Saxon royalty. A Seti was also one of the lesser known sons of Rameses II. And Ramses firstborn by Nefertari (who I discussed on the revised chronology blog, linking him to Ezekiel 30) had a son named Seti. A Seti had also been Viceroy of Kush, who may have been of the royal family since he's called a hereditary Prince. Perhaps he's the same as one of the before mentioned Setis.
For this scenario the descent from Egypt overlaps with who I've argued elsewhere to descend from Dan. It's interesting typologically that Leviticus 24 talks about a Blasphemous Israelite who's mother was Danite and Father was an Egyptian. Meanwhile Scota's descendants I think intermarried with remnants of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun & Issachar. Manasseh's mother was also an Egyptian.
Of course it's not just English Royalty and Nobility that claims descent from Scota, it's the same with Irish and Scottish Royal and Noble houses. And descent from Odin can also be claimed by continental Royal Families of Denmark and Norway and some in Germany, there were Saxons who remained in Germany (Queen Victoria and her Husband both descended from Royalty of Saxony). But it was in King James I that the English Crown become the one to unite these two Royal lines together.
All the ways in which British Royalty can be traced back to the Seleucid Dynasty, also involve Ptolemaic Queens and Princesses, Cleopatra Thea, Tryphanea, and the children of Anthony and Cleopatra. The Ptolemies including the most famous Cleopatra also tended to have red hair.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Could The Beast of Revelation 17 possibly be a different Beast?
I've suggested one bold new theory on how Revelation 17 ties into the rest of the book already [And followed up on it in Who Is The Bride of Christ]. Now I have another one.
The parallel imagery of Seven Heads and Ten Horns leads to an assumption that the Beast of Chapter 17 is the same one we saw in Chapter 13. And references to The Beast made in chapters 14-16 are clearly the Beast out of the Sea.
But The Dragon also had Seven Heads and Ten Horns and that is indisputably a different entity. The Beast of Chapter 17 also has in common with the Beast out of The Sea over The Dragon being called a Beast. And also terminology that seems to imply one of the Seven Heads is an individual who has died and been resurrected, but how that idea is communicated is different. However it is called a Scarlet Beast, which is a variation of the Color Red, so the Revelation 17 Beast is affiliated with the same Color as The Dragon.
References to The Beast of Chapter 13 in other chapters usually mention The False Prophet, or The Mark, or the Image. But in Chapter 17 it seems to be The Woman, Mystery Babylon, who is serving The False Prophet's function, as a simultaneously religious and economic system.
However Revelation 11's Beast is described with terminology elsewhere used only in Chapter 17, the Beast that Ascends out of the Bottomless Pit/Abyss, and goes into Perdition.
I've also noted recently that it is strictly speaking the Ten Horns not the Eight King himself who hates and attacks The Harlot.
I've talked a lot on this Blog about the possibility of a Decoy Antichrist, possibly to be identified with The Terrible of The Nations of Ezekiel. And while I've connected that figure to themes of Revelation like the Kings of The East, I had lacked a clearly specific place for him. Until within the last month when I thought of this possibility.
However, it then occurred to me, what if they are the same Beast and yet different in terms of which of the Seven Heads is the main Head in mind?
I have laid out already my main view on the Seven Kings. In identifying them with modern Geopolitical entities, The Lion is Iraq and/or ISIS, the Bear is Iran and perhaps parts of Iraq currently controlled by Iran via the Mahdi Army (the Medes being The Kurds and the Persians being the Shiites). The four heads of the Leopard are Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Egypt, and the Fourth Beast/Seventh Head (the one with the Ten Horns) is the European Union.
When we separate the Death and Resurrection imagery of 13 and 17. Only 13 requires a Mortal Wound, sometimes assumed to specifically be a head wound but that forgets that the use of the word Head is itself symbolic in these chapters. Meanwhile my argument that the Eight King must be one of the first Five applies solely to Chapter 17.
I feel the one in 13 make most sense if the Resurrection/healing of the Wound itself happens in the End Times, before the eyes of the World. While the one in 17 I think could maybe have been Resurrected in the past, perhaps in 30 AD (Matthew 27:52-53) as part of fulfilling Daniel 12, but then was sealed in the Abyss.
If The Terrible of The Nations is someone who lived in the Past resurrected in the End Times. Based on Ezekiel 29&30 the first obvious candidate is Nebuchadrezzar, as I alluded to in my last post.
There are people arguing Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist, including a Google Group. Much of the argument for that is the Terrible of the Nations passages, because they overlook the last part of Ezekiel 30 which identifies the Terrible of The Nations with the one who gives not who receives the Mortal Wound. And the Prophecy against the Prince (not King) of Tyre in chapter 28 could also back that up.
However, the fact that Daniel 4 depicts Nebuchadrezzar as being Saved I view as a problem with the whole "Goeth into Perdition" detail. Though perhaps that is less definitive since I'm now pretty much a Universalist, and Nebuchadrezzar wasn't a Church Age believer. But it still seems odd to me, and I've yet to see a Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist argument address Daniel 4.
Nebuchadrezzar was the first of the Seven Kings in my view. The remaining four of the first five would be Cyrus, Alexander The Great (or maybe a Ptolemy), Antigonus or Demetrius, and a Seleucid King.
Of those I feel inclined to rule out the Ptolemies and maybe also Alexander on the grounds that if a Beast of Revelation is a Pharaoh of Egypt, that is definitely the Revelation 13 Beast. Also both Cyrus and Alexander I view as like Nebuchadrezzar confirmed to most likely be among the saved, so if that rules him out it maybe rules them out too.
There is not much to Biblically make Antigonos or Demetrius significant. But if you think The Antichrist is also the Little Horn of Daniel 8, then that makes the Seleucids, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, a pretty strong candidate. And if the Beast out of the Sea is a Ptolemy, then one of his adversaries being a Seleucid would fit well.
The parallel imagery of Seven Heads and Ten Horns leads to an assumption that the Beast of Chapter 17 is the same one we saw in Chapter 13. And references to The Beast made in chapters 14-16 are clearly the Beast out of the Sea.
But The Dragon also had Seven Heads and Ten Horns and that is indisputably a different entity. The Beast of Chapter 17 also has in common with the Beast out of The Sea over The Dragon being called a Beast. And also terminology that seems to imply one of the Seven Heads is an individual who has died and been resurrected, but how that idea is communicated is different. However it is called a Scarlet Beast, which is a variation of the Color Red, so the Revelation 17 Beast is affiliated with the same Color as The Dragon.
References to The Beast of Chapter 13 in other chapters usually mention The False Prophet, or The Mark, or the Image. But in Chapter 17 it seems to be The Woman, Mystery Babylon, who is serving The False Prophet's function, as a simultaneously religious and economic system.
However Revelation 11's Beast is described with terminology elsewhere used only in Chapter 17, the Beast that Ascends out of the Bottomless Pit/Abyss, and goes into Perdition.
I've also noted recently that it is strictly speaking the Ten Horns not the Eight King himself who hates and attacks The Harlot.
I've talked a lot on this Blog about the possibility of a Decoy Antichrist, possibly to be identified with The Terrible of The Nations of Ezekiel. And while I've connected that figure to themes of Revelation like the Kings of The East, I had lacked a clearly specific place for him. Until within the last month when I thought of this possibility.
However, it then occurred to me, what if they are the same Beast and yet different in terms of which of the Seven Heads is the main Head in mind?
I have laid out already my main view on the Seven Kings. In identifying them with modern Geopolitical entities, The Lion is Iraq and/or ISIS, the Bear is Iran and perhaps parts of Iraq currently controlled by Iran via the Mahdi Army (the Medes being The Kurds and the Persians being the Shiites). The four heads of the Leopard are Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Egypt, and the Fourth Beast/Seventh Head (the one with the Ten Horns) is the European Union.
When we separate the Death and Resurrection imagery of 13 and 17. Only 13 requires a Mortal Wound, sometimes assumed to specifically be a head wound but that forgets that the use of the word Head is itself symbolic in these chapters. Meanwhile my argument that the Eight King must be one of the first Five applies solely to Chapter 17.
I feel the one in 13 make most sense if the Resurrection/healing of the Wound itself happens in the End Times, before the eyes of the World. While the one in 17 I think could maybe have been Resurrected in the past, perhaps in 30 AD (Matthew 27:52-53) as part of fulfilling Daniel 12, but then was sealed in the Abyss.
If The Terrible of The Nations is someone who lived in the Past resurrected in the End Times. Based on Ezekiel 29&30 the first obvious candidate is Nebuchadrezzar, as I alluded to in my last post.
There are people arguing Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist, including a Google Group. Much of the argument for that is the Terrible of the Nations passages, because they overlook the last part of Ezekiel 30 which identifies the Terrible of The Nations with the one who gives not who receives the Mortal Wound. And the Prophecy against the Prince (not King) of Tyre in chapter 28 could also back that up.
However, the fact that Daniel 4 depicts Nebuchadrezzar as being Saved I view as a problem with the whole "Goeth into Perdition" detail. Though perhaps that is less definitive since I'm now pretty much a Universalist, and Nebuchadrezzar wasn't a Church Age believer. But it still seems odd to me, and I've yet to see a Nebuchadrezzar is the Antichrist argument address Daniel 4.
Nebuchadrezzar was the first of the Seven Kings in my view. The remaining four of the first five would be Cyrus, Alexander The Great (or maybe a Ptolemy), Antigonus or Demetrius, and a Seleucid King.
Of those I feel inclined to rule out the Ptolemies and maybe also Alexander on the grounds that if a Beast of Revelation is a Pharaoh of Egypt, that is definitely the Revelation 13 Beast. Also both Cyrus and Alexander I view as like Nebuchadrezzar confirmed to most likely be among the saved, so if that rules him out it maybe rules them out too.
There is not much to Biblically make Antigonos or Demetrius significant. But if you think The Antichrist is also the Little Horn of Daniel 8, then that makes the Seleucids, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, a pretty strong candidate. And if the Beast out of the Sea is a Ptolemy, then one of his adversaries being a Seleucid would fit well.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Some more Mystery Babylon issues
First I want to talk a little about 1 Peter 5:13. I've argued before against Peter going to Rome, and explained why in general placing Babylon anywhere other then Babylon comes from that Catholic Dogma.
There is a third theory about what Peter meant, and that is that he was referring to Babylon in Egypt, because this passage also refers to Mark who tradition links to Alexandria. There is a fortress in Egypt that was called Babylon for some reason. It is part of the embryo of what became Cairo, the Islamic/Modern Capital of Egypt. And it was in On/Heliopolis, which did have a Jewish Population, and I mention potential Old Testament Prophetic relevance to On in an Isaiah 19 study. One ancient explanation for this fortress being called that implies it could have been called that as far back as Isaiah's time.
Generally no one arguing for that theory attempts to then suggest that that is the Babylon of Revelation. However if you made that suggestion it could add a whole new angle to my developing Egyptian Antichrist theories. However since there is no Biblical confirmation of Mark's association with Egypt, more evidence would need to be uncovered for me to consider such a theory.
I decided however that before I state definitively that what Peter meant by Babylon must be the Babylon of Revelation. I should look at the Greek texts because I know many New Testament names often appear in different forms. And indeed when I checked I saw that Peter distinct from any other reference to Babylon spelled it with an Iota at the end. Babyloni.
Ending with an Iota like that is I think in Greek usually a diminutive, meaning it could be translated "Little Babylon". That could fit the Babylon in Egypt which was a small settlement at the time. But I could also see it being used by Jews of Seleucia, a city who's Jewish population of the period had moved there from Babylon a few decades earlier. But it certainly would not fit how one would use Babylon as a code for Rome.
[Correction on the above paragraph, I've now researched it and it makes the Daitive Singular form. In which case there is no solid reason to think it refers to a different place then any other references to Babylon]
On to the second part.
Chuck Missler likes to define End Times Babylon on three pairs of Chapters, Isaiah 13&15, Jeremiah 50&51, and Revelation 17&18. Isaiah and Revelation I've talked about extensively but not the Jeremiah one, it is the longest, I have read it, but I feel I need to read it more to discern what specific clues it has.
One detail about it I do want to address now however is that many will insist Jeremiah mentioning Nebuchadrezzar by name must be proof only a Preterist interpretation is valid.
First of all, when Babylon fell to Cyrus Nebuchadrezzar was dead by then too, unless you believe the fringe theory that Nabonidus was the same person. I am intrigued by some aspects of that argument, but it has major holes in my view.
Second, Revelation 17 seems to define the Eight King as a King who ruled before John's time resurrected. So you can't entirely rule out Nebuchadrezzar personally being there in the Futurist interpretation. But that's a Rabbit hole for another study or two.
Third and last of all. The two verses in this two chapter Prophecy that mention the name of Nebuchadrezzar, are not like similar verses mentioning him by name elsewhere in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel. The language used in context does not necessarily make Nebuchadrezzar himself contemporary with the Judgment in question. They are 50:17 and 51:34.
The former is about how this connects to it being him who conquered Jerusalem. The latter simply about Babylon being his legacy. Saddam Hussien's reconstruction projects in Babylon and many other cities (including Basra) were driven by his personal obsession with Nebuchadrezzar, he depicted himself as Nebuchadrezzar on his coins. So yes even modern Iraq is directly the legacy of Nebuchadrezzar.
There is a third theory about what Peter meant, and that is that he was referring to Babylon in Egypt, because this passage also refers to Mark who tradition links to Alexandria. There is a fortress in Egypt that was called Babylon for some reason. It is part of the embryo of what became Cairo, the Islamic/Modern Capital of Egypt. And it was in On/Heliopolis, which did have a Jewish Population, and I mention potential Old Testament Prophetic relevance to On in an Isaiah 19 study. One ancient explanation for this fortress being called that implies it could have been called that as far back as Isaiah's time.
Generally no one arguing for that theory attempts to then suggest that that is the Babylon of Revelation. However if you made that suggestion it could add a whole new angle to my developing Egyptian Antichrist theories. However since there is no Biblical confirmation of Mark's association with Egypt, more evidence would need to be uncovered for me to consider such a theory.
I decided however that before I state definitively that what Peter meant by Babylon must be the Babylon of Revelation. I should look at the Greek texts because I know many New Testament names often appear in different forms. And indeed when I checked I saw that Peter distinct from any other reference to Babylon spelled it with an Iota at the end. Babyloni.
Ending with an Iota like that is I think in Greek usually a diminutive, meaning it could be translated "Little Babylon". That could fit the Babylon in Egypt which was a small settlement at the time. But I could also see it being used by Jews of Seleucia, a city who's Jewish population of the period had moved there from Babylon a few decades earlier. But it certainly would not fit how one would use Babylon as a code for Rome.
[Correction on the above paragraph, I've now researched it and it makes the Daitive Singular form. In which case there is no solid reason to think it refers to a different place then any other references to Babylon]
On to the second part.
Chuck Missler likes to define End Times Babylon on three pairs of Chapters, Isaiah 13&15, Jeremiah 50&51, and Revelation 17&18. Isaiah and Revelation I've talked about extensively but not the Jeremiah one, it is the longest, I have read it, but I feel I need to read it more to discern what specific clues it has.
One detail about it I do want to address now however is that many will insist Jeremiah mentioning Nebuchadrezzar by name must be proof only a Preterist interpretation is valid.
First of all, when Babylon fell to Cyrus Nebuchadrezzar was dead by then too, unless you believe the fringe theory that Nabonidus was the same person. I am intrigued by some aspects of that argument, but it has major holes in my view.
Second, Revelation 17 seems to define the Eight King as a King who ruled before John's time resurrected. So you can't entirely rule out Nebuchadrezzar personally being there in the Futurist interpretation. But that's a Rabbit hole for another study or two.
Third and last of all. The two verses in this two chapter Prophecy that mention the name of Nebuchadrezzar, are not like similar verses mentioning him by name elsewhere in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel. The language used in context does not necessarily make Nebuchadrezzar himself contemporary with the Judgment in question. They are 50:17 and 51:34.
The former is about how this connects to it being him who conquered Jerusalem. The latter simply about Babylon being his legacy. Saddam Hussien's reconstruction projects in Babylon and many other cities (including Basra) were driven by his personal obsession with Nebuchadrezzar, he depicted himself as Nebuchadrezzar on his coins. So yes even modern Iraq is directly the legacy of Nebuchadrezzar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)