Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Ted Cruz's father preaches that he is an Anointed King

http://disinfo.com/2013/10/ted-cruzs-father-preaches-son-anointed-king-will-bring-end-time-transfer-wealth/

I'm far from willing to bet Ted Cruz is THE antichrist.  But this certainly makes him one of the many.

Another Link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026401981

Dominionism is a very dangerous theology with strong Maosnic and Knights of Malta ties.
There are some details of this I disagree with, but it's very informative.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Does The Bible foretell Human Colonization of outer space?

Let's look at the very first Prophecy of the regathering of Israel to the Holy Land (which I do not view as fulfilled by 1948).  Deuteronomy 30 verses 3-5 (actually continuing from chapter 29 which foretells the scattering in verses 24-27).
"That then Yahuah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither Yahuah thy God hath scattered thee.  If any of thine be driven out unto the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Yahuah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And Yahuah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."
This is repeated in Nehemiah 1:8-9.
Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, "If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations: But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there."
Similar terminology is used in Matthew 24:31 and Mar 13:27.  But I'd consider those less compelling because they're about The Rapture where Heaven is the destination of the Gathering.

In Obadiah when talking about Edom, God says in verse 4.
Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith Yahuah.
It's interesting that when we landed on The Moon, Neal Armstrong said "The Eagle has Landed".

Then we can look at Isaiah 13 talking about the armies Yahuah will bring against Babylon.  In verses 4 and 5.
 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: Yahuah of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.  They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even Yahuah, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
This isn't likely to be the army from the Heaven where God dwells, that army marches in Revelation 19 after Babylon's destruction is over.  Rob Skiba seems to be obsessed with saying the term "Host of Heaven" can only refer to Angels.  That is false, Host is a term commonly affiliated with armies.

There are three Heavens Biblically, the Sky where the birds Fly, where the Sun, Moon and Stars are.  And the Third Heaven where God is.  I talked about this when discussing the Firmament.  Using the word Heaven(s) back to back tends to mean the Third Heaven where God is, like we see in Psalm 115:16, Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 68:33.

I reject Dominionist theology and eschatology which says that The Church is supposed to take over the World to bring about the Second Coming.  Right now the Dominion meant for Adam is usurped by Satan (The Archon of The Kosmos) until the events recorded in The Book of Revelation take place and Jesus sets up His Millennial reign.

But it's interesting to look at how Psalm 8 elaborates on the issue of Adam's Dominion over God's Creation.  In verse 3 we are told the Moon and Stars are the works of Yahuah's fingers.  And verse 6 says He made Adam to have dominion over all the works of his hands.  Why exclude the Sun here?  Maybe because it's not something we can walk or build things on?

Now it is popular in the modern Flat Earth movement to say Stars are Angels, not astronomical bodies we could potentially build things on.  Stars and Angels are linked often and I believe that is more then just symbolically, I think each Star has an Angel that governs or stewards it.

Now Flat Eatherers are right that Biblcally "star" is not a synonym for "sun".  Rather they refer to anything up there in the heavens, including Angels and UFOs, when they are seen up there as lights in the sky.

The Biblical concept of Stars for one thing indisputably includes the Planets, which we can now see with Telescopes are large round spherical objects, some with other large round objects orbiting them.  Jude uses the specific Greek term "Planates Aster" (Wandering Star) which refereed to the five visible Planets in antiquity.  Hebrew had no equivalent term specific for those.  And most scholars agree that Chiun of Amos 5:26 refereed to as Remphan in Acts 7:43, was an ancient name for Saturn, which the same verse calls a Star.

And in Greek astronomy the Sun and Moon were included among the "Planates Asters".

Rob Skiba even goes so far as to use the fact that The Bible records people worshiping the Stars as evidence they are sentient beings.  The Bible constantly makes a point out of how the false gods people worship are inanimate lifeless objects.  Like in Daniel 5.

As far as Rob's point about Stars falling from Heaven in Bible Prophecy.  Taking it as literally as he wants to is severely hurt by that it happens more then once in Revelation.  They seemingly ALL fall in the Sixth Seal in chapter 2.  Then two more fall during the Trumpets, while also a third of them are darkened.  Then a third are cast down in Revelation 12.  And everything in Revelation happens in Chronological order, that is what this Blog is mainly about.

That meteors and asteroids landing on the Earth were described as "falling stars" (asteroid comes from the Greek word for star) is a known documented part of ancient terminology.  And if you're going to insist The Bible must be MORE literal then common usage was, then these modern Flat Earthers need to abandon their current position on if the Sun and Moon literally rise and set.

The idea that the star falling at the start of Revelation 9 is Satan, and that he is given the Key is easily refuted by the beginning of Revelation 20 where a different Angel has the key and locks Satan in The Pit.  The Angel given the Key I think is the Angel who sounded the Fifth Trumpet, later in chapter 9 we see the Angel who sounds the Sixth Trumpet plays a role on how those events play out.

The star described as "falling" to the Earth at the start of chapter 9 in the Greek can be read as just sort of descending but not totally landing.  I still like my hunch that that star is Iapetus which has a lot of fringe theory speculation.  But I no longer like the idea I flirted with before that the Abyss is actually inside Iapetus, the Abyss is inside The Earth, the Great Deep.

Wormwood in clearly an asteroid or comet of some sort that will poison the Earth's Water supply.  Comets especially are known to have chemicals in them, not to mention the radiation any such object might bring.  In Hebrew wormwood is an idiom of bitterness.

Genesis 22:17 and Hebrew 11:2 says the stars are as innumerable as the sands of the sea shore.  The enclosed Dome model allows no more stars then what we can see, the sand in the sandbox I played in in my backyard as a kid dwarfs that number of stars.  That model says the stars we can see are about all there are, we can number those fairly easily.

Now this hypothesis has the potential to hurt our bias for seeing these prophecies being fulfilled in our lifetime.  But I also have suspicions that many of these could apply to during or after the Millennium.  My one objection to Chis White's argument for Gog and Magog being Post-Millennial is his insistence that Technology will become primitive.  I fully reject the idea that God would be against technological advancement.

I've actually argued before that the Regathering of Israel may not fully happen till near the end of or after the Millennium, in one of my first Lost Tribes posts.  Only thing there I don't stand by anymore is the Mystery Babylon maybe being Samaria part.  Some of those themes I may return to in a more refined form in the coming months.  As well as the issue of Edom's eschatological destiny.

Update May 15th 2016.

What is below is not needed for this theory and gets really fringe.  I'm not definitively arguing for any of it but I do find these implications interesting.

Since I'm into unconventional theories about the Ancient World having more technology then we normally think (but rejecting needing "Ancient Aliens" to explain it), as well as the possible scientific theories of Stargates/Wormholes.  Maybe some of this colonization already happened?

Maybe some of the Lost Tribes went to a planet in another Solar System, a planet called Arzareth, taken from the Apocryphal 2 Esdras (sometimes IV Esdras) 13:45, which is said to be previously uninhabited by Mankind (Adamkind? or Enoshkind? we don't have it in Hebrew).  While my main serious Lost Tribes theories have been based on them in Asia east of the Euphrates, (and maybe some coming to Japan and Pre-Colombian America). as an aspiring writer I've long thought of writing a SciFi/Fantasy story with this premise.

Schiller-Szinessy speculates the name Arsareth comes from a Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 29:28 (the Prophecy that started this study), "ereẓ aḦeret" translated in the KJV "another land".  The "land" part is aHeret, a form of Erets, the Hebrew word for Earth, same one speculated to be etymologically related to the English "Earth", as well as many other Semitic and Germanic words for Earth, and from them Tolkien's Arda.   Indeed the last part of Arzareth, "areth" sounds similar to Aerith, a Final Fantasy character who's name was meant to sound similar to the English "Earth".

So it could be translated "another Earth" though it does not need to mean that.  Eretz is a word often used of specifically the Holy Land and other nations' homelands.  But I've talked elsewhere on the Flat Earth issue that the references to the Four Corners of the Earth use Erets (and the Greek Ge) in a sense that means Eurasia+Africa.  In that context the Americas can very much qualify as Another Erets, as could Australia and New Zealand, but applying that to Japan is a bit more of a stretch, Japan is the Eastern Corner I think (though Korean could also be argued to be the Eastern Corner).  It is generally theories based on them going to Japan or the Americas that try to make the Arzareth reference a linchpin of the theory, Esdras is not Inspired Scripture anyway.  I seem to be the first to get the idea that maybe it's not on Earth at all.

Apparently Joseph Smith said the Lost Tribes were taken from The Earth and to somewhere near the Pole Star.

It used to be considered plausible to speculate the Moon could be habitable or inhabited, just as much as Mars was.  Lucian, Kepler, De Bergerec, McDermot, Washington Irving, George Tucker, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Anderson, H.G. Wells, C.L. Moore and C.S. Lewis all put intelligent life there, Jules Verne of all people however had it uninhabited.  Now we know it's not inhabited and never was.  (With Mars past in-habitation still seems possible.  It is speculated Earth could become like Mars with the right disasters "Unless those days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved".)

If I were living when it was still plausible to speculate about life on the Moon.  I'd make note of how a Genesis 10 Patriarch, Yerech ben Yacktan (Jerah of the KJV), has the same name The Hebrew Bible and other Semitic language texts call The Moon.  One who's historical traces seem far fainter then some other sons of Joktan.  The Mormon argument for affiliating him with the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon I find interesting, but I've talked about what's wrong with the BoM before.

In fact this patriarch predates the Moon being called that.  In Genesis 1 the Sun and Moon don't have their names yet, they're just the greater and lesser lights.  Yareach as a name for the Moon first appears in Genesis 37, during the lifetime of Joseph and Jacob, then Job (I'm not sure it's as old as others think, if it's setting was during the Patriarchs' time it was late in it since the Keturites have Tribes established already), then in Exodus 2 ("three months" in the KJV), but it doesn't become common till Deuteronomy.

And the Moon has an alternate Hebrew name unlike the Sun, Chodesh/Hodesh.

When an Earthly location later becomes known by a Genesis 10 name we Young Earth Creationists see significance in that, so why am I seemingly the first to consider this with the Moon?

The name of Abraham's father Terah/Terach is also viewed as a variant.  It is linked to moon worship in non Biblical texts, and in Hebrew it's spelled the same as Yerach except starting with a different letter, and there are other examples of Hebrew words beginning with Yot having equivalent words that begin with Tav, like Yeshuah and Teshuah (Salvation).  Either way it seems the Moon was named for a descendant of Heber, making any hypothetical Selenites/Lunarians possibly Hebrews.  It's interesting to remember that Esau/Edom was a descendant of Terah.

Maybe the Yerachites traveled to another "star" but had to pit-stop on the Moon along the way and gave it their name.  Or maybe they were just the first to reach it.

And Maybe it was a Yerachite Princess who was raised by a Japanese Bamboo Cutter who named her Kaguya and was romanced by the Emperor of Japan.  And also a Yerachite Princess who raped the Greek Shepherd King Endymion.

Wow, did I just got really Nerdy.

Also however the Akkadian name for the moon was Sin (sometimes spelled Suen), suggesting a possible connection to the Sinite tribe of Canaan. 

Update January 6th 2017.:  I can't believe I forget to mention my theory that Enoch and Elijah were taken to another Planet.

Update January 23rd 2017:  Well, I just noticed something I should have in the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, verses 20-23.
"They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.  The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.  Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the prancings, the prancings of their mighty ones.  Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Yahuah, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of Yahuah, to the help of Yahuah against the mighty."
The Talmud says that Meroz is a Star in Moed Katan 16a.

Now Rob Skiba might say this passage supports stars being Angels.  But just before this it was talking about countries coming to battle (and some not) in similar terms.  It's not talking about those geographical lands getting up and moving, but their people.  This passage can be an argument for some Stars being inhabited.

Update October 7th 2018: Given how I've changed my mind on supporting the Edom=Rome identification.  I'm now considering that maybe Edom's travel to outer-space was also in the past already.

Jeremiah doesn't describe a captivity and return for Edom in chapter 49 the way he does most other nations.  But he does echo Obadiah's talk about Edom being as an Eagle.  Edom proper disappears from the Historical biblical Record before the time of Hezekiah, with during Hezekiah's time being the last reference to Amalekites.  I still agree with Bill Cooper then the Greco-Roman era Idumeans are the Ishmaelite tribe of Dumah not Edomites.

So if they weren't carried away into Captivity. why did they disappear?  

Saturday, February 6, 2016

The Time of Jacob's Trouble

I've been intrigued by Rob Skiba's argument for a 20 year time of Jacob's Trouble (a term from Jeremiah 30:7) since I first heard it last September.  And I've done some searching and found others have made similar arguments before.

In-spite of what this blog's URL still is I no longer believe the 70th Week of Daniel is Eschatological, at least not solely.  I definitely view it as fulfilled by the 7 years following Christ's Crucifixion and ending with the Death of Tiberius (but you'll never convince me of a three and a half year ministry).  If a second fulfillment is possible will depend on other factors.

But my Chronological view of Revelation has convinced me it depicts a 7 year period regardless of if any other 7 year periods from elsewhere in Scripture are relevant or not.  The first half is Revelation 11 and the Second half 12-19.

Because I do not view the Millennium as a Utopia, I'm willing to consider the 20 years as overlapping into it.  But I am alternatively willing to consider that maybe the Time of Jacob's Trouble ends with The Rapture (which definitely ends the Great Tribulation that began when Stephen was Stoned) which I place at the Midway Point of Revelation's 7 years.

Thing is the time period of Jacob's servitude to Laban is divided into sub periods, if we're considering that a type picture of the End Times we likewise have to break it down.

The statement that is was 20 years comes from Genesis 31:41.
"Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle: and thou hast changed my wages ten times."
 But Genesis 29:18-29 describes this as three periods of seven years.

The seven years statement for the third period is given when that period started, it is seemingly during this time most of Jacob's children are born.  I have seen some timelines attempt to interpret Joseph as being convinced right when Jacob married Rachel, I don't get that, that ignores the entire point of her being seemingly barren.

It is right after Joseph was born in chapter 30 that Jacob decided to leave, that the time allotted was cut short.  I think this may have been during the 7th/21st year, and when he said twenty years including 6 for the cattle he was only counting the years he completed.

I've argued on this blog that the Resurrection and Rapture in Revelation 12 is symbolized by the Birth and Rapture of the Man-Child.  Joseph is a type of Christ often, but he can also be a type of The Church, especially if you think Ephraim's blessing in Genesis 48 has something to do with the Fullness of The Gentiles in Romans 11.

What I find interesting is that during the time Leah and the handmaidens are giving birth Rachel is described as envying Leah.  In-spite of what you might expect, we're never told Leah was envious of Rachel.

In Romans 9-11 Paul says part of the purpose of Gentiles coming in is to provoke Israel to jealously.  Now again I'm not a traditional Dispensationalist, The Church is part of Israel but not synonymous with Israel.

So I'm thinking now that maybe the Time of Jacob's Trouble is 20 and a half years that ends with the Rapture.  And begins 15 years before the final Week begins.

I have a hunch that what would mark the beginning of the 6 years is The Third Temple being completed and/or dedicated.

It took Solomon 7 years to build The Temple.  Now it's popular for Prophecy teachers to say today it could be built much faster.  But if the people building it are trying to do everything Levitically, plus considering political hurdles.  I could easily see it taking a full 7 years even today.

Now what would define the first 7 years?  I don't know.  If the theory for when The Rapture might happen I've mentioned on this blog most recently is true, we entered that period in 2013.  Spring of 2013 is when Francis became the Pope, but besides that I see nothing significant.

I have contemplated in my head in the last couple days a possible theory involving the Jubilee cycles.  I'm still working that out however, but it would probably be a later date then the 2030-37 model.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Firmament is not a solid enclosure

I've decided both the standard Kent Hovind/Creationist Canopy theory and Rob Skiba's Dome theory are wrong.

Even if you can convince me of a Flat Earth cosmology for other reasons I still won't think Firmament refers to a Dome.  Even if you can convince me there is a Dome for other reasons, I still won't believe the word Firmament refers to that Dome.

I don't care how many Hebrew lexicons and concordances say it's something solid. Your standard Hebrew experts today don't think Almah means Virgin.

The word is rarely used, The Torah uses it only in Genesis 1, two Psalms use it, Ezekiel uses it and Daniel 12:3.  The rarer a word is the more dependent we are on using Scripture itself to help define it.  So yes it's presumed to derive from words for beaten metals, but it's about equally similar to the Hebrew word for perfume.

Fortunately God foresaw what this word means being an issue and told us.  Genesis 8:1 "And God called the firmament the Heavens", the very origin of the word "Heavens" was to be a synonym for the Firmament.  I know Kent Hovind doesn't like this fact, but Heavens is plural every-time it occurs here.  We know there are at least three Heavens because Paul describes a Man (common theory is it's himself) being taken to the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2.

Rob Skiba makes a good point that when Beth is used as a prefix it means "in".  But he doesn't think the sun and moon (maybe he does the stars) or the birds are "in" the firmament, he thinks they're under it.

The birds fly in the first heaven, the atmosphere, the sun, moon and stars are in the second heaven, space.

The Firmament is also defined as what separates the waters above from the waters below.

When Ezekiel uses the word in his vision of God's Throne, it's hard for me to make sense of it with that being the same Firmament whatever your cosmology is.  He has the Cherubim under it but God's throne above it.

Update January 2016: Rob Skiba just did a video obsessing over how much Water is in the Atmosphere, to serve his Flat Earth agenda.  Never occurred to him to consider that this is the Water above of Genesis 1.

Judges 5:4 shows that the Biblical Authors knew that Rain came from The Clouds.  Likewise Psalm 77:17.

Ezekiel's Temple and the Millennium Follow up

This is a follow up to Distinguishing between The Millennium and the New Heaven and New Earth.  And also my more recent Bethel, The House of God post.

My position on Isaiah 65 and 66 being the New Heaven and New Earth not The Millennium remains unshakable.  I've been doing some rethinking on Ezekiel, I certainly think many of the conditions in Ezekiel could also apply to The Millennium, and was also thinking maybe it's not the New Creation till YHWH-Shammah descends.  But the fact remains it's Revelation 21-22 that draws on this part of Ezekiel while 20 draws on 37-39.

Isaiah 66 which is still the same Prophecy as Isaiah 65 says in verse 3.
He that killeth an ox is as he that slayeth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as he that breaketh a dog`s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as he that offereth] swine`s blood; he that burneth frankincense, as he that blesseth an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations:
This further assured me that if indeed the Sacrifices being carried out in Ezekiel proves it's the Millennium in some people's minds then Isaiah can't be talking about the same time period.

But that also reminds me of why as a Christian the Sacrifices Ezekiel describes makes me uncomfortable either way.  The rationalizations I often hear from Christians for them are not satisfactory to me.

I read a few months ago an argument a Christian made that Ezekiel 40-48 is not going to be fulfilled in The Future, it was a hypothetical Constitution for the Return from Captivity that Israel rejected.  While that argument sounded quite reasonable, the problem I have with that is so much of Ezekiel's Temple besides the Sacrifices seem to anticipate what changed at The Cross.  No veil, no wall of separation, no separate courts for gentiles and women, ect.   

Add to that how Revelation 21-22 clearly draws on this part of Ezekiel.  And my recent insights regarding Bethel.  And I simply can't write off the Eschatological relevance of these chapters.

Then it hit me, what if both views are right in a sense?  It was originally a potential model for the return from captivity but was rejected.  However God still plans to make it happen anyway, but certain conditions will be different because of The Cross chief among them being no Sacrifices as Isaiah 66 clearly instructs.  Though some ceremonies may be performed using Jesus' already shed Blood.

You may think "what do we need the Brazen Altar for then?"  I'm thinking maybe it'll be converted into a monument with a Cross on top, a memorial of the permanent Sacrifice that made all others moot.

For the options I provided before for dealing with the size difference between Ezekiel's YHWH-Shammah and New Jerusalem.  I was favoring the John saw it from the inside option, and I still like that view, but....  I've watched this video from Rob Skiba.  I really don't like the Pyramid parts and I could do without the Flat Earth stuff.  But he still has interesting speculations.

That made me re-think the New Jerusalem borders include everything in Ezekiel's vision option.  The borders if you put YHWH-Shammah or Bethel (or the Altar east of Bethel) at the center of New Jerusalem would include everything in Ezekiel's vision, and it seems everything God promised to Abraham.  Plus Assyria and Egypt fitting Isaiah 19.  It'd also include some of Greece and about all of Asia minor, that's most destinations of Paul's travels, and all Seven Churches of Revelation, where Jesus also talks about New Jerusalem in the message to Philadelphia.

I keep looking into the Montanists, trying to decide if I think it's fair to label them heretics or not.  I can't find any clear statement on their soterology.  Much of what we know of them comes from their critics which had me skeptical of the most negative things said.  Still I do suspect they were an early example of how modern Charismatics sometimes go over board.

One of that movement's founding principles was the founders having a Prophetic revelation that New Jerusalem would be in Asia Minor, which had me thinking "well that's clearly a False Prophecy".  Now however I'm considering what if they misunderstood a Prophetic revelation that New Jerusalem would include Asia Minor? 

On the subject of Noah's Ark, I believe Bob Cornuke's theory that it's in Northern Iran, that site is within the cube also (as well as Jabal el-Lawz, the real Mt Sinai).

And the traditional location of the mythical Gates of Alexander is around about where the northern border would be between the black and Caspian seas.  A legend I mention in a Biblical context only because of how it's legacy became tied to Gog and Magog.

It may be both those options for the size issue are valid in a sense.  Because again the very laws of physics will change I believe.

If you're wondering "what about Jerusalem in the Millennium then?"  I don't know.  I notice Revelation 20 never clearly refers to the Holy City till after the Thousand Years are over and doesn't name it.  But I'm pretty sure that's Jerusalem since I see it as the same as Ezekiel 38-39.

I also found this study helpful.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Bethel, The House of God

The geography of Ezekiel 48 has Ezekiel's Temple not in the city of Jerusalem but miles to the North of it.

One problem existing among a few people who understand that correctly like Jack Kelly of GraceThruFaith.com is they have a desire to say Ezekiel's Temple will be the same one The Antichrist will desecrate.  (some say this while still thinking the Temple is in Jerusalem in which case all I need to do is point out Ezekiel's geography).

I've already addressed the error of connecting the Abomination of Desolation to Ezekiel 44 when refuting a heresy far more dangerous then anything Jack Kelly teaches.  The words for Abomination are completely different.

There are a lot of people trying to come up with uninformed interpretations of what the Outer Court being trodden under foot of the Gentiles in Revelation 11 means.  Luke 21:24 however clarifies it, the same terminology is used there, it is about Jerusalem being under foreign occupation.  I believe the same time frame is intended, ending with The Rapture and the Last Trumpet.

The city refereed to as Spiritually Sodom and Egypt where Jesus was Crucified is indisputably Jerusalem.  Some insist the "Holy City" of the first few verses of Chapter 11 can't be the same then.  This duality of Jerusalem is what The Bile is constantly about, it is God's Holy City because of his covenant with David, but it's also constantly in rebellion.  Just read Luke 19:41-44.

Jack Kelly talks about how The Jews refer to Ezekiel's Temple as the Third Temple (but admits those same Jews are expecting to build it in Jerusalem).  The Jews lack the New Testament therefore they are missing pieces of the puzzle.  They are ignorant of Jesus warning that the Abomination of Desolation will happen again.  Revelation has Jerusalem rocked by devastating Earthquakes at least twice, in 11 and 16 in the Seventh Bowl of Wrath.  I think it's unlikely the Antichrist's Temple will survive that.

The Jews seeking to rebuild The Temple may like to say they're going to fulfill Ezekiel 40-48, but their actual plans don't match that.  The Temple institute is expecting to have a Menorah and a Veil and a Wall of Separation and separate courts for Gentiles and Women, and a High Priest.  We Christians know that Ezekiel's lack of mentioning these things isn't taking them for granted, everything lacking in Ezekiel's Temple has New Testament significance.

But Size is the biggest issue, the size of Ezekiel's Temple is larger then the entire modern city of Jerusalem.  And the geography envisioned is dependent on changes to the land that happen in the Seventh Bowl of God's Wrath.  Every theorized location for Ezekiel's Temple has an inhabited city there currently with Jewish and Muslim populations, modern Israel isn't going to permit destroying any of those.

Now that I've addressed that error, let's discus the significance of Ezekiel's Temple being outside the City.

Some might wonder, how does that make sense when the city is called "YHWH is There" in the last verse of Ezekiel?  Well first Ezekiel says The Temple will be open only on Sabbaths, New Moons and the Holy Days.  Only citizens of New Jerusalem, His Bride, get to be with Him 24/7.

I find it interesting how The Ark was constantly separate from The Tabernacle during the time between it leaving Shiloh and the Dedication of Solomon's Temple.  For 60 years The Ark was at Kiriath-Jearim till David brought it to Zion.  The Tabernacle however was at Nob till Ahimelech was killed and then was at Gibeon till The Temple was dedicated.  So from the 8th year of David till the 11th year of Solomon the Ark was in Zion and the Tabernacle further North.

Gibeon can't work in my opinion as equivalent to where Ezekiel's Temple will be since it's not even close to directly north, it's way to the west.  It's merely an interesting type picture.

Where do I think Ezekiel's Temple will be?  My mind has shifted on that.

I first made this post when I favored Shechem or around there, but then I updated it as I leaned towards Shiloh for the longest time (same location Jack Kelly favors).  And I still feel Salem of Melchizedek isn't Jerusalem but rather Shiloh and/or in the Shechem area.

But as I was looking recently at some of the maps of Ezekiel's geography that I consider the most accurate.  The Holy Portion does not seem to go far enough North to include Shiloh.  In fact it occurred to me that Shiloh seems to be in the land allotted to Judah in Ezekiel's allotment.  That struck me as significant since the name of Shiloh is associated with Judah in Genesis 49:10.

I've actually grown skeptical recently of the assumption that Shiloh is a name for The Messiah in that verse.  It's the prior verse Revelation 5 identifies with Jesus.  I see Christians constantly citing Rabbinic opinions that Shiloh is the Messiah, which makes me laugh, they're people who don't think Jesus was The Messiah.  Either way I think it would make sense if in the Messianic Kingdom the capital of Judah is Shiloh.

Anyway as I was observing these maps it started to occur to me Bethel might fit.  I did a google search and others had indeed calculated Bethel about 11 or 12 miles North of Jerusalem would be the center of the Holy Portion.  But these scholars did not see the center as where The Temple is as I do, so they argued for it being the start of a stairway or something leading to The Temple or the City.  The Ladder Jacob saw connected Heaven to Earth, not two Earthly locations.

Genesis 28:16-22 KJV
And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.  And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.  And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.
 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.
No place in Genesis or the whole Torah is more blatantly defined as the House of God, yet we keep over looking it.  I also wonder if the "Gate of Heaven" comment is a clue to the geography of Revelation 19:11 and how it ties in with Zechariah 12-14 and Isaiah 63.  Something I'm still studying.

In Genesis 31:13 God called Himself "The God of Bethel".

In Genesis Jacob returns there to keep his promise, and God makes further promises to Jacob.  And Deborah, Rebecca's nurse, was buried beneath an oak tree.  Later in Judged 4:5 another more famous Deborah lives under a Tree at Bethel.

It was Jacob who named the place Bethel.  Moses however uses the name retroactively twice when discussing Abraham's travels.  Genesis 12:8.
And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.
And he returned there in 13:3, most of the events of that chapter take place there.

BTW, in Hebrew "Called upon the name of YHWH" is the same phrase as the end of Genesis 4.  I keep seeing people say the Hebrew really says at the end of Genesis 4 men "profaned the name of The LORD", but like the claims about what the Hebrews says of Nimrod being a mighty hunter "Before The LORD" that claim doesn't hold up in my attempts to verify it.

It's interesting that this is east of Bethel.  Again the size of Ezekiel's Temple complex is huge.  What if Bethel is the site of the Holy Place, and Abraham's altar equates to the Brazen Altar?  (the Hebrew words for Pillar and Altar refer to distinct things).

If you look at diagrams of Ezekiel's Temple, the Brazen Altar is at the center, with three gates leading to it and the Holy Place to the West.  The East Gate is sealed after The Temple is consecrated (Hai which is a different transliteration of Ai, means ruin or heap).

Judges 20:18-27 says the Ark was kept at Bethel at that time, the KJV obscures this by translating the name "the house of God".   Does this contradict other passages like Joshua 18, Judges 19 and 1 Samuel 1-13 that seem place the Ark and Tabernacle in Shiloh all this time?

Judges 21:19 refers to Shiloh as north of Bethel when saying a yearly Feast of YHWH was kept there.  Genesis 49:10 defines Shiloh as Gathering place of the People.  It could be Bethel was the usual keeping place of The Ark but Shiloh was where the Feasts were held.  Or maybe the two cites just weren't as far from each other as the modern archeological identifications would have us think?

1 Samuel 7:16 refers to Bethel as a place Samuel regularly visited.  In 1 Samuel 10:3, Samuel sends Saul to Bethel to the "Hill of God", where he has a profound Spiritual experience.

I've also been contemplating theories about the Geography of Eden.  I've watched this video from Rob Skiba.  I really don't like the Pyramid stuff and I could do without the Flat Earth stuff.  But he still has interesting speculations.

I'm thinking that Adam was created by the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, maybe around Joppa.  And then maybe The Garden was Bethel, and Abraham's Altar where God made animal skin garments for Adam and Havvah.  And maybe the Oak tree that Deborah was buried under was roughly where the Tree of Life was? (not the actual same tree of course).  Deborah means Word.

Now because of Jeroboam the land of Bethel was tainted by a Golden Calf, and it comes up in Amos and Hosea because of that.  But a Prophet of YHWH foretold Josiah would destroy that Idol and cleanse the area.  And indeed he did.  No such cleansing happened for the site of the equivalent Idol set up at Dan, why is that?  Maybe it has something with do the different destinies for Dan and Bethel.

Friday, January 29, 2016

What did Peter mean by Paul being hard to understand?

2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
This is used by enemies of Eternal Security and of Faith Alone, and by people saying we are still under the Law to say basically that you shouldn't take those most commonly cited Paul passages at face value.

Peter said "some things", he did not say the main point that most of Paul's Epistles are all about.

 Some people will translate 2 Peter 3:17 in a way to make it seem like it uses the word Amonia or Lawless.  But this is a completely different word that I feel the KJV was correct in rendering Wickedness. So no, it doesn't help us determine what he meant by Paul being misunderstood in the prior verses.

My first instinct as a historian was to think of how the earliest Christian Gnostic, Marcion, used Paul as the basis for most of his heresy.  But Marcion lived well after Peter's time.  And think Marcion has been misrepresented by the Church Fathers.

I also think about how Paul is the most misunderstood NT writer when it comes to sexuality.  With people for hyper prudish attitudes quoting Paul the most, and those who don't believe The Bible agrees with itself often saying Paul and Paul alone of NT writers supports Plato's sexual morality.  All of the NT clobber passages are form Paul.  Yet I feel I have shown elsewhere that Paul isn't the prude people think he is.

But..... Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and keep our personal biases out of this.

Acts deals with Paul being accused of saying things he didn't say, but those are accusations of unbeleivers, Peter is alluding to misunderstandings within The Church.

This is from 2nd Peter not 1st Peter.  This is Peter's eschatological epistle, especially chapter 3 which this ends.  He's warning of deceptions in the end days that we need to be prepared for.

I agree with those scholars who say contrary to the titles we've given them that 2nd Peter was actually written well before first Peter.  That best explains why First Peter is more polished in it's use of Greek (something skeptics use to assert they can't have same author).

1 Thessalonians is generally believed to be among Paul's earliest Epistles, so could it be 2nd Peter was written between the Thessalonians Epistles?

Because in II Thessalonians 2 is where Paul himself refers to people misusing what he had to say.  Now I often see it claimed verse 2 refers to a letter forged in Paul's name.  But I disagree, the context here is clearly about a misunderstanding on what he said in I Thessalonians 4.

You see I find Pre-Trib commentaries on II Thessalonians 2 hilarious because that chapter is all about refuting Pre-Trib's imminence doctrine.  I had covered this in the very first post of this blog.  (Disclaimer however, since that first post I've changed my position on Dispensationalism.)  But this is also why I don't agree with attacking Pre-Trib by saying it didn't exist before Darby, because this misunderstanding was one Paula addressed while he lived.

And today many Pre-Tribbers will argue only Paul talks abut the Rapture, they'll misuse his Mystery statement to assert that you won't find it taught in the Olvite Discourses or Revelation or any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible.  And 1 Corinthians 15 is the sole basis for the Secret Rapture doctrine.

So that is most likely the issue Peter had in mind.