Isaiah 7 and 8

I did a post already proving that Virginity is implied in the meaning of Almah. I want to deal now with other aspects of how people will try to discredit this as a Prophecy applicable to the time frame of 5-1 BC.

I do cautiously believe in the doctrine of duel fulfillments.  So no I'm not going to deny that this is in some way applicable to Isaiah's own time in the reign of King Ahaz, when the Northern Kingdom and Aram Damascus were allied against Judah.

I'll even concede that maybe the Prophetess who becomes Pregnant in Isaiah 8 is a lesser near fulfillment of the Almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

One thing I've seen is that some people think this Prophetess is Isaiah's wife.  It's difficult to know for sure, but I've generally more leaned towards the idea that this child in question is Hezekiah and the Prophetess is Abijah also called Abi his mother, and so the Zechariah who is Abi's father is the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8:2.

I think the basis for interpreting her as Isaiah's wife is taking the language of 8:3 as literally saying Isaiah fathered the child.  But I don't think that is the intent here.  It could be Isaiah's personal role in this first fulfillment is played in The Nativity narrative by Simeon and/or Anna in Luke 2.

My hunch is this Prophetess Office was directly inherited from that held by both Deborah and Miriam the Sister of Moses.  Thus backing up aspects of what I argued in the Almah post about the significance of Miriam being called an Almah.  And at the time of the Birth of Christ this Prophetess Office was held by Anna of Luke's Gospel.

Maybe at some point it became standard for this Prophetess to be among the wives of The King.  Like the ceremonial marriage between King and Priestess many pagan cultures had.  The Marriage between Jehoram's daughter Jehosheba and the Priest Jehoiada may have been a similar arrangement, a marriage alliance between the Royal family and the Priesthood.

Isaiah 8:14 is terminology drawn on by Paul (Romans 9:32-33, 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 1:23) as well as 1 Peter 2:8-10.  So quoting this promised Son as being Jesus was not unique to Matthew.

The key objection many might have to applying this prophecy all the way into Isaiah 8 to the time of Jesus birth is what's said in Isaiah 8:4.

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, "My father", and "my mother", the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

I have argued that King Herod died during the 40 days between Jesus Birth and Presentation in The Temple.  After he died rebellions broke out in the lands Herod ruled, which did extend to include parts of Old Testament Aram.  And these were put down by Varus when he was governor of Roman Syria.  I don't think it's that hard to typologically say Rome is in the role of Assyria here.  Especially the Roman Province of Syria which was basically what the Seleucid Empire had declined to.  And the Greek name Syria is directly derived from Assyria.

Josephus talks in-depth about these campaigns.  One battle is clearly placed in the general area of Samaria.

But even if more time separated Jesus Birth from Herod's Death.  It can sometimes take a year or two before a child is able to speak.  Or that verse could refer to more then just being first able to speak.  It could make sense for Christians to see that point in Jesus development as the Passover that Luke 2 records after it's nativity narrative.

However the argument that Isaiah 7:14 needs to be understood in the immediate context of chapters 7-8 can also be countered by pointing out that they exist in the context of the chapters around them with no clear separation, not ending till chapter 12.  Meaning this promised Child is perfectly valid to identify with the Child foretold in Chapter 9 and the Branch of Chapter 11.  The overarching theme is foretelling Israel to be carried away into captivity but also that they will one day be regathered by a Messiah.

And in Genesis God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that weren't fulfilled in their lifetimes.  So no there isn't a guarantee this promise made to Ahaz had to be in his, especially since he himself said he didn't need such a sign.

The Lamb alone is Jesus in Revelation 4:1-22:5

The vision starts in Revelation 4:1 and then in Revelation 22:5 the text returns to the original framing device.

I have come to view in the vision only The Lamb as specifically Jesus and only Jesus.  Everything else that seems at first like a symbol for Jesus does so because it's referencing titles of Jesus from elsewhere that were never actually unique to Jesus, The Son of Man in Daniel 7 is a title of all Human Beings at The Resurrection not just Jesus.

This is especially true of The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19, the language used of him mostly comes from the Promises to The Overcomer from chapter 2-3.  Ruling the Nations with a Rod of Iron connects him to the Man Child of chapter 21 which Isaiah 66 confirms is the reborn nation of Israel. 

The Rider on The White Horse in chapter 19 and perhaps also of chapter 6 is believers on Earth who are "conquering" the world but not in a military sense.  The word translated "Conquering" and "to conquer" in Revelation 6 is actually the word everywhere else translated Overcoming or Overcome.

The Rod of Iron concept comes from Psalm 2 which elsewhere in The New Testament is applied to Jesus but it was never only about Jesus but how every Believer is an Anointed Son of God.  Same is probably true with other Davidic Psalms quoted in The New Testament like 110 and 118, and also Psalm 45.

Heaven being opened can be idiom for Rain as we see in Genesis 7:11, in contrast to Revelation 11 refers to Heaven being Shut Up as an idiom for Draught.

This has become vital to my new Post-Millennial reading of Revelation.

Ezekiel's Temple is actually a Tabernacle

This argument is important to my understanding of how Ezekiel's Prophecies and Revelation relate.  Something I laid out the gist of in my post about New Jerusalem passages being misapplied to The Millennium.

There are two different Hebrew words translated "Temple" in the King James Authorized Version of The Hebrew Bible.  Both are also used of the pre-Solomonic Tabernacles.  "Beth" is used more commonly but it's translated "House" on those occasions. 

Heykal is the Hebrew term that some want to treat as very technically applicable to Solomon's Temple but not any prior Tent based Tabernacles.  And yet 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3 do use that word of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.  In 2 Samuel 7 YHWH says through Nathan that He hadn't dwelt in any House like what David was wanting to build since He brought Israel out of Egypt.  So whatever Heykal technically etymologically means, it must have also been applicable to the Mosaic Tabernacle even if it is was used more rarely then.  It actually never became super common even while Solomon's Temple was standing with words like Beth and Mikadesh (Sanctuary in the KJV) being more common ways to refer to the main place of worship.  Again both of those were also applicable to The Tabernacle.  Psalm 78:60 also confirms that the Tabernacle at Shiloh was still a Tent(Ohel).

Heykal is also used in 2 Samuel 22:7 and Psalm 18:6 which are just different recordings of the same Davidic Psalm.  You could interpret that as referring to The Temple is Heaven but according to Paul in Hebrews it was the Tabernacle of Moses modeled after The Temple in Heaven, not Solomon's Temple.

In The Hebrew Bible no single word seems to be used for what Solomon's Temple was that the Tabernacles of Moses and David were not.  2 Samuel 7 helps define that for us but makes no single word an easy signifier for it.  However there is a word that is the opposite, that applies to The Tabernacles but not Solomon, Zerubbabel or Herod's Temples.

There are three Hebrew words that get translated Tabernacle.  Sukkot isn't a synonym for the Holy Place at all but refers to the Tabernacles of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Mishkan is most literally translated Habitation and is also applicable to Solomon's Temple even if The Hebrew does so rarely.  However Ohel is the literal word for Tent.  1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5 and what follows them basically describe the retiring of the Ohel as The Ark is removed from it and and then placed in Solomon's non Ohel Temple.  

Ezekiel 40:1 clearly defined the Heykal this very long Prophecy is about as an Ohel, a term consistently not applicable to Solomon's Temple.  If we take that detail as literally as most Futurists (and some Preterists) do everything else in these chapters, then we shouldn't be picturing Walls made of Stone or Wood but a Tent.  I don't think you can find anything in these chapters to contradict that.

Other Prophecies that use Ohel of the Place of Worship in the Eschatological Messianic Kingdom include Isaiah 16:6 and 33:20.  The former specifically says the Tabernacle of David which was set up in Zion the City of David which is in Ephratah not Jerusalem according to Psalm 132.  Amos 9:11 also refers to the Tabernacle of David but using Sukkot oddly, James in Acts 15 quotes that verse with Luke using the Greek equivalent of Ohel.  The Greek Equivalent for Ohel is also used when Revelation 21 calls New Jerusalem The Tabernacle of God.

More then one Greek word is translated Temple just like in the Hebrew, one is based on a word for Holy, one is also a word for House.  Naos, is the word that many may wish to treat as equivalent to Heykal, but I have some issues with that.  And I don't care how the Septuagint used Naos because I inherently distrust the Septuagint.

Stephen in Acts 7:48 and Paul in Acts 17:24 says God doesn't dwell in Naos made of human hands.  Literally that would exclude a Tent as much as a building made of Stone or Wood, and ultimately I believe it does, but Stephen's context in Acts 7:44-50 is tying that idea to his distinguishing Solomon's Naos from the Tabernacles of Moses and David.

What Naos meant in it's Pagan Greek context was also rather technical and precise in a way that I feel makes it not very applicable to how Heykal was used, at least not always.  The Naos referred specifically to a building that housed the Idol or representation of the god being worshiped and not the outdoor courtyards where sacrifices were made.  It's known usage in Egypt was the same, and as a Weeb I'd also equate it to the Honden of a Shinto Shrine.  Meaning if we translate that to how Herod's Temple worked it referred to the building that contained the Holy Place and Holy of Holies but not the outdoor area where The Brazen Altar was. 

Perhaps if any Hebrew term is equivalent to Naos it's Dbiyr a word used only of the Inner Sanctuary of Solomon's Temple (the KJV translates it Oracle but not every Oracle in the KJV is this word)  in 1 Kings 6:5-31, 7:49, 8:6-8 and 2 Chronicles 3:16, 4:20, 5:7-9 but was never part of The Torah's description of The Tabernacle.

So when Revelation 21:22 says New Jerusalem has no Naos for the Lamb is The Temple like He is The Light, it is chiefly a Temple like Solomon's or Herod I feel is meant.  A literal Tent based place of worship is perhaps equally as unnecessary, but not as definitely said to not be present.  And whether literal Tents are physically involved or not the text of Revelation 21 enthusiastically associates that Greek word with this future Worship.

The significance of the Naos being gone would then be the same as the significance of the Veil being torn.

New Jerusalem prophecies that are mistaken for the Millennium by many Premillenials.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

The word Kingdom is not used in any of the last three Chapters of Revelation.  The Kingdom of Heaven has always existed, Christ ruling from the Throne of David is always about New Jerusalem not the Millennium.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I maybe see it in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other possible TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate Marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as redefined in Genesis 3:16 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2:23-24.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  So to me this was Jesus way of saying Yes some people will be living Polyandrously and that's not a problem.

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated and I felt that way even when I was still Pre-Mill liking to compare it to Marx's conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem. The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  

The involvement of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 is under Christian Theology a problem for seeing it being literally fulfilled as described in a still yet future time period at all.  The Epistle to The Hebrews is clear that Jesus Himself was the last legitimate Sacrifice period, no room for a temporary return.  Meanwhile Ezekiel 40-48 even specifically refers to Sin offerings and Trespass Offerings.  

But I'm amused when I see people use the Sacrifices here agaisnt it being the New Creation and for it being the Millennium while at the same time thinking Isaiah 65-66 is the Millennium when that prophecy explicitly says there will be no Sacrifices. Revelation 20 doesn't refer to Sacrifices one way or the other any more then 21-22 does.

And yet the nature of this passage by my own Impressionist standards does not permit it all being symbolic, it's simply too detailed, and Ezekiel is really not as poetic in style as Isaiah.  

Which is why the view that it was a Constitution that Israel was meant to implement at the return from the Babylonian Captivity but rejected is the most sensible one to me as regards to it's original intent.  I recommend this article on that subject.

https://www.equip.org/articles/making-sense-ezekiels-temple-vision/

However to the extent that Ezekiel is used as source material by The Revelation it is clearly chapters 21 and 22 that are drawing on this section, not chapter 20 which is instead connecting itself to Ezekiel 38 and perhaps also 37.

I already mentioned some Revelation 21 imagery that comes from Ezekiel, New Jerusalem like YHWH-Shammah has Twelve Gates for the Twelve Tribes.

The size is seemingly different, yet the shape is the same (usually interpreted as squared but I view it as a circle or dome), meaning the size difference could be a mater of perception.  Remember John and Ezekiel were trying to express their 3 dimensional senses' experience of a condition when we will no longer be limited to only 3 dimensions.

Revelation 21 says there is no Temple and yet also calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God, every Hebrew word for "Temple" used in Ezekiel 40-48 is also used of the Pre-Solomon Tabernacle elsewhere, and Ezekiel 41:1 uses the word "Ohel" which literally refers to a Tent more then Mishkan does.  The fact is chapter 20 doesn't mention an earthly Temple or Tabernacle at all, that subject is only relevant to New Jerusalem.  And back in chapter 3 the message to Philadelphia established New Jerusalem and God's Temple as synonymous concepts.

Ezekiel 44:25 and 31 are the two verses that seem to refer to death.  Only 25 uses the Hebrew word Adam making it seemingly a clear reference to human death, verse 31 seems to be implying pure Vegetarianism is the new dietary law but that seems incompatible with having Sin offerings and Trespass offerings which were supposed to be eaten.  Verse 25 is simply echoing back to the Torah's own laws about unclean things not being allowed in The Tabernacle, and in that context does have parallels in Revelation 21-22.  Actually both verses are drawing on commands from the Torah.

These verses are about things that aren't happening, the priests aren't polluting themselves by touching dead bodies or eating dead things.  They are being brought up this way not so much because it's still theoretically possible but because it's being stressed that this is a true realization of The Torah.

I have considered in the past that these offerings are just the Blood of Jesus, ceremonial reenactments that won't actually kill anything.

There is also the sense in which maybe this part of Ezekiel isn't even claiming to be a Prophecy, maybe it's another vision of the Heavenly realm he's being shown, that this Temple is the same Heavenly Temple mentioned at the beginning and end of Revelation 11.  Hebrews also talks about how The Tabernacle was based on a Heavenly original.  These ideas are sometimes abused by those who want to make the Platonic Theory of Forms Biblical.  1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 foretell how the Heavenly/Spiritual will be united with the Bodily/Carnal, and that is fully fulfilled when New Jerusalem descends in Revelation 21.

So there are layers to how we could apply this.  

Some historians now think The Golden Gate on Jerusalem's eastern wall was first sealed off during the Byzantine period (as opposed to the more popular mythology that Muslims did it), which suggests the possibility that they saw Ezekiel 46 as already fulfilled.

The Seven Churches are the historical context of Revelation.

If you are going to downgrade the scale of what the book is describing to being not the entire world or even the entire Roman Empire but primarily one Province of that Empire, it has to be Asia.

But 70 AD Preterists are actually a lot like Pre-Trib Dispensationalists in that they can't accept Revelation as being geographically about anywhere other then exactly where the Old Testament is about.  And so in a Preterist Facebook Group I saw someone talking about how "Symbolic" Revelation is and that includes the identities of the Seven Churches.  That is completely backwards.

The Structure of Revelation is that the Symbolic Vision starts in Revelation 4:1 and ends about 22:5.  The more direct messages to the Seven Churches do use symbolic language sometimes but that's different, a lot of it is making references to Old Testament stories as analogues to current scenarios the same way one might reference a movie today.  Those references in chapter 2 and 3 do help contextualize how similar references will be used later.  

It is the things that seem like geographical references to the Old Testament Holy Land that are meant to be filtered thorough New Testament Doctrines. 

Every reference to The Temple or Tabernacle is meant to be understood in the context of Stephen, Paul and Peter's teachings about all Believers being The Temple of God.

The name of Jerusalem is used in Revelation only in reference to New Jerusalem which is clearly Paul's "Jerusalem of Above which is the mother of us all" from Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22, likewise the Sion of Revelation 14 is the Heavenly Sion of that same passage.  (As someone who holds the view that the NT authors were also a little Stoic I suspect Stoic Cosmopolitanism is also an influence on how Paul and Revelation talk about Jerusalem and Zion and the Beloved City of Revelation 20:9 and Romans 9:25.  But that's secondary to the Scriptural Points.)

Babylon in the Hebrew Bible is the mother city of the great Pagan Gentile Empires, so it's symbolic usage is likewise of the New Testament era's great Pagan Gentile Empire.

I don't claim to know exactly how to decode everything yet, but all of that needs to be the starting premise. 

There is no logic to using cities in Asia as symbols for cities of Judea.  If some stuff can't be interpreted in any other way then as references to a region outside of the Roman Province of Asia, then it proves that the scope of what the Book is foretelling isn't merely local.

Revelation is Paulian

Both people who want to reject Paul as a false Apostle and those who want to remove Revelation from the Canon base a lot of their arguments on a perceived inherent conflict between the two, almost no one is trying to throw out both, rejecting one tends to be tied to an attachment to the other.

This perception has a lot to do with misunderstanding both of them.  Revelation has in my opinion the least to say directly about Soteriology or Justification of any New Testament book, you're supposed to have already gotten the message on that if you've even made it this far.  But if we define what it means to Overcome the same way 1 John 5:5 does, then Revelation can easily be understood as agreeing with Paul's emphasis on Faith.  And Paul does still anticipate a Judgment based on works in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

The crux of the debate is the issue of eating food sacrificed to Idols, which Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 8 and is relevant to Revelation 2 in the messages to Pergamos and Thyatira.  The argument being that Paul's position on this issue is what Revelation is calling the Doctrine of Balaam and teaching of Jezebel.

Paul is actually taking a sort of middle ground on this issue, he's arguing that when buying food at the market Christians need not concern themselves with if it was or not, because we don't believe in it actually doing anything magical to the food.  But he is still clear to not do it publicly in a public ritual to appease the world.  In Revelation this issue first comes up talking to the church in Pergamos a center of the Imperial Cult, such Public engagements with Idolatry being demanded of Christians to prove their Loyalty to the Emperor is the context.  

People will then cite Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy that "all of Asia" had left him to insist none of the Churches in Revelation deemed good can be Paulian.  Paul was using hyperbole, clearly there was a Remnant in Ephesus in the community Timothy himself is a leader of.  So the False Apostles the Church of Ephesus is praised for rejecting could be the very Ravenous Wolves Paul warned them about in Acts 20.  

Also the limits of what Asia meant were a bit amorphous and flexible, all Seven Churches of Revelation were in the Roman Province of Asia, but Acts 16:6 in context is arguably using Asia in a more limited sense where Ephesus might be the only city of Revelation 2-3 to qualify.

I've also seen the accusation that Revelation is contradicting Paul on Jesus being the only Mediator by having this Angel guide John through much of this vision.  Jesus speaks to John directly at the beginning and end of Revelation, but more importantly to say this Angel's role contradicts Paul in Galatians 3:19-20, Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24 and 1 Timothy 2:5 is to miss the point of what Paul means by Mediator in those passages, Paul is talking about Salvation and Atonement and who we Pray to, it's not a contradiction that Angels will still sometimes be used as messengers, messengers are literally exactly what Angels are, so Paul's acknowledging they still function at all proves they can still be used for exactly what Revelation depicts.

But I want to go further and argue that Revelation is not just compatible with Paul but dependent on Paulian innovations, that it may well be the most Paulian NT book that no one thinks Paul wrote.

It is largely Paul who built the doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, it has some roots before in Stephen's Acts 7 Sermon, but it's Paul who fully develops it.  And it's a doctrine vital to understanding Revelation, being explicitly in both the message to Philadelphia and chapter 21, but I would argue every reference to The Temple and/or Tabernacle in the book needs to be interpreted through the lens of this doctrine, (same with chapter 14's heavenly Zion which also comes from Paul).  And it does so using specific language from Paul like The Apostles being Foundations in Ephesians 2:20., and Revelation's Pillar imagery could have it roots in things Paul said in Galatians 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

There is also a particular form of the Greek word for Beloved that appears only three times in two verses, twice in Romans 9:25 and then in Revelation 20:9.

The concept of being Sealed with The Holy Spirit is another of Paul's ideas Revelation brings up, also the way chapter 14 uses the term Firstfurits I think is tied to how Paul used that term.  And Paul's idea of representing the Word of God as a Sword in Ephesian 6 also seems influential on at least some of the Sword imagery in Revelation.

There is also my old theory that the Fifth Trumpet account in Revelation 9 explains the Removal of Restraint referred to II Thessalonians 2.  But I may be rethinking that now that I'm not a Futurist anymore.

Luke, the most Paulian Gospel, may well be the most relevant of the Four Gospels to understanding Revelation.  Luke 21:24 specifically is I think being quoted by at least two verses in Revelation, 11:2 and 13:10 though the latter may also have in mind Matthew 26:52.  The end of the message to Laodicea in Revelation 3:20 is possibly drawing on Luke 12:36.  Luke 11:22 uses a specific form of the word Nikao (Overcome) that elsewhere appears only in Revelation 6:2 (To Conquer).  Luke is also the only other NT Text to use the word translated "Lake" in Revelation, Limne.

I added a section on one particular Anti-Revelation Hyper Paulian to my Thyatira post.  I have also written an Amazon Review of that Author's book.

I have increasingly come to hold the view that the John of Revelation is John Mark not the Son of Zebedee.  While Mark is first introduced as an associate of Peter he becomes close to Paul and Barnabas for a time in Acts 13-15 and Mark is mentioned by Paul in a few of his later Epistles.  In fact 2 Timothy 4:11 implies he was in Ephesus with Timothy for a time.

And historically the contexts of the Seven Churches supports them being Paulian Communities.  Only three are mentioned by explicitly those names elsewhere in the New Testament but all of them imply Paulian contexts. 

Ephesus is tied to Paul all over Acts 18-20 and receives a Paulina Epistle and appears to be where Paul was when he wrote 1st Corinthians, meanwhile Timothy was in Ephesus when Paul wrote his Epistles to him.  Thyatira explicitly comes up in the person of Lydia converted by Paul in Philippi.  And the Laodiceans are mentioned in Colossians.  

Later traditions sought to make Polycarp of Smyrna a student of John but his own Epistle makes no such claim and rarely quotes books attributed to John, it's content is mostly Paulian.  What I said above makes it possible John Mark was the John the Elder who Polycarp and Papias knew.  Another figure tradition credits with starting the church in Smyrna was said to be Timothy's brother, Strataes.  Sometimes the Apelles of Romans 16:10 is identified as the first Bishop of Athens.

It is now my theory that when Polycarp and others are called "Hearers of John" the John of Revelation is who that designation originally referred to via being in one of the Seven Churches when it was first published.  And as I said already that the John of Revelation was John Mark.

Heraclius as The Beast out of The Sea

I've already laid some ground work for this in a few prior posts that were mostly meant to potentially support more then one model but end on a connection to Heraclius (The Seven Kings, Pergamon, Roma, The Image being a Son).  Here I shall break things down more firmly.

I am of a few different minds about the issue of the Four horseman, I often learns towards a very Historicist understanding of them with all of Revelation 6 corresponding to the beginnings of sorrows of Matthew 24 and thus referring to conditions that start before 70 AD but apply still even today.  I will be considering in the future the arguments against viewing the Horsemen as villains.  But for this post I shall focus on arguing they can refer to the Sassanian Conquests of the early 7th Century.

The rider on The White Horse, the Conqueror, would be The Persian Shah Khosrow II.

The Red Horseman would be his general Shahin Vahmanzedegan who penetrated all the way to just outside Constantinople in 614 AD.

The rider on the Black Horse would be Shahralanoyzan the Persian military Governor of Egypt which position gave him a lot of Economic Power with Egypt having been a main source of the Roman Empire's Bread.

Death and Hades of course can't be identified with human figures.

There are strong arguments others have already made for The Two Witnesses being Jewish leaders (probably not Christians), paralleling Zerubbabel and Jeshua in Zechariah.  In this context they would be Nehemiah Ben Hushiel and Benjamin of Tiberias.

In Revelation 13 the Beast is described as like a Leopard, it is identified with the Third Beast of Daniel 7 more directly then any other.  The Reign of Heraclius is considered by many historians the key turning point in the Eastern Roman Empire becoming more Greek then Roman.

I think Hosea 13:7-8 is also a factor in understanding how Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 relate. The feet of the Bear are associated with violence and thus military force, I think they represent the Persian Generals who eventually defected to Heraclius, Shahrbaraz and Kardarigan.

We know from Daniel 7 the Mouth of a Lion must represent some connection to Mesopotamia.  But in 2 Timothy 2:17 the mouth of the lion is associated with Martyrdom.  There was a city called Martyropolis that was important to Byzantine Mesopotamia.

As far as the mortal wound goes, Heraclius was in some sources literally wounded at the battle of Nineveh in 627.  But symbolically I think it mainly refers to how the loses the Empire suffered in 610-614 seemed like something it would not be able to recover from, until it did under Heraclius's campaigns of the 620s.

622 was the beginning of Heraclius's counter offensive "who is able to make war with him", and I think the 42 months he Made War specially begin with his invasion in June of 524 and ends with the major victory at Nineveh ins December of 627.  

The Beast out of Earth aka The False Prophet would be Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, the highest ranking religious leader in the empire who also held pollical and military authority at times.

My Roma post ends with how The Beast destroying Babylon fits Babylon as Rome.  But if you view Babylon as Jerusalem then in the Spring of 630 AD Heraclius did betray and massacre the Jews of Jerusalem (and possibly Miaphysite Christians as well).  And if you want Babylon to still be an east of the Euphrates center of Paganism then that fits Takht-e Soleymān in 624 or Dastgerd in 627. 

One could also see the Woman of Revelation 17 as representing the Oriental Orthodox Church which wielded power in Persia at this time partly through the influence of Gabriel of Sinjar and Queen Shirin.

The Fast of Heraclius is a Coptic Tradition that comes from Heraclius supposedly desiring to repent of the massacre of the Jews in 630 so that could fit my Baptism of The Beast premise. 

Antioch and The Treasures of The Temple.

1 Maccabees 1:21-24 says Antiochus Epiphanes took from The Temple the Menorah, Altar of Incense, Table of Showbread and many other gold and silver vessels.  And in verse 23 "also he took the hidden treasures which he found".  None of this was ever returned or retrieved, Judas Maccabeus had new sacred vessels made in 1 Maccabees 4:47-49.

Some theorize that a little before the First Temple was destroyed The Ark was hidden in a secret hiding place?

Hidden Treasures is in plural, the Rod of Aaron, Jar of Manna and Torah Scroll were placed in the Ark by Moses but seemingly not there anymore when Solomon placed it in his Temple.  Perhaps Solomon removed them to place them in a hidden chamber? That maybe would later wind up also hiding The Ark itself?

Antiochus most likely took them to Antioch, perhaps kept them in the royal palace on the island, or maybe put them somewhere in the Fourth Quarter which was his expansion of the city.  The royal palace was later built over by a Church Constantine built, which itself was destroyed by several earthquakes and wars over the city's history.

Some Islamic Prophecies foretell that The Mahdi will discover the Ark of The Covenant and other Biblical treasures buried at Antioch.  Back when I first read about that researching for my thought on the Mahdi concept I had no idea what theoretically could have brought them there because I had overlooked this detail of I Maccabees.

"The reason he is called the Mahdi (a.s.) is that he guides the way to a hidden thing. He will bring forth the  Ark of the Covenant  from a place known as Antioch."  (Jalal-uddine AsSuyuti's  Al-Urf Al-Wardi fi Akhbar Al-Mahdi, a part of Al-Hawi li Al-Fatawa)

"He is called the Mahdi (a.s.) because he is the key to something nobody knows. He will bring forth the Ark of the Covenant from the Cave of Antioch." (Nuaim bin Hammad's book Kitab Al-Fitan) and (Ibn Hajar Haithami Al-Makki's book Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar)

Tamin Ad-Dari said " I said, 'O Messenger of Allah  صلى الله عليه وسلم , I have never seen a Roman city like the city of Antioch ( in Turkey, but historically, is part of Syria) and I have never seen more rain than it has.' Whereupon the Messenger of Allah,  صلى الله عليه وسلم , said: 'Yes, that is because the Torah, Rod of Moses, Tablets (of the Ten Commandments), and the Table of Solomon, the son of David, (made of gold and ornamented with precious jewels, emeralds, pearls and rubies) are in its caves. There is not a single cloud that comes from any direction to it that does not pour its blessing in that valley. And the days and night will not pass until a man from my musked children live in it. His name is like my name and his father's name is like my father's name; his manners are like my manners. He will fill the world with fairness and justice just as it had been filled by harm and transgressions'." (Ibn Hibban's book Ad-Dua'fa and Shaykh Abdullah bin Sadek, Grand Muhaddith of Morocco, 's book Al-Mahdi, Jesus and Dajjal)

Ka'b said: "The Mahdi ... excavates Tabout Al-Sakina (Ark of Covenant) from a cave in Antioch (in it, will be the Torah that Allah (t) revealed to Moses and the Gospel that Allah (t) revealed to Jesus..." (Nuaim bin Hammad's Kitab Al-Fitan)

Now I'm not one of those Islamic Antichrist theorists saying we should actually believe these Islamic Prophecies will come true.  Instead these Hadiths may have just recorded some Prophecies given after the fact.  Perhaps referring to discoveries made by Caliph Umar who first captured Antioch for the Arab Empire, or later by Al-Mahdi (775-785).  Or maybe they just come from Ancients who knew things now forgotten related to what I've theorized above.  Maybe they come from local beliefs the Christians of Antioch had in antiquity before Islam even emerged.

I think the Rod of Moses in this Hadiths may actually refer to the Rod of Aaron.  And remember The Ark also had an early Torah Scroll in it

Being in a Cave perhaps fits the Fourth Quarter, which from the map I looked at seems to include some hills and mountains which could possibly have caves.

While I do think it's possible the Ark was among what Antiochus Epiphanes took, just the fact that he definitely did take the Menorah, Altar and Table of Showbread built by Solomon (the Mosaic ones were never in The Temple) is itself really significant.  I suspect that what one of those Hadiths refereed to as the Table of Solomon was really originally Solomon's Table of Showbread.

Antioch is where Believers were first called Christians in Acts, treasures of Solomon's Temple being there during the New Testament era when the city became a major Capital of the True Temple of God is very interesting.

If an early text of one of The Gospels wound up with these treasures, my first hunch is it's Mark's.  Acts 13 implies John Mark was also in Antioch when Paul and Barnabas left on their first journey from there, Chuck Missler argued Mark's Gospel was already written by that time based on what the Greek text calls Mark.  And we know Peter spent time in Antioch as well from Galatians, Mark's Gospel was according to tradition him writing down what Peter had preached.  Still the association of the Nazarenes with this region makes it not impossible a copy of Hebrew Matthew wound up in Antioch, and Hebrew Matthew being what early Muslim sources meant by the original Injil fits some theories I've had about the origins of Islam.  However I can't entirely rule out any of them.

Another note, the person Muslim Tradition remembers as Habib'i Neccar/Habib Al-Najjar is probably Simeon called Niger of Acts 13 in my opinion.

A Muslim scholar named Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (994-1064) claimed that Mark wrote "His Gospel in Greek at Antioch".  Ephrem the Syrian seems to have claimed John's Gospel was written at Antioch in his commentary on the Diatessaron, but remember Mark was also named John so there could be confusion there.

However if a text was found there that Muslims felt was the original Ingil that might actually be an Ebionite version of Matthew, since the Ebionite view of Jesus is very similar to the Islamic view.

Daniel 11:36-45 is about Augustus

How most of Daniel 11 is about the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC is well known, lots of commentaries on that exist. 

Many of those commentaries don't think the Hasmonean Revolt itself is referred to however, but I think in verse 32 "the people that know their God shall be strong and do exploits" is referring to the Maccabees.  It seems "do exploits" can alternatively be translated "take action".  Then 33-35 sums up further Hasmonean history including them falling to the Romans beginning under Pompey in 63 BC the same year Augustus was born but completed with Anthony's conquest of Antigonus Matthias in 37 BC.

Augustus never admitted to being a King but we see in John 19:15 that the Israelites in Judea didn't care about those semantics.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.

First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age.  So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous.  What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era.  In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context, since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII.  These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this.  People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here.  Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra.  You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?"  The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses.  But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt.  Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands.  Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia.  And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule.  I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria, but in fact plenty happened in-between.  You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power.  A number of local governments were overthrown at this time.  However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan.  What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states.  The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces.  It was treated as his personal possession.  Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province.  Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands.  And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them.  It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome.  But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.

Daniel 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms.  The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia.  Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia.  But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so.  So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians.  But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. the Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then.  Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels.  Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one.  So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple.  It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him.  Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion.  And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.

Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria.  After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies.  Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea.  Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi.  And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip.   So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means.  Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would.  But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples.  He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharaonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on.  The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god.  More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.

Saying Augustus didn't honor the god(s) of his father or desire of women may seem odd, but I think those have nuances abstract applications.  A lot did change about Roman Religion during his time.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god.  Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks.  To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" means foreign.  Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo.  But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus.  In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo.  Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday.  Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him.  Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil.  So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel.  Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes.  The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation.  Well how Daniel 12 can refer to the Time of Christ is something I'm working on will hopefully be able to make a post on before the end of the year.

Asher and Phoenicia

The first mention of Tyre in The Bible is in Joshua 19:29 as a City in the Allotment of Asher.

There is a lot of overlap between what the Greeks and later Romans called Phoenicia and what was allotted to the Tribe of Asher in the days of Joshua.  Zidon/Sidon itself is listed in Joshua 19:28.  Dor was basically the southernmost city of what they called Phoenicia and Joshua 17:11 lists it as a City originally meant for Asher but that Manasseh wound up taking.  And Aphek/Aphik of Joshua 19:30  is Apheca up in the Jibel district of Lebanon east of Byblos and west of Baalbek.

I also have a hunch the name of the nearby Jezzine District of Lebanon comes from the Jesuite clan of Asher from Number 26:44.  Of course a few verses later there are a couple clans of Naphtali with arguably more similar names but I feel Jezzine is to far west to be Naphtali.

Of course many of these are cities the Canaanites weren’t chased out of, as we’re told of Dor in Judges 1:27 and five proper Asher allotted cities in Judges 1:31, and the five in that verse weren’t even made tributaries like the others, they were fully independent.  That verse lists Zidon, Acco/Acho (the city known today as Akka and to the Crusaders as Acre but in Acts was Potlemias), and Aphek.  The Asherites are also described different then the tribes preceding them in Judges 21, they dwell among the Canaanites rather then the Canaanites dwelling among them.

But Judges 1:31 doesn’t mention Tyre, and that gets me to wondering, was Tyre an Asherite city for more of its ancient history than we usually think?

Hiram was the King of Tyre contemporary with David and at least the early reign of Solomon.  1 Chronicles 22:4 and 1 Kings 5:6 refers to Hiram and his kingdom as distinct from the Zidonians, not from Sidon as a city but from the Sidonians as a tribe.  It seems weird that he is merely allied with the House of David and not part of their Kingdom if he’s an Israelite, but maybe being surrounded by so many Canaanite cities cut them off.

Isaiah 23 refers to Tyre as the Daughter of Sidon, meaning the population of Tyre had become Sidonian by then.  And other Prophets like Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah constantly pair Tyre and Zidon together as practically twin cities, but all these are much later, so when did the change happen?

Ethbaal/Ithobaal the father of Jezebel you may have seen referred to as a King of Tyre, but The Bible in 1 Kings 16:31 calls him king of the Sidonians and never mentioned Tyre in its Ahab & Jezebel narrative at all.  The source for him being a King of Tyre is chiefly the Phoenician Historian Meander as quoted by Josephus in Against Apion.  These sources also tell us he did not descend from Tyre’s prior Kings but founded a new Dynasty, he was a Priest of Astarte who killed the previous king Phelles implying this was a Coup d'etat perhaps religiously motivated.  

But that also wasn’t the first time this happened, Phelles’s own dynasty gained power the same way decades earlier.  According to Meander Hiram/Hirom was succeeded by a Son then a Grandson but then his Dynasty ended.  Meander’s names for the Father, Son and Grandson of Hirom seem to imply Tyre was already worshiping Baal and Astarte even then, but those names could have been altered by the later Baalist record keepers.

When you study the Etymology of the name Phoenicia and why the Greeks gave that name to this region, you'll discover it's tied to a Greek word for Purple and to Phoenicia being a source of Dates and a rare Purple Dye, and that this is also tied to how Purple became a color associated with Royalty, this Purple is even specifically associated with Tyre being called Tyrian Purple.  

So Jacob's blessing for Asher in Genesis 49:20 is arguably fulfilled by Asher being Phoenicia, the Royal Dainties are the Dates and Tyrian Purple Dye.  Moses' blessing from Deuteronomy 33:24 can fit as well.

The Phoenicians had a major influence on the early prehistory of Ancient Greece.  The Greek Alphabet is basically an adaptation of the Phoenician Alphabet, Aphrodite was basically just Astarte coming to Greece via Phoenician colonies on Cyprus.  

Later in the Hellenistic era Zeno of Citium and Chrysippus of Cios were Hellenized Phoenicians who were core to founding the Stoic School of Philosophy which would be the dominant Theistic school of Greek Philosophy during the era of The New Testament.

I don’t believe in British Israelism so I don’t see this as evidence that the Ancient Greeks as a whole or even specially the Aeolians literally primarily genealogically descended from Asher or Dan.  But the cultural influence is interesting, and perhaps adds some poetic symmetry to how, if my theories are correct, the modern Descendants of Asher follow liturgically Greek Rites of Christianity probably due to be Hellenized Jews before converting to Christianity.

As I discussed in my last Lost Tribes post, DNA research seems to show that the Christians of Lebanon are kin to The Jews.  My focus in that post was on arguing for the Maronites being Dan.  But I also think the Christians in the Tyre, Sidon, Jezzine and Nabatieh Districts of Lebanon, as well as the Haifa and Akko districts of Israel mostly descend from Asherites who converted to Christianity at some point in the first four centuries AD.  Those that follow Greek Rites from Asherites who were Hellenized by the First Century, and the Syriacs those who were not Hellenized.  The Melkite Greek Catholics are the largest Christian group in these districts followed by the Greek Orthodox as a somewhat close second.

Acts 11:19 tells us that one of the regions the Hellenized Jewish Christians we met in chapters 6-7 were scattered to during the persecution following the Martyrdom of Stephen was Phenice in the KJV which is a well known shortened form of Phoenicia, these Christians in Phenice are mentioned again in Acts 15:3, 21:3-7 and 27:3-12 where in this time Acco was called Ptolemais.

The Christians in this region are even the majority population in the villages of Mi'ilya and Fassuta,

I believe the Israeli Christians native to what was Galilee in New Testament times also descend chiefly from 1st Century Jews, but they would be of the Tribes of Zebulun and Issachar.

Dan in Lebanon

I had in the past been attracted to identifying the Dan of Judges 18 and Jeroboam's Idol with Baalbek, but I have changed my mind on that.

While Baalbek was a site with Temples going way back into the Bronze Age, the most impressive structures there now are Roman ones, chiefly The Temple to Jupiter built by Hadrian.  It seems like originally the far more important cult center was to the West, in the eastern part of the Byblos District of Modern Lebanon.

A site in that region called Afqa/Afka/Apheca/Afeka is one of the sites proposed to be the Aphik/Aphek allotted to Asher in Joshua 19:30 and Judges 1:31.  Marvin H. Pope of Yale University proposed that somewhere in this area was the ancient home of El referred to in the Ugarit texts.  In Greek Mythology this same region is the setting of the story of Adonis/Adonais who's name comes from the Biblical Hebrew Adoni/Adonai which is not otherwise known to have been used by Canaanites who preferred Baal as their word for calling a god Lord.  So I really do think this is evidence this cult was a Paganized worship of of the God of Abraham.

Both those references to Asher's Aphik mentioned a Rehob nearby.  If this is the same Rehob that is identified with the "Entering in of Hamath" in Numbers 13:21 as well as the Bethrehob of Laish in Judges 18, then that is the city of Northern Dan.  Judges 1:31 lists these cites as among those Asher didn't drive the Canaanites out of, so that's consistent with them still being Canaanite when Dan arrives later.  

My current theory reads that verse as making them the northern most of those cities and Accho/Acco the Sothern Most.  Accho is the city called Ptolemais in Greco-Roman times and thus in The New Testament, Acre by the Crusaders and is now known as Akka in modern Israel.  It would be the only of the Judges 1:31 cities that is today in Israel rather then Lebanon.  And Asher unlike the tribes in the surrounding verses didn't even make these Canaanite cities Tributaries, they remained fully independent.  

So Rehob/Laish/Dan is probably Yanouh (the nearby temples at Qaalat Faqra and Yammoune are also interesting).

For Naphtali the main cities they didn't drive the Canaanites out of, but that they did make Tributaries, were Beth-Anath and Bethshemesh according to Judges 1:33.  These Tributaries I think were still practicing their Native Baal Worship however.  Two of the sites proposed for Beth-Anath are in South Eastern Lebanon close to the proper Naphtalite territory, Aynata and Safad El Battikh.

More then one city is called Beth-Shemesh in the Hebrew Bible since naturally there were many Houses of Sun Worship.  The one west of Jerusalem was no longer in use by Hellenistic times.  The Bethshemesh in the Land of Egypt mentioned in Jeremiah 43:13 we know was called Heliopolis by the Greeks.  Baalbek was also called Heliopolis by the Greeks.  Baalbek and Afqa are close to being on the same Latitude, along with the port city of Byblos.  

In 1 Kings 5:18 what the KJV weirdly translated "Stonequarers" is actually Gibilites or people of Gebel/Byblos.  Since a Maternal Danite was the architect of The Temple I consider this evidence Gebel was by this time Dan's port city (but was still Canaanite during the Amarna period).

The Byblos District is among the regions of Lebanon where today the majority of the population is Maronite.  I have a theory that the Maronites are the modern descendants of the Danites.  They are significantly the Majority of Christians in Lebanon, and DNA studies have shown the Lebanese Christians to be among the groups even closer related to The Jews then the Arabs are.  Since the people classified as Arabs includes the Ishmaelites, Keturites, Edomites and probably now also descendants of Moab and Ammon, that would have to make The Maronites fellow descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  The Maronites are an Eastern Rite Catholic Church meaning like many Ancient Danites they practice Idolatry.

The Adonis connection also means this region's version of Astarte might be the version who became Aphrodite after entering Greece through the Southern Peloponnese.  The same region of Greece said to have been colonized by Danoi/Danaans, but I doubt they left much a permanent genetic impact there being not it's first residents and then later conquered by the Dorians.

There are other Maronite populations in Lebanon further south closer to Sidon and the border with Israel.  For those who view the Leshem taken over by Danites in Joshua 19:47 as separate from Laish and closer to Sidon it could be around here.  There used to be a Maronite population in the Golan Heights as well, meaning identifying traditional Tel-Dan with Dan isn't entirely wrong.

Before 1948 there were two Maronite Towns in Modern Israel proper, both way up north just south of the border with Lebanon. Kafr Bir'im and Jish.  Mainstream Historians believe this area became Maronite after some Maronites migrated south during the Ottoman period and that these cities were Muslim for about a Millennium, but in my view no solid evidence they were ever Muslim exists.  

Kafr Bir'im is north of a Mountain in Israel called Mount Meron, I think that is where the name Maronite actually came from and thus they were always connected to that mountain somehow.  Other theories on the origin of the name I think are folk etymology.

In Jish a Maronite Church was built over an ancient Synagogue, which suggests the Maronites of Jish do in fact descend from people who were practicing Judaism before they converted to Christianity.

In the first century AD I suspect these Danites who later became Maronites close to the modern Israel-Lebanon Border were not very Idolatrous and practicing Judaism proper, while the ones up in the Byblos region had long fully descended into Idolatry and may have virtually forgotten their Biblical Heritage.  But both would have been using the Aramaic/West Syriac language explaining how both became part of the same Liturgical Rite when they became Christians.

Jish is also called Gush Halav and is the city known in Josephus as Gischala/Giscala.  John of Gischala was a native of this city who became a prominent leader among the Zealots during the Jewish Revolt that started in 66 AD and was taken prisoner by Titus after his victory in 70 AD.  

I have been wondering now if some of the Old Testament prophecies about Dan that have lead to many Pre-Millennial Futurists thinking the "Antichrist" will be a Danite were perhaps actually fulfilled by John of Gischala?

Things that are NOT signs of The End in Matthew 24.

 [1] And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

[2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?

I agree with other Preterists that when The Disciples said "these things" they were thinking of what Jesus said in the prior verse and probably also what He said at the end of chapter 23.  And I suspect they assumed those things happen at the same time as what they asked about next, the sign of Jesus's Parousia and of the end of the Age.

However there is a theme throughout the Gospels of the Disciples being mistaken about certain things and Jesus then trying to correct them.  And that this is one of those is implied by what Jesus says next.

[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Assumptions are frequently key to how deceptions work.

Verses 5-7 are what verse 8 calls the beginning of sorrows.  They are also called the Non Signs by the late Chuck Missler because of the last part of verse 6  "see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet".  But I think it's particularly notable that the "wars and rumours of wars" was what directly preceded that statement.  

The Temple was destroyed because of a war, and it wasn't the only war going on at that time, there had recently been rebellion in Britain and then civil war broke out because of Galba overthrowing Nero starting the year of the four emperors.  The rumors of wars refers to wars that could have happened but were averted, like the tensions between Rome and Parthia at this time.

I'm still of the opinion that the fist proper false Christ was Bar Kochba, but still a more fluid definition of what it means to be a false Christ is applicable to many people both before and during the first Jewish-Roman War.

The verse that proclaims all of these to be not actually signs is rightly used often to make fun of the more sensationalist Futurists.  But it's 70 AD Preterism especially Full Preterism that it outright founded upon ignoring the ramifications of Jesus saying this, if the end was always a mere 40 years away max then it was never not nigh.

I think even the Persecution discussion is really part of the Non Signs, Roman Persecution started with Trajan but the first empire wide one was under Decius and the only really great one was the Diocletian Persecution.  But the end of Roman persecution ushered in Persian Persecution, and even today in many countries Christians are being persecuted.

I've also come to agree with Preterists that the word for "World" in verse 14 being neither Kosmos or Aion is one that can be interpreted as meaning the domain of the Roman Empire.  But even then The Gospel still hadn't reached all of the Roman world by 70 AD.  

It was in the late Second Century that it first came to Gaul and Britannia, I'd been attracted to the various legends and fringe theories about New Testament characters coming to First Century Albion myself in the past, but they don't hold up as even Geoffrey of Monmouth says The British Church began with Lucius in the time of Eleutherius, after then is when Tertullian first mentions Christians being in Brittan.  Even that Lucius story is not taken seriously by historians, it has when more right then other legends but probably not how.  

And The Church in Gaul started a little before then with Pothinus and Irenaeus who moved there from Ionia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus).  With Britain you can try to make an excuse that it wasn't part of the Empire yet when Jesus made this Prophecy, but Gaul absolutely was.

Still while verse 14 can be interpreted as having that limited scale I'm inclined to think it's not.  That word translated world is a particularly fancy Greek word for Household.  While Greco-Romans did use if for the Imperium like in Luke 2:1's account of the Census decree.  I think Jesus means the Household of Adam, since Son of Man is the title for Himself that He likes to use when describing The Parousia.

Preterists will then try to prove this was fulfilled in the first century by taking certain things Paul said in Romans and Colossians out of context.  Paul is talking about what the mission of The Church during the Age of Grace is, in context he clearly does not see that mission as actually already accomplished or he wouldn't still be doing what he's doing.  When Preterists "Proof Text" like this it's just like the worst Futurist bad understanding of the concept of using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, just cause two verses use similar language doesn't mean they solve each other.

Now as a reminder I am a type of preterist now, but a partial one and unconventionally even among those.  Luke is talking about 70 AD a lot, but Revelation was written later.

And as I argued earlier Hadrian's Statue was The Abomination of Desolation.

Assyria, Asshur and Asshurim

 In Genesis 25 we learn that after the passing of Sarah Abraham took a new wife named Keturah.  In verse 2 one of the sons by Keturah is named Jokshan.  In verse 3 Jokshan has two sons named Sheba and Dedan, and then Dedan's descendants are referred to as the Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.  

Asshurim is the plural form of Asshur the second born son to Shem in Genesis 10:22 but also the name of a region in northern Mesopotamia and south-western Turkey.  Asshurim is the exact same spelling as what's translated "Assyrians".

The modern Assyrians who tend to be members of one of three East-Syriac Churches (The Assyrian Church of The East, The Ancient Church of The East, or The Chaldean Catholic Church) actually claim to descend from the Asshurim of Dedan.  One could dismiss that as Christian Assyrians wanting to take an opportunity to strengthen their ties with Abraham.  However the Assyrian Kings List does list a Didanu among the "kings who lived in tents" which is a memory of when they were a more nomadic people before settling in the area of Nineveh.  The Assyrian people in Assyria don't securely enter recorded history till around 2000 BC, I currently date the death of Joseph to about 2036 BC, 430 years before my date for the Exodus.

Now it's possible both Genesis Asshurs are relevant to the early history of the civilization that history would come to know as Assyria.  Asshur son of Shem founded a settlement on the Tigris river roughly contemporary with Nimrod founding his three cities there and thus the region around it became named after him, later one of the nomadic tribal groups to come from Dedan migrated to that region and become called Asshurim because they were dwelling in Asshur.  In time both of them along with other descendants of Arphaxad and Aram contributed to the population of Northern Mesopotamia but the Dedanites became numerically dominant, at least among those identifying as Assyrians, because YHWH did promise Abraham's Seed would be Numerous like the Stars of Heaven and Sands of the Sea.

As far as the other two tribes of Dedan go, Leummin I think is a form of the Lihyan the people who controlled the cities of Dedan and Hegra at the start of classical Antiquity.  So it's only the Letushim who are a mystery, I am personally hoping for a way to link them to the Lakhmids, that would result in them sharing the Assyrians' connection to the Church of The East..

I found this discussion on Reddit of the Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups of the Assyrians.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Assyria/comments/at5332/the_most_common_ydna_haplogroups_among_assyrians/

They are mostly either the same as or related to the Haplogroups prominent in Jewish and Arab populations (as well as those I believe descend from the Lost Tribes, Kurds, Lebanese Christians, Armenians and Anatolians), R1b, J1, J2,, E1b1b, and even T and G show up in a few Jewish populations.  

The below digression is a tangentially related theory I may abandon it, everything above holds together perfectly without it..

666 cannot be Nero

It frustrates me how that is the one secular scholarship orthodoxy about Revelation only extreme Pre-Millennialists ever seem to question.  Even if I became a full on Atheist viewing Revelation as Prophecy written after the fact I would still reject 666 being Nero.

The name identified by the number 666 can’t be Nero because that’s based on Aramaic/Hebrew Gematria and Revelation is in Greek with this number clearly echoing 888 as the Isopsephy value of Iesous.  Nero in Greek has an Omega in it so Nero can never work, the same goes for trying to make Nero fit the 616 variant.  It is also verified by Chapter 39 of Suetonius Life of Nero that the Isopsephy associated with the name of Nero was 1005.

And Nero didn't persecute Christians.

If the 616 Variant is correct (which I consider unlikely) that probably points to Theos Caesar and/or Dios Caesar which were used for the Deified Roman Emperors in the Eastern Provinces, but in that context it doesn’t apply to only one.  Still I do feel like noting that it echoes 818 for Iesus a variant of Iesous.

Revelation 13:1 and 17:3 do seem to imply the Blasphemous Name associated with this Beast is on each of the heads and not merely an individual name.

Some even question the practice of using Isopsephy/Gematria entirely and suggest like other symbols in Revelation the key is its Hebrew Bible precedent.  666 as a number has two notable appearances, being associated with Solomon in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 but also with Nebuchadnezzar's Image in Daniel 3.  

I am no longer concerned with proving it can be applied to anyone's individual name, if it were that simple it wouldn't require "wisdom".  I'll still look into some from time to time, but it's not my main view of this mystery.

Ἰαπετός commonly rendered in English as Iapetos but sometimes Japetos was a Titan of Greek Mythology, but it's also documented that the name was viewed as a form of Japheth by Ancient Jews and Christians in the Greek speaking world by texts like the Sibylline Oracles..

The spelling has a Greek Isopsephy value of Six Hundred and Sixty Six.
Iota=10, Alpha=1, Pi=80, Epsilon=5, Tau=300, Omicron=70, Sigma=200.

10+1=11+80=91+5=96+300=396+70=466+200=666
10+1+80+5+300+70+200=666.

It being a seven letter word means there could've been a letter on each of the Seven Heads in John's Vision.

Genesis 9 foretells Japheth to dwell in the Tents of Shem, symbolizing becoming religiously Semitic.  The most undisputed to identity sons and grandsons of Japheth in Genesis 10 were either in Turkey and/or the Classical Greek world, and each disputed one has been placed there by at least one theory.  The languages that can be traced back to Japheth are probably the Indo-Europeans and other languages connected to Europe but also the languages of Georgia who I identify with Meshech and Tubal.

The last three of the seven Pre-Republic Kings of Rome were Etruscans, a people who can be argued to descend from Tiras.  However the Romans proper through their claimed descent from Troy go back to Ashkenaz son of Gomer after whom Lake Ascanius was named, and the name Ascanius shows up a few times in the traditional genealogy of Aeneas.  Josephus mysteriously says the descendants of Ashkenaz were the Reginians, that could be a reference to Rhegium a location in Italy Aeneas was depicted as stopping at on the way to Rome, or maybe also the Regnii a Brythonic tribe in specifically the part of Brittan Josephus's patron Vespasian had been stationed, and the Britons would eventually claim to share Rome's descent from Aeneas.

The extent to which any of those claims of ancestry are true doesn't really matter, that the belief itself existed is enough for it to have symbolic value in interpreting a book like Revelation.

So an identification with Japheth works as an identification with Greco-Roman Empires.  And Religiously with Chalcedonian Christianity but perhaps the Eastern Orthodox in particular.

Mystery Babylon as an Adulteress

The more technical arguments for making Mystery Babylon Jerusalem don't hold up at all.  What does hold up are the more thematic connections to themes in the Hebrew Bible about her as a wife of YHWH engaged in Harlotry with The World.  

The problem is a lot of Christians are uncomfortable with accepting that that could be us, we think The Church is supposed to the one people of God who won't fall into the same pitfalls that Samaria and Jerusalem fell into.  Even when more fringe elements are criticizing the mainstream Church it's usually in the context of wanting to deny that they actually count as The Church, as legitimately part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

So Protestants and Evangelicals and Torah Keepers point out the ways in which Mystery Babylon can apply to the Catholic Church, but are unwilling to see how we've been guilty of the same basic sins in our own way.

I'm not an Historicist in remotely the traditional sense.  But I do think it's fascinating how the clues in Revelation about Mystery Babylon both point to Rome and to her being either The or A Church.  Meaning on some level however indirectly this book that even the most skeptical critics can't date to later then the mid second century predicted Rome becoming Christian.

The Revelation is drawing on Old Testament imagery, but it's directed at The Church, at Seven Greek speaking Churches in Asia Minor.

However the time when Rome became Christian is also the time when OG Rome on the Tiber River ceases to be the only candidate for who Rome is, because that is when Constantinople was founded.

In my view the only cities eligible to be considered candidates for the Seven Hilled city of Revelation are ones that define themselves that way as a positive because they want to be seen as an heir to Rome.  The main three candidates are modern Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul and Moscow.

God's judgments are for correction, this Harlot no matter who she is should not be seen as being permanently rejected, this all goes back to Ezekiel 16, she becomes The Bride and Wife of The Lamb in the next chapter.

However this is speculative mainly in that Revelation 17 does not explicitly say the Harlot is also committing Adultery.  

In Proverbs the Harlotry as symbolic of Idolatry imagery is usually about the Pagan religion as the Harlot and the male clients as wayward believers.  This is also the imagery in 1 Corinthians 6.  Revelation 18 telling God's people to come out of her could imply she is not the Covenant people.

Roma as Mystery Babylon

I disagree with the argument that Babylon is "Code" for Rome in some way meant to hide it from Roman authorities who might read the Book.  It is largely Rome's own cultural symbolism that makes it explicit, applying purely prior Biblical meaning to the same symbols is if anything what weakens it.  A city on Seven Hills which had Seven Kings is how Rome defined itself, not how it's enemies defined it.

People interpreting Revelation have tried to make Seven Hills a defining characteristic of countless cities, I've looked into the argument for applying it to Jerusalem and find it to be pretty bad.  The thing is the only city already defined as a city on Seven Hills (whether that is strictly geographically accurate or not) before Revelation was written was Rome.  And since it was written the only attempts to make a city a Seven Hill city as a positive trait with no regard for the Biblical implications are ones doing so in a desire to claim to be a New Rome or successor to Rome.  It was done with both Constantinople and Moscow for example.

What I want to get into here is some stuff about Rome that may have been particularly relevant to the region of the Seven Churches The Revelation was first given to.

The City of Smyrna was where the Roma cult was founded in 195 BC.  Roma was the City of Rome personified as a Goddess.  Mellor has proposed her cult as a form of religio-political diplomacy which adjusted traditional Graeco-Eastern monarchic honors to Republican concepts.  Athens and Rhodes accepted Roma as analogous to their traditional cult personifications of the demos (ordinary people).  In 133 BC when Pergamon became part of the Empire it quickly became another major center of the Cult of Roma.

We can't be certain what colors Roma would have usually be depicted wearing, what we know about how she was depicted comes largely from coins.  But we know that during The Roman Triumph the Triumphitor wore Purple and their face was painted Red, so I feel Purple and Scarlet as the colors of Roma fits.  Some want to point out Purple and Scarlet being the colors of the Veil of The Tabernacle/Temple of Solomon to support the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon theory, but every-time the Veil is refereed to as Purple and Scarlet/Crimson in Exodus 25-28, 35-39 and 2 Chronicles 2-3 the color Blue is also mentioned, usually first, and no Blue is in Revelation 17-18.  The Veil of The Temple is basically the Bisexual Flag.

In the Hellenistic world typically Male deities had male Priests and Goddesses had Priestesses.  But the Roma Cult was explicitly an exception to this, her worship was lead by male Priests.  And so I think that is partly what the False Prophet may have been seen as to the book's earliest readers in these cities.

In either 30 or 29 BC the worship of the Emperor in the provinces began, and in Asia particularity it was essentially just merged with the Roma Cult. Pergamon was the first city where the Imperial cult was established. From here on Roma increasingly took the attributes of an Imperial or divine consort to the Imperial divus, but some Greek coin types show her as a seated or enthroned authority, and the Imperial divus standing upright as her supplicant or servant.  Thus her as a woman riding the Beast.

The reason Smyrna and Pergamon were the churches most facing persecution is because in these cities the worship of the Emperor was required by law, most Pagans didn't see it as a conflict.  Jews were usually excepted as theirs was an ancient religion, but Christianity was new and so once it stopped being seen as a sect of Judaism the Christians had a problem in these cities.

Aphrodite/Venus as the mother of Aeneas mythical progenitor of Rome naturally become identified with Roma sometimes, like in the Temple Hadrian built.  

People who like to argue the United States is Babylon could easily draw attention here to how the concept of Roma is basically the same as the concept of Columba/Columbia.  But other such feminine personifications of the state exist in the modern world, the Pan-Europa movement has taken Europa of Green Mythology and made her more of a Roma type figure.  I'm pretty sure Athena was originally just the Demos of Athens before Pan-Hellenism turned her into an Olympian all of Greece had to recognize.  And of course I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Demos of Israel/The Church being symbolically personified in a similar way.

The theme of Martyrdom is most pronounced in the Smyrna section of Revelation 2-3, and it very pronounced in Revelation 17 as well.

The Greek word for City is related to the words Polity and Politics.  In my new semi-Historicist reading of Revelation the various Barbarian sacks of Rome in the 5th and 6th centuries are relevant.  But the final breath of the Roma Politeia was the dissolution of the Senate sometime between 603-630 AD, possibly tied to certain events of 618-619.  So once again a reason for looking at the time of Heraclius.

Hadrian's Statue on The Temple Mount was The Abomination of Desolation

The one referred to by Jesus which was a repeat of Antiochus Epiphanes actions in Daniel 11.

First I want to state that Luke 21 (which isn't an Olivet Discourse, it was given in in The Temple Complex) verses 20-24 is about 70 AD, but the "Times of The Gentiles" we are still in.

Likewise in Matthew 24:21 the "Great Tribulation" is a period that began in Ancient times and which we are still in now, which is the same as the Tribulation referred to in Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24.   In Revelation 7 ALL of the Martyrs are said to have come out of Great Tribulation, not just those of a specific brief time period. 

70 AD Preterists obsess over an argument that a Biblical Generation is 40 years because the wandering in the wilderness was to kill off a generation.  But not all of them actually died, that statement was hyperbole, it was mostly just about the 10 spies who gave the bad report.  Numbers 14:33-24 clarifies it was 40 years because the spy mission was 40 days.  Genesis 6 and the lifespan of Moses support making a Biblical generation up to 120 years.

 Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time.  Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122.  Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140.  So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.

With Luke 21 it's unique characteristics are what makes it most applicable to 70 AD.  Only Luke 21 actually uses the name of Jerusalem at all, when foretelling it's desolation which is language borrowed from Jeremiah about the fall to Nebuchadnezzar indicating what happened to Jerusalem then will happen again.

But Luke 21 does NOT contain a statement that this time of trouble is will never be surpassed.

The Bark Kochba revolt did not add anything to the destruction of Jerusalem since this time the Rebels never even had Jerusalem to begin with.  But for Judea as a whole that war was far more catastrophic and destructive then the 66-73 AD war and over a shorter period of time.   Many historians consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora.  It is only the fact that it doesn't have it's own Josephus that makes it less analyzed by historians and scholars and less romanticized by artists and poets.

Luke 21 is about things that happened before the "beginnings of sorrows", Matthew and Mark about things that happen during or after.  Meanwhile the second time Matthew and Mark's discourses bring up the issue of False Christs has no parallel in Luke at all, likewise no False Prophets in Luke 21.

This is significant because contrary to popular opinion the era leading up to and during the 66-73 AD war was NOT filled with would be Messiahs.  Josephus only ever uses the word Christ when describing what Jesus was called. There were would be prophets, and secular revolutionaries, but no claimed Messiahs.  Jewish prophetic expectations of the time were generally that the Messiah can't come till after Rome has already fallen.

Bar Kochba was the first to ever claim to be the Messiah as a rebel leader, that was his innovation.  And he really was the second person after Jesus to ever truly claim that title at all.  Meanwhile since Preterists don't take literally the stuff involving the Sun, Moon and Stars, maybe Stars falling from heaven is also wordplay on the name of Bar Kochba?  Kukbe is the word used in the Peshita.

The Abomination of Desolation is a very specific phrase, that has connotations more specific then just the etymological meanings of the words used to construct it.  Of the two places where the phrase appears in Daniel the one in chapter 12 is probably what Jesus is revealing to still have at least one more yet future fulfillment.  But it's the context in Daniel 11 that defines it.

There are three or four different Hebrew words that get translated "Abomination" in the KJV, the one used in Daniel is not even related to the one used in Leviticus 18-20 and Ezekiel 40-48.  But more importantly to the topic at hand, the precise word used in Daniel is everywhere it appears a synonym for an Idol or False god, from Deuteronomy 29:17 to 1 Kings 11 to Jeremiah 32:34.

But what makes the Abomination of Desolation special is it's being placed inside The Temple (not near it) by a Pagan ruler who had outlawed their faith.  The history of the Hasmonean revolt was to first century Jews not just the reason behind Hanukkah, it was to them as the Revolutionary War or French Revolution is for modern America and France.  When Jesus used this phrase he knew exactly what imagery he was evoking and so did His audience.

Now I'm open to a more "creative" interpretation of what a Historicist (or Futurist) fulfillment of this may look like, but that's about redefining what this would mean for the New Testament Church with the help of II Thessalonians 2 just as we redefine a number of Hebrew Bible concepts under the doctrine that now we are The Temple.  If you're going to insist this is about the Judea of that time, then you have to be specific to what that idea meant to those Judeans.

70 AD Preterists bend over backwards coming up with every excuse they can to apply that phrase to something that happened in 70 AD.  They take a passage from the Talmud claiming Titus had sex with a whore on a Torah scroll and sliced open the veil with his sword.  Leaving aside how I doubt Titus would have had the means, motive or opportunity to do that from what the actual eyewitness Historian tells us, even this Talmud passage doesn't call that an Abomination of Desolation or compare it to Antiochus Epiphanes in any way.

The timing is also wrong, by the time Titus was able to do anything anywhere near The Temple it was already too late to run.  Jesus spoke of the Abomination of Desolation as an event that begins the time of trouble not occurring at the middle or end of it. That fit Hadrian who's said to have set up the initial Idol in 31 AD sparking the Rebellion even though the full Temple to Jupiter is built after.

An alternate 70 AD Preterist take on the Abomination of Desolation makes it about things Josephus described Zealot leaders doing in 68 or 69, but again the specific word for Abomination in this phrase is about Idolatry, not mere ceremonial desecration or uncleanness.

Preterists aren't the only ones refusing to distinguish between the Olivet Discourses, there are also Futurists who want to use Luke 21 to say Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies again.

Yes the three discourses are "parallel" in a lot of ways, but the differences are there for a reason and ignoring them because you don't want to think Jesus was foretelling more then one thing is simply not respecting the text.  In the case of Luke it has to do with how this isn't even the only place that Gospel records Jesus talking about the fall of Jerusalem, that is a theme of the entire Gospel in a way it's not in the others.

So plenty of people want to argue that Luke 21:20 is about the same thing as The Abomination of Desolation because Jesus then advises basically the same reaction.  As if there can't be more then one good reason to get out of Dodge.

Remember the OG Abomination of Desolation preceded that Jewish revolt, but since they won that war the city was never surrounded by armies.

One of the oldest examples of Patristic support for viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already re-fulfilled is Jerome applying the term to the Statue of Hadrian set up where The Temple formally stood which was seemingly still standing when he wrote his commentary on Matthew.  Jerome may have been off on saying it was specifically over the Holy of Holies, in the Bordeaux Pilgrim the two Statues he saw were separate from the "stone" the Jews anointed which I think may have been where the Ark once rested.  Epiphanes' statue was on the Brazen Altar according to 1 Maccabees 1:54-59.

We even have a secular pagan gentile source on this happening, Cassius Dio.

[69.12.1] At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 

[69.12.2] for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposedly made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them. But when Hadrian went farther away, they openly revolted.

Meanwhile somewhat less reliable sources like the Historia Augusta say Hadrian also banned Circumcision and sacrificed Pigs to this Idol making it echo Antiochus Epiphanes even more.   It seem Pigs were depicted on Coins minted in Aelia Capitolina.

And like then this caused the war rather then being caused by it.

And like in 70 AD the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem did as Jesus advised and fled, becoming the Nazarenes of later generations, some may have went to Mesopotamia and also became among the ancestors of some West Syraic Rite sects.