Christian Exodus from Jerusalem in AD 70

 In Luke 21:20-23 Jesus warns the people to flee Jerusalem when it is surrounded by armies. 

Church Historians like Eusebius in Church History Book III drawing on older sources like Hegesippus record how the Early Christians in Jerusalem did exactly that, placing the Martyrdom of James the Brother of The Lord at about this same time (I believe a different brother was killed in 62 and that a Scribe mistakenly added the name of James to that account in Antiquities Book 20).. 

Secular Historians and Bible Skeptics may be inclined to doubt that narrative because it does not at first glance seem to be in Josephus’s account in Wars of The Jews.  

However I have noticed that Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapter 8 Section 2 does tell how when Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman Army there was a distinct community of the Jews in Jerusalem who saw the writing on the wall and decided to leave.  However Simon Bar Giora sought to prevent their leaving and killed five of their leaders including one named Jacob/James and imprisoned more.  Yet most were able to escape the city anyway. 

However it’s the Idumeans Josephus is talking about there.  Also this Jacob is called the son of Sosas but I really doubt that is literally supposed to be identifying the name of his father, it must be some kind of title or epithet. 

“It was at this time that the commanders of the Idumeans got together privately, and took counsel about surrendring up themselves to the Romans. Accordingly they sent five men to Titus; and intreated him to give them his right hand for their security. So Titus thinking that the tyrants would yield, if the Idumeans, upon whom a great part of the war depended, were once withdrawn from them, after some reluctancy and delay, complied with them; and gave them security for their lives; and sent the five men back. But as these Idumeans were preparing to march out, Simon perceived it: and immediately slew the five men that had gone to Titus: and took their commanders, and put them in prison. Of whom the most eminent was Jacob, the son of Sosas. But as for the multitude of the Idumeans, who did not at all know what to do, now their commanders were taken from them, he had them watched; and secured the walls by a more numerous garrison. Yet could not that garrison resist those that were deserting. For although a great number of them were slain, yet were the deserters many more in number. These were all received by the Romans: because Titus himself grew negligent as to his former orders for killing them: and because the very soldiers grew weary of killing them: and because they hoped to get some money by sparing them. For they left only the populace; and sold the rest of the multitude, with their wives and children; and every one of them for a very low price: and that because such as were sold were very many, and the buyers very few. And although Titus had made proclamation beforehand, that no deserter should come alone by himself; that so they might bring out their families with them; yet did he receive such as these also. However, he set over them such as were to distinguish some from others; in order to see if any of them deserved to be punished. And indeed the number of those that were sold was immense. But of the populace above forty thousand were saved: whom Cæsar let go whither every one of them pleased.”

I have a post on my SolaScripturaChristianLIberty blog about how Jewish tradition came to identify Christianity with Esau/Edom and how the Idumeans likely played a role in that even though their own presumed connection to Edom is dubious.

Mark 8:3 refers to there being Idumeans among those who came to listen to Jesus so there were likely Idumeans in The Early Church right from Pentecost. Acts 8:1 refers to the Christians spreading throughout Judaea and Samaria following the Martyrdom of Stephen, Idumea is entirely part of Biblical Judah so it’s likely included in that since the NT never uses Idumea as a geographic term. And how James quotes Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:13-19 may have early on encouraged a poetic identification with Edom.

Also one can infer in this Josephus account that it’s not only the Idumeans who were trying to leave, he’s just putting a special focus on them. 

The English Translations of Josephus I use sometimes calls this figure Jacob and sometimes James, they are truly interchangeable. And in my attempts to google what Sosas means the best I could find is that it’s likely derived from the Greek word for Save or Saved. So it could be a title for this James being the son of the family who brought about Salvation. In Hegesippus’s account when James is asked about Jesus he answers that Jesus is the Savior. 

Antiquities of The Jews was written decades later when Josephus had become more informed about a lot of things.  That’s why when it refers to the execution of a Brother of Jesus who was called Christ it knows to identify him by that family relation rather than Sosas. 

Back in Wars Book IV Chapter 4 Section 2 is when Jacob son of Sosas was first mentioned, three other Idumean leaders are also named.  A John with no Patronym (it’s plausible to imagine he and Jacob were meant to share Son of Sosas enabling theorists more fringe than me to make a different theory about which Biblical James this Jacob could be) a Simon son of Cathlas and Phineas son of Clusothus.  Those Patronyms also do not seem like actual names to me.   

The names Simon and Simeon are interchangeable so maybe this Simon is the Simeon traditionally considered the second Bishop of Jerusalem.  Cathlas seems to likely be related to a Greek word for Pure and in Eusebius via Hegesippus account of Simeon it’s stressed how “the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin”.   This Simon gave a speech in Section 4.

Another story from Josephus of someone being killed by the rebels in Jerusalem resembles the specifics of how Hegesippus says James was tried and Executed, Zacharias son of Baruch from Wars Book IV Chapter 5 Section 4. 

“Hereupon there arose a great clamour of the zealots upon his acquittal: and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him. And as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict: and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Moreover they struck the judges with the backs of their swords, by way of abuse; and thrust them out of the court of the temple; and spared their lives with no other design than that, when they were dispersed among the people in the city, they might become their messengers, to let them know they were no better than slaves.”

Now a skeptic of the historicity of Hegesippus’s account may say he just pastiched together different stories he found in Josephs. However what happens to Zacharias is not meant to be entirely unique, Josephus is presenting it as the first of many Show trials the other victims of which he doesn’t describe in full detail but just names starting in Chapter 6, like the "Death or Exile” scene from The Dark Knight Rises.  So the execution of James son of Sosas of the Idumeans was almost certainly mostly the same sequence of events repeating.

I do believe Hegesippus’s account is somewhat fictionalized and not a perfect record of what happened.  It’s only The Gospels and Acts I view as Perfect. 

I also want to point out that regardless of if these Idumeans were or significantly overlapped with the Christians of Jerusalem I still doubt they were specifically guilty of all the things Josephus accuses them of.  Part of Josephus’s agenda seems to be to scapegoat the Zealots and Idumeans for the worst things that the Rebels did during this war.  

In this very chapter of Wars I find it hard to believe that the Idumeans were both involved in the killing of this Zacharias and then displeased with it in the very next verse. 

Patmos was actually Pithom in Egypt

 The Isle we currently identify with Patmos was mentioned rarely in Antiquity, and it's known that it was originally named Letois after Leto because of myths about Artemis raising it out of the Sea at the request of Selene.  It's not till the Fourth Century any Church commemorating John writing Revelation was founded there.  There are lists from sources like Tacitus of islands being used as penal colonies by Rome in the 1st Century and Patmos/Letois is never among them.

I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Mary Magdalene not any of the 12, and that she wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John, or at least 1 John. I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of the erroneous John in Ephesus tradition.

The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there.  Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him.  Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them.  But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.

The John of Revelation however does not actually claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee.

Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus.  It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be.  

There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.

Last time I flirted with this idea of an alternate location for Patmos I wound up going down the Cyprus/Paphos route for a somewhat arbitrary reason, but now I have a better theory.

Around February 23rd 2023 I visited Pithom's Wikipedia page and the Greek transliteration of the name listed was Πατούμος Patoúmos, a spelling that is literally Patmos with an ού added in the middle.  This spelling apparently comes from Herodotus Histories II.158 where my version (Translated by G.C.Macaulay and Revised by Donald Lateiner, published by Barnes & Noble Classics) transliterates it Patumos.

Now at face value calling Pithom a island may seem weird, but it's in the Nile Delta, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that someone in Pithom in the first or early second century would have thought of it as being an island.  A lot of these kinds of terms were not defined as strictly as how we define them today, the Peloponnese was sometimes called an island for example. There is also debate about the location of Pithom, the reference in Herodotus with this spelling places it by the Royal Canal. 

Pithom is a Biblical location from Exodus 1:11, a lot in Revelation is thematically presenting itself as a repeat of the history of The Exodus.  And there apparently are some Hebrew texts where there is no letter for O between the letters for Th and M which could explain this Patmos spelling's one difference from Herodotus.

The oldest surviving texts we have of Revelation are from Egypt, some examples being Papyrus 47, 98 and 115, but that's true of a lot of Ancient Texts, the Nile Valley is for Climate reasons a place where more ancient texts survived then in other regions.

I now suspect John of Revelation was John Mark, tradition does say he was in Egypt.  The function Mark is serving in Acts 13-14 is essentially the same one John is performing in Revelation.  2 Timothy 4:11 does also tell us Mark had been with Timothy at Ephesus for a time.

The individual Antichrist doctrine is a Marcionite Heresy

In 1 John and 2 John the only use of the word Antichrist that seems to have the idea of an expected future individual in mind is 1 John 2:18.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

For what I'm arguing here the key part of that verse is “ye have heard”, elsewhere in The New Testament expressions like  “ye have heard” sometimes (but not always) refer to oral traditions that are in fact wrong, like Matthew 5:43. And when it does seem to be used of an actual quotations of Scripture the implication is still that it was being misused or misunderstood, for example “Eye for an Eye” was always meant to be an expression of restraint not a mandate. 

The doctrine of an individual Antichrist does pop up very early in Church history, a fact I stressed back when I was a Futurist.  But even as early as the second century wrong ideas were popping up, indeed some of what’s in The Epistles is dealing with bad ideas already popping up.

Marcionism is the Heresy of Marcion of Sinope that the “Old Testament” God is not a benevolent God and has nothing to do with Jesus or The Father that Paul spoke of.  What is obviously wrong with that doctrine was quickly deemed Heresy by most Christians including those academics call the “Proto-Orthodox” and is still deemed Heretical to this day by all Chalcedonian, Miaphysite and “Nestorian” Churches as well as even the most rebellious of Low Church Protestants.  

However he did manage to be influential, perhaps one of the first Heretics whose real influence came in how even those debunking him conceded to him more ground then they should have.  

While literally separating the Old and New Testament Gods is recognized as obvious heresy, a lot of casual discussions of The Bible still maintains a perception that God seems different in The Hebrew Bible.  People will talk about it as if He mellowed out or something, and Dispensationalists argue God is operating differently now during the “Church Age” but eventually it will end and we’ll be back in the Old Testament. 

The truth is much of what the New Testament has to say about God’s Mercy and Forgiveness and Unconditional Love has its roots in The Hebrew Bible, like in the Psalms and much of Isaiah. The ugliest stuff in the Hebrew Bible still leads to a Happy Ending, it’s Hebrew Prophets who said God’s Punishments are for Correction and His fire a purging fire.  And God’s Wrath is by no means absent from the New Testament or even specifically from Paul.

This perception largely comes from The New Testament being shorter in total, especially in terms of actual narrative content.  Pop culture focus on stories where God’s Wrath is apparent often purely for entertainment, but in The New Testament we run out of that content quicker not because it’s a smaller percentage of the whole but simply because it’s smaller. 

But I also think it’s in some cases made worse by mistakes in how The Hebrew Bible is translated relative to The New Testament. In the Hebrew you are a lot less likely to be confused about “Eye for an Eye” being a law of restraint rather than a mandate.

Back to the topic at hand.

Marcion did in fact have an Eschatology, alongside arguing that Jesus has nothing to do with the Jewish God he also argued that the Jewish God was indeed going to send a conquering Jewish Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.  

As Gentile Christians among the “Proto-Orthodox” were starting to become Anti-Semitic for their own reasons, it was attractive to adapt what Marcion said into an expectation of a False Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.

While modern Futurists are usually depicting The Antichrist as more of a Globalist Savior, with the Islamic Antichrist claiming to be the Mahdi theory being the second most popular model.  Some degree of remembering the false Jewish Messiah idea remains.  

Christ White wrote a book called “False Christ: Will the Antichrist claim to be the Jewish Messiah” back in the 2010s going all in on that as his main model for understanding the Antichrist (abandoning an earlier interest he had in thinking he’d be a New Age Maitreya figure) and does convincingly argue that all the earliest extra-Biblical Church writings on the subject were focused on a False Jewish Messiah model.  Yet those still include no one older than the time of Marcion.  The only Non-Biblical Christian Writing with any Eschatology in it that could be older than Marcion is the Didache which on the subject of villains for its End Time scenario refers only to “The World Deceiver" like quoting Revelation 12 in reference to Satan The Dragon.

Christ White’s Biblical argument is largely built on Daniel 11:36-45 which I’ve demonstrated is about ancient BC Rome not a future conqueror.  And John 5:43 “another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”, which I view as fulfilled later in that same Gospel when the Jewish Priests say “We have no King but Caesar” and/or when they called for the freeing of Barabas. 

These early fathers liked to see what Jesus said about Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum in Matthew 11:21-24 and Luke 10:13-15 as relevant, I think it's self evident those verses are not about a villain coming from there and are probably fulfilled by these cities being destroyed in the First Jewish-Roman War.  Being way up north they were clearly being tied into the whole Dan fixation which is why Chris White doesn’t use those verses in his own argument.  I have a prior post on the Tribe of Dan including how prophecies about Dan may have also been fulfilled in the first Jewish-Roman War.

Much of what Chris White does in this book or in Islamic Antichrist Debunked is to correctly argue against the Antichrist relevance of many other popular Prophecies to connect to that topic.  But as I just showed the same can be done to the ones he bases his view on.

I’ve already argued on this blog that the Abomination of Desolation Jesus foretold is Hadrian’s statue, and that the Man of Sin in II Thessalonians 2 is all Christian Monarchy and Episcopal Polity.

I have posts on how The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is the Seleucid Dynasty focused on Antiochus Epiphanes and The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Byzantine Empire focused on Justinian.  And Chris White himself has argued for the final part of Daniel 2 being about events in the Fifth Century though that might be one of his old arguments he’s since reversed. 

https://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-49-nephilm-toes-or-the-end-of-rome-nebuchadnezzars-dream-2/

And I've shown that the 70th Week is entirely 30-37 AD.

In the last verse of Revelation 13, "Number of a man" can arguably be instead translated "number of men" or "number of Man" as in Mankind which is why it's often thought to be thematically linked to Adam being created on the 6th Day.  That fits well with my argument that 666=Iapetos given what Iapetos is in Greek Mythology.

In developing my current Eschatology, I have considered a few individual Emperors as candidates for The Beast.  But the gist of my Baptism of The Beast thesis is that The Beast is Rome as a collective entity, whose long ongoing Baptism began with the Milvian Bridge and is still in progress right now.

It is what I think about the Beast out of The Earth I’m still working on. 

Ezekiel 37 is about The Bodily Resurrection of The Dead

As I said before I happen to be a Zionist for Secular reasons but no longer hold the Bible Prophecy expectations associated with “Christian Zionism”, especially not its Futurist Premillennial Dispensationalist forms.

I'm not inherently hostile to the idea that Modern Israel could have a role to play in the Bible Prophecies I view as not already fulfilled yet.  But I don’t expect a Third Temple or some revival where they all convert to Christianity prior to The Parousia. When it happens The Parousia will affect every nation, so if you are in Israel when it happens you will have a unique view of it. 

Conservative Evangelicals have a tendency to side with the Revisionist Maximalists in terms of what the borders of Israel should be, but I’ve debunked that reasoning on my other blog.

What bugs me about the Eschatology of Christian Zionists is how they twist Ezekiel 37 in order to make it about 1948.

While contemporary Christian Zionism is viewed as mostly the domain of Pre-Trib Dispensationalism, it began among Puritans with a predominantly Historicist Eschatology.  However the most consistently hostile to Zionism is Full Preterism.  All forms of Christian Zionism exist in frameworks that are supposed to be built on stressing a literal physical bodily view of the General Resurrection of The Dead. 

And yet they wind up taking one of the most graphically explicit Hebrew Bible visuals of that literal bodily Resurrection, and allegorizing it the same way many Full Preterists do. Full Preterists agree with the Dry Bones of Ezekiel 37 being a picture of a rebirth of the Nation of Israel, however as Supersessionists they view that rebirth as the birth of The Church.

The core fallacy here is a refusal to accept that a Prophecy can be multiple things at once.  

Yes Ezekiel 37 it is putting a focus on how this will be a rebirth and reunification for Israel as a Nation.  But it is a renewal happening because all these dead Israelites of past generations are alive again.  Including David specifically singled out for reference, which Christian commentators keep saying simply represents Jesus here but I disagree, it is David himself Risen, Jesus in this chapter is YHWH, the one breathing the Breath of Life into them like back in Genesis 2. 

Because Pre-Trib is the most well known form of Futurism currently, Full Preterists love to cling to how they technically interpret Ezekiel 37 the same way and point out the absurdity of separating that Resurrection Prophecy from all the others.

The Resurrection is not a metaphor for national revival, it is the cause of it. 

Gog and Magog Invasion

Back when I was still a Pre-Millennial Futurist I became convinced of the view that the Gog and Magog Invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 is the same as the one in Revelation 20:8-9 and thus happens after the Millennium, I started being convinced of this after being first exposed to it by Chris White.  

Revelation 20 is clearly referencing that Prophecy in a way that implies this is what that always was.  I find it funny when people call Ezekiel's Prophecy "Gog and Magog" while denying they are the same because that exact wording is ONLY in Revelation and arguably a mistranslation even there, the Greek of Revelation 20 looks to me like it's saying "Gog from Magog" which is even more clearly referencing the language of Ezekiel.

However, I’m not Pre-Millennial anymore but a Partial Preterist so I can agree with that view but also wind up right back in the position of viewing it as possibly the next big event of The Biblical Timeline. Especially since unlike the standard forms of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism I view the end of The Millennium in verse 7 as already past. 

However that does not require me to expect something essentially the same as what most Futurists are expecting.  In my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog I’ve definitely argued for a reading that does not require taking its geography at face value, and seeing at least the start of the Invasion as something that’s also already happened.  However I’m not as firmly decided on how I view verses 8-9 as I am the first 7 verses.  Verse 11 on is definitely still yet future. 

Recent Geopolitical news I'm sure has riled up the typical Futurist Gog and Magog enthusiasts.  I also find it interesting how those who for Secular reasons spent all of 2022 and much of 2023 hyping up Putin as the New Hitler and saying our Foreign Policy decisions need to revolve around stopping him, failed to apply that to their positions on Israel, Palestine, Syria or Iran. Putin and Iran are allies and Putin is very Anti-Israel. 

I’m a Christian and a Zionist, but not what “Christian Zionist” as a term typically means.  My Eschatology does NOT demand me to see any Prophetic significance to modern Israel, it could wind up playing a role in something, but it doesn’t need to and I don’t particularly expect it to. It’s only on the topic of this Prophecy specifically that I’m even kind of thinking about it.  I’m a Zionist for Secular Materialist reasons just like most of the original Jewish founders of modern Zionism were.

I’m a Labor Zionist, in the original understanding of that term not what David Ben-Gurion turned Labor Zionism into, and I certainly have no love for the Likud party.  You can condemn both what Hamas did on October 7th 2023 and how Netenyahu has responded to it, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Many are going to use the connection they see between this situation and Ezekiel 38-39 to defend Netenyahu’s foreign policy decisions, but that is irrelevant actually.  A repeated theme in The Bible is that God saves The Nation in-spite of how unrighteous they are not because they deserve it. God’s intervention would be for the sake of the common people not the politicians in charge. 

However the big issue is that the implication of my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog see the Camp of The Saints as Christians not Civil Israel.  But there are Christians in Israel, some Cities who’s entire Population is Christian. 

Dispensationalists do believe Israel has a Sin that God is going to save them in-spite of, but rather than being any actual deeds it is the sin of not being Christians.  As both a Universalist and an Inclusivist I don’t think that matters, God is going to judge the Nations based on what they do not who they worship.  Jews are judged based on how they interpret and follow their own religions. I don’t see any value in actively trying to convert anyone.

I’m not writing this to come to any definitive conclusion at all, just sharing some thoughts I’ve been having. 

Materialism and Idealism

 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/05/materialism-and-idealism.html

I'm copy/pasting the text of the above post below.  But if I ever make edits or revisions of it in the future I'll be prioritizing that original posting. [Of course a further confusion when added to Bible Prophecy is Idealism as a term for a way of interpreting Revelation.]

One thing that unintentionally poisons the well of Internet Leftist Discourse is that both of those words (as well as their -ist forms) have more than one meaning, and yet many either only know one meaning, ignorantly conflate the meanings, or are willingly ignorant that others don’t know the other meanings.

Idealism as in the Metaphysics of Platonism and Immanuel Kant has nothing to do with what it means when someone is called an Idealist in contrast to being a Pragmatist or Cynical.  In the latter case Ideal is being used as a synonym for Value or Moral rather then a Platonic Ideal Form.

Likewise Materialist Metaphysics (or lack of metaphysics) has little to do with the “Historical Materialism” of philosophies like Marxism and nothing to do with the Madonna song Material Girl.

You can be Idealistic while still rejecting Philosophical Idealism, and you can be a Historical Materialist while while holding to Idealist Metaphysics.

Materialist Metaphysics is a key pillar of Stoicism, and the main reason I call myself somewhat of a Stoic rather than most anything popularly associated with Stoicism.  While the rejection of anything metaphysical existing is Epicureanism. 

I agree with Historical Materialism but not the more specific Dialectical Materialism which I view as a symptom of Pythagorean Dualism.  And that’s why my status as a Marxist is questionable.

So I’m definitely not a Philosophical Idealist.  How much the other Idealism applies to me is purely subjective. 

The Dual Fulfilment Fallacy

I'm a former Futurist who even when I was a Futurist interpreted a good number of individual Prophecies in ways that fit how a Preterist and/or Historicist could interpret them.  

When I tried to argue to a fellow Futurist that a certain Prophecy was clearly meant to be the near future of when the Prophecy was given, or even that at least how it begins was, that Prophets can't really be considered confirmed Prophets at all if nothing they predicted was fulfilled in their lifetime.  I occasionally get responses about the Dual Fulfilment concept, making it sound like it's an absolute that every prophecy has at least 2 fulfilments, near and far.  Understanding it this way makes it almsot impossible to definitively argue for anything.

Nathan's Prophecy about the Son of David building The Temple in 2 Samuel 7 is the core foundation upon which the dual fulfilment concept is based, and the reason why it can't even be called inherently Christian, every Jew who believes in a yet future Messiah Ben-David believes this Prophecy has a second fulfilment in addition to Solomon.

But the thing about this most undisputed case of a second fulfillment being needed, is that the first fulfilment failed.  Now make no mistake God always knew what was gonna happen, but the fact still remains that in theory Solomon alone could have been all this Prophecy needed, but he failed, the entire history of the divided kingdom is the legacy of Solomon's failure.  When you properly add that context it's not a dual fulfilment at all, it's only kind of applicable to Solomon at all because of what could have been.

That's why in my opinion dual fulfilments are possible and occasionally worth speculating on.  But to start building doctrine on some absolute expectation that no Prophecy is properly fulfilled till it's fulfilled twice is in my opinion foolish.

A lot of other almost undisputed examples of dual fulfilments are also ones where the second or final fulfilment is Jesus.  But in a lot of those cases it's typology, to Christians the applicability to Jesus is what matters most because we view everything through the lens of Jesus. But I would still call it wrong to act like that Prophecy wasn't actually fully fulfilled till Jesus.  The sense in which Jesus repeats it is a nice bonus for our Christian view of The Bible's metanarrative, but it often isn't at all what the original Prophet was concerned with.

Any Prophecy where I do feel that Prophecy was always chiefly about Jesus, I generally seek to, like with the failure of Solomon thesis, deconstruct the near fulfilment, which for example is how I currently treat Isaiah 7-8.  

However I long stopped treating the "antichrist" concept the same way.  I actually think it's bordering on Dualism heresy how treat that figure is treated like a mirror image.  So yes in a sense every Hero of The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ, but that doesn't make every villain a similar type of the "Antichrist".

And the thing about a lot of the Prophecies I do think are about the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in AD 70. is that AD 70 was in a sense itself the second fulfilment, it was a repeat of the history of the fall to Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. so saying it must happen again in the future is arguing for a full on third fulfilment.

What I'm criticizing here is partly stuff I'd been guilty of myself in the past.  This is a product of how I feel I've grown wiser as a student of Prophecy.

In the case of the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus tells us that an already fulfilled event will happen again.  However that doesn't mean every detail of Daniel 11-12 (or 9) is going to happen twice, the context of the next Abomination of Desolation could be very different.  I try to define what the AoD is based on the initial fulfilment of those prophecies, but that's it, everything leading up to and following it could and probably will be different.

And I now believe the AoD Jesus was speaking of was Hadrian's Statue. 

Pompey The Great's Capture of Jerusalem

You will often learn in discussions of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives that it was a surprise he chose to pair Alexander The Great with Julius Caesar rather than Pompey. 

I think it’s telling that this debate is mainly about who gets to be the Roman Alexander. I don’t see many alternatives for a Greek Julius Caesar proposed and even less interest in who else should be the Roman Aqesilaus II.  

Most of that discussion will focus on very Secular reasons Pompey is a more natural Alexander. But what I couldn’t help but notice is that from a Biblical point of view Pompey is obviously the Roman Alexander since he’s the first Roman Conquerer to annex the land of Israel into Rome’s Empire.

I once made an argument for Pompey as the King of Daniel 11:36-45, but that’s no longer my main view of that passage and never really was all that strongly.  Pompey is still in Daniel 11 as the start of what the last part of verse 33 describes. 

However there is a Prophecy that I have come to view as much more specifically about Pompey’s 63 BC Conquest of Jerusalem recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.  The first two verses of Zechariah 14. 

“Behold, the day of YHWH cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”

When Zechariah lived the Babylonian Captivity was already in the past. 

To most Futurists this siege of Jerusalem is still yet future.  To the vast majority of Preterists and some Futurists this is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  I’m not a Futurist anymore and don’t want to get into why here.  But why I disagree with an AD 70 view of this is more relevant.

In AD 70 you can indeed say about half the population of Jerusalem went into captivity, but the other half died, or some had already fled. Jerusalem was completely destroyed after this and left uninhabited for over 60 years till it was rebuilt as a Roman City which Jews were not allowed inside of for another 500 years. 

Now “All Nations” here is Hyperbole, an AD 70 view can’t take that detail at face value either.  Rome did have allies in the Third Mithridatic War and Citizens in the Army who a few decades earlier were considered different nations.

Now Josephus makes it sound like Pompey didn’t take any Captives, but I think he mainly wanted to paint Pompey as positively as possible.  The Fasti Triumphales in the entry for Pompey’s 61 BC Triumph lists Judea as among the conquests Pompey is celebrating, and part of a Triumph is having Captives of all those you Conquered.  It’s also documented that Rome had a Jewish Population already in the mid 1st Century BC, Cicero for example referred to them and he died in 43 BC, and Julius Caesar granted them special privileges. 

So if those verses are about 63 BC how does what happens in the following verses happen next?  Well my ultimate view on Zechariah 12-14 is one I’m still working on.  But it’s tied to my belief that The Crucifixion and Resurrection happened on The Mount of Olives.

Messiah Ben-Joseph

Messiah Ben-Joseph is a concept that exists in some Jewish Apocalyptic literature, it’s not as universally accepted among Rabbinic Jews as some want to make it sound, but it is interesting.   

David C. Mitchell published a book in 2016 titled Messiah ben Joseph that I do recommend because it collects a lot of different relevant texts even though I disagree with some of his interpretations as well as his endorsements of Ben Abrahamson’s weird identifications when talking about the Seventh Century.  I’ll be referring back to his work sometimes in this post. 

Some Christians often talk about the Messiah Ben-Joseph and Messiah Ben-David distinction as if it’s a matter of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies correctly or not associated with Ben-Joseph in his First Advent and Ben-David in his Second Advent.  Ben-Joseph is killed at the Gate of Jerusalem then rises from The Dead while it’s Ben-David who’s the Conquering King.  AD 70 Preterists may be interested in the versions that say Ben-David’s advent is 40 years after the death of Ben-Joseph.

The first thing this ignores is that Ben-Joseph is expected to be a conqueror as well, more so actually, Ben-David simply finishes the campaign mostly carried out by Ben-Joseph. This fits the pattern of the original Ben-David as Solomon’s reign was built on the Conquests of David, and David’s own conquests continued what was begun by Saul.

Meanwhile in a lot of these same texts with a Messiah Ben-Joseph we also have a Messiah Ben David often named Menahem Ben Ammiel.  This Menahem is in fact initially born to his human parents in an earlier epoch of history, but exactly when is inconsistent.  

He’s said to have been born during the time of King David, his mother is definitely the wife of someone named Nathan, sometimes that’s the Prophet sometimes it’s David’s son by Bathsheba, Ammiel is the name of Bathsheba’s father so that makes more sense with the bigger genealogical picture, in Luke 3 a Greek Transliteration of Menahem is the grandson of Nathan Ben-David. But his mother is named Hephzibah and The Talmud’s Messiah named Menahem is called the son of Hezekiah.  

He’s also said to be born the same day the first Temple was destroyed while the Talmud’s Menahem is born the day the second Temple was destroyed. The Veil of The Temple was torn while Jesus was on the Cross and Resurrection is analogized to Birth in The Bible, so Jesus can be said to have a birth that correlates to the true end of the Second Temple. We also know that Hebrew Christians identified Menahem as the Hebrew equivalent of the NT Greek Paraclete translated in the KJV of John and 1 John as Comforter and Advocate. 

Also in some of these same texts in Mitchell’s book it is Menahem Ben Ammiel who is despised and rejected and who Isaiah 53 is quoted in reference to.

Meanwhile Messiah Ben Joseph doesn’t Resurrect himself, it is Messiah Ben David who resurrects him (sometimes Elijah is part of the process).  It is Messiah Ben David who has the Power of Resurrection, who conquers Death. 

Zechariah 9-11 is one contiguous Prophecy and Zechariah 12-14 is one contiguous Prophecy.  But they are not in my view truly contiguous with each other, at least not entirely, chapter 12 verse 1 uses language that to me means a new Prophecy is starting.  Their mistaken conflation with each other is probably how the error of thinking Ben Joseph is the Pierced Messiah happened.  

There are no references to Joseph or Ephraim or Manasseh or Samaria or Joshua in 12-14. And no David in 9-11 though Judah is mentioned.  As Zechariah originally wrote these Prophecies the Pierced One is of the House of David, that’s why the House of David mourns Him, all four names mentioned in 12:12-13 are also in the Luke 3 genealogy.

There are two places where Joseph/Ephraim imagery could be relevant to Revelation.  

In Revelation 6 the Rider on the White Horse has a Bow and is given a Crown.  Joseph/Ephraim has a Bow in Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9 and has a Crown in Isaiah 28.

Meanwhile the standard Ben Joseph Narrative arguably fits the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11 pretty well, they are a problem for the World for a time till The Beast wages war against them and prevails over them and kills them leaving their bodies to rot in the City for a period of time until they Rise from The Dead.

One aspect of the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition Mitchell doesn’t want to engage with is the idea of Ben Joseph as a Gentile and/or Proselyte rather than someone of Jewish ancestry.  

It’s often suspected that the exiles of the Northern Kingdom were culturally assimilated into the Gentile communities the Assyrians settled them amongst and lost their Israelite Identity unlike the Southern Kingdom’s Exiles.  Meanwhile Genesis 48 prophesied Ephraim to become a Multitude of Nations or as some translate it the Fulness of The Nations, the LXX doesn’t use Pleroma in Genesis 48 but does use it to translate that same Hebrew word elsewhere. 

And so some interpretations of Messiah Ben Joseph see him as a Gentile ally of the Jews or maybe a full convert who may or may not indirectly descend from the Northern Tribes. 

Mitchell, when discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls, argues against the reading that Joseph is leading a foreign army and from then on doesn’t seem to acknowledge the Ben Joseph as a Gentile idea at all. But it is a big factor in Messiah Ben Joseph discourse to this day. 

For example today the Britam Website does this.  They are Jews who essentially believe in British Israelism and related ideas even though they aren’t Christians and so expect Messiah Ben Joseph to be a Western political leader, probably specially WASP since they identify Joseph with the English Speaking world.

However in Ancient Times people were more often looking to the East, since Assyria settled them in Northern Mesopotamia and Media.  Cyrus had Median descent through his Mother so maybe even his being called Messiah by Isaiah 44-45 was as a Messiah Ben Joseph?

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 20 Chapters 2-4 describes the life of Izates II King of Adiabene, he and his mother/aunt Helena were Gentiles by birth but converted to Judaism.  This Biography in my opinion clearly seeks to make Izates a parallel to Joseph in many ways starting with the envy of his half brothers. Either Josephus or an earlier source he’s drawing on I’m convinced saw Izates as a possible Messiah Ben Joseph and/or progenitor of one.  In the Talmud Adiabene called Hayab is identified as a place where Northern Kingdom Exiles were taken. I’ve argued the Kurds are the main modern descendants of the Northern Kingdom’s exiles using both geographical and DNA evidence, and indeed Erbil the ancient capital of Adiabene is in modern times the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iizates II’s main wife was the daughter of another Mesopotamian King who converted to Judaism Symacho of Characene, but he had multiple wives and children by them.  He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Monobaz II who also converted to Judaism. In Wars of The Jews Book 2 Chapter 19 Section 2 Monobaz II is an ally of the Jewish Rebels in AD 66 and sends two Kinsmen one named Monobaz and one named Kenedeus to fight in the war. Later in Book 5 Chapter 6 Section 4 we are told that sons and brethren of Izates were among those taken as hostages to Rome.  Also Book 4 Chapter 9 Section 11 also mentions a Palace built by a Grapte who was a relation of Izates.   Cassius Dio's account also confirms that the Jews has allied form beyond the Euphrates in Roman History 65:4.

But someone else involved in the First Jewish-Roman War is also worth nothing here.  Simon bar Giora is believed to be someone who's father was a Gentile convert o Judaism, and his first rise to notoriety during the Revolt was at Bethoron and later in Samaria, with some even arguing Jurish in Samaria was his hometown. And one of my Preterist theories about the Two Witnesses involves him as one of them.

Yusuf, the Arabic form of Joseph, was the actual name of the Himyarite King popularly known as Dhu Nuwas who reigned from AD 522-530.  The Himyarites were also Gentile Converts to Judaism and there is evidence Yusuf wasn't his birth name but one taken after he converted to Judaism.  So I have no doubt he too was seeking to present himself as a Messiah Ben Joseph figure.

But what about the most well known historical figure popularly viewed at the time to have been Messiah Ben Joseph, Nehemiah Ben Hushiel?  I have too many speculations about that subject going on in my head right now, it could be its own very long post.  But some do indeed involve him being a Gentile.

Some of those 7th Century texts even quote parts of Daniel 11:36-45 as being about Messiah Ben-Joseph like the "He will meet his end and none will help him", which is odd given how used we are used to seeing that figure as a villain. But remember from an Abrahamic Perspective not honoring the god(s) of your fathers is a bad thing only if your fathers were Abrahamists.

But let’s return to Genesis 48’s Fulness of The Gentiles.  

Some Christians believe Paul was deliberately drawing on that passage in Romans 11 where the Fulness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel and then All Israel will be Saved.  Meaning all Gentile Believers are by Adoption Children of Ephraim. 

I’m a Partial Preterist who believes the start and maybe even end of The Millennium are already in the past but the Parousia and Literal Bodily Resurrection of The Dead is still yet to come.  Like Post Millennials I believe we have a mission to make the current world better as much as we can, but like Amillennials I still expect the Return of Jesus is what Finishes the Project. 

So to me the Christian view of Messiah Ben Joseph should be that he’s not an individual but The Entire Body of Christ.  We are the Rider on the White Horse of both Revelation 6 and 19 conquering with the Sword of The Spirit which is the Word of God rather than literal violence. Many of us have been Killed by the Enemy doing so and probably more will be, but will be Risen by Jesus when He returns. 

Jeremiah 49:34-39’s Elam Prophecy

A number of years ago a Futurist wrote a book about this Prophecy advocating an interpretation I certainly can’t agree with now and wasn’t all that convinced of back then either.  But it got me thinking about it.

For context to anyone new to this the Elamites were a people who lived in southern Iran just east of Mesopotamia. Susa/Shushan was their major Capital before it became Persian.

This Elam Prophecy is very similar to a lot of the Prophecies about the Nations before it.  The detail that is unique to it however, that really stands out, is in verse 38 where YHWH says He will place His Throne in Elam.

No where else in Scripture does YHWH ever indicate that He will place His Throne on Earth anywhere other than Israel.  Where in Israel is not always as unambiguously uniformly Jerusalem as most assume, but it is definitely always in Israel. 

But recently I noticed that Ezra 4:9 refers to Elamites as being among the Pagan Gentile populations settled in Israel by Asnapper, along with Susanchites which may mean people of Susa.  Most scholars seem to view the name Asnapper here as a corruption of Assurbanipal.  And indeed Secular History shows Elam was conquered and defeated by Assurbanipal multiple times. 

The Elamites were not 100% removed from their original homeland, a remnant there continued to exist in the time of Cyrus and then Elymais existed during Greco-Roman/Parthian times.

But since Assurbanipal was before the time of Jeremiah, could it be that Geographically speaking the Elam that Jeremiah is talking about is where they were settled in Israel rather than Elam in Iran?

All of these people were settled in former Northern Kingdom territories, where contrary to what many others assume there were remnants of the Northern Ten Tribes also still among them.  The Samaritans do NOT descend from these Gentiles but from those of Ephraim and Manasseh in the area of Shechem.

And this is where my arguments about Bethel and Shiloh come into play.  The Ezekiel 40-48 Temple is not within YHWH-Shammah but to the North. 

We know Bethel remained a center of the Idolatry of the Northern Kingdom co-opted by these Pagan Gentiles at least until Jeroboam’s original Idol was destroyed by Josiah in 2 Kings 23:15.

Ezra 2:28, Nehemiah 7:32 and 11:31 speaks of Bethel and Hai being resettled by the Tribe Benjamin.  Before the Captivity this area was more associated with Ephraim though on the border with Benjamin.

Jeremiah 49 makes reference to God placing His Throne in Elam and then in the next verse talks about ending Elam’s Captivity.  

Could it be Bethel was specifically Elamite from the time of Assurbanipal till Ezra-Nehemiah but then they returned to Iran to become Elymais? 

Daniel 8 and the Horns of the He-Goat

One critique you often see of the traditional view of Daniel 8 is that Alexander's Empire was divided into fifths not fourths.  The truth is you could argue even more then that, but what matters here is a Jewish Perspective.

However even Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews opens Book 12 by describing Alexander's Empire as being divided into fifths. 

Now when Alexander King of Macedon had put an end to the dominion of the Persians, and had settled the affairs in Judea after the forementioned manner, he ended his life. And as his government fell among many, Antigonus obtained Asia: Seleucus, Babylon: and of the other nations which were there, Lysimachus governed the Hellespont, and Cassander possessed Macedonia. As did Ptolemy the son of Lagus seize upon Egypt.

My view is that Seleucus is not included in the original Four Horns of Daniel 8, instead they are Antigonous, Lysimachus, Cassander and Ptolemy.

The Little Horn is not an Individual but the Seleucid Kingdom as a whole. It's described as coming out of one of the Four which is explained by the parallel prophecy in Daniel 11:5 where the progenitor of the Kings of The North is first described as "one of his princes" in relation to the King of The South.  Seleucus I Nicator was an Admiral serving under Ptolemy from 316-311 BC before he became a King.

And indeed the first part of how The Little Horn is described fits Seleucus I and Antiochus Megas better then it does Epiphanes whose attempts to be a Conquerer were ultimately failures.  

But the bulk of what's said of The Little Horn becomes focused on Antiochus IV Epiphanes because that's what is most important to what interests Daniel.

It could have further relevance to the continued legacy of the Seleucid Kingdom.  But I don't here mean that in the way a Futurist would, I don't mean Epiphanes as Type of the "Antichrist".

First even just the Saga of the Hasmonaean Revolt doesn't really end with the death of Epiphanes, there's also the continued War between the Maccabees and Seleucid Kingdom under Antiochus V Eupater and Demetrius I Soter.  Demetrius I was the last at all strong ruler of the Seleucid Kingdom proper, but out of the declining Ashes of the Seleucid Empire emerged the kingdoms of Pontus, Pergamon, Cappadocia and Commagene.   Mithridates IV of Pontus the "Poison King" was very likely a maternal grandson of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but that wouldn't be his only genealogical connection to the Seleucid Dynasty.

Commagene also had it's own Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was contemporary with the First Jewish-Roman War. A son of his who Josephus simply called Epiphanes fought in that War on Rome's side, a descendent of his sister was Avidius Cassius as a Roman Usurper during the time of Marcus Aurelius who made Antioch one of his Capitals.  Jotapian a Usurper from the Crisis of the Third Century also likely had descent from the Commagene Seleucids, there was also a 221 Usurper named Seleucus.  Sohaemus of Emesa was another ally of Rome during that war who descended the Seleucids of Commagene. 

It's also my personal unverifiable hunch that Eutropia the Mother of the Second Wives of both Constantius I and Constantine I who was of Greco-Syrian origin may also have a similar Seleucid Ancestry.   Which if true would give Seleucid Ancestry to Cosntantius II, Cosntantius Gallus and Julian The Apostate.  

And I have another post connecting the Seleucids through Avidius Cassius to the Carolingians.

But it's not just about genealogy.  

The City of Antioch was founded by Seleucus I and served as their Capital and then Rome's Syrian Capital.  The reason the Seleucid rulers are called King of The North in Daniel 11 is because of Antioch's connection to Jebel Aqra which was called by the Amorites Mount Zaphon which is also the Hebrew word for North used in Daniel 11.  Antioch remained a very important city down to the time of Justinian.

Did Ephraim return to Egypt?

One of the alleged Bible Contradictions you will see thrown around is Hosea 8:13 and 9:3-6 saying that Ephraim will return to Egypt while Hosea 11:5 says Ephraim will not return to Egypt.

It’s one thing to look for these between different books with different human authors, or a book really big in scale that’s easy to imagine as multiple older texts awkwardly patched together.  But Hosea is clearly a complete stand alone coherent message that obviously says these seemingly mutually exclusive things intentionally for a reason.

However most Apologists have decided to reconcile these texts in a way where only Hosea 11 is true at “face value” because everyone’s thinking is dominated by the popular simplified narrative that the fate of the Northern Kingdom was entirely being carried away by Assyria, or counter to that deconstructing the idea of a Northern Tribes exile at all.

The problem is contextually it’s Hosea 8 and 9 that are Prophecies of the then near future while Hosea 11 when read in its entirety is a bigger picture Prophecy, it's about the Past but also the far Future when Israel will never be disobedient again. The present tense language is poetic or even ironic, it’s about God having protected Ephraim from returning to Egypt in the past. But the allusion to a future Captivity in Egypt is itself kind of in Hosea 11 in verse 11.  And the concept of Israelites returning to Egypt if they fall into disobedience is a concept already warned of back in Deuteronomy 28.

When you read carefully the accounts of the Assyrian Captivity you’ll realize that in spite of occasional hyperbole none of them are actually about the entirety of The Northern Kingdom.  1 Chronicles 5 talks about Pul carrying away just the Transjordan Tribes,, 2 Kings 15:29 talks about Tiglath-Pileser carrying away just Naphtali, and 2 Kings 17 is just the Capital City of Samaria which was in territory allotted to Manasseh.  The proper allotment of Ephraim isn’t included in any.

Instead 2 Kings 17:4 says that Hosea sent messengers unto So King of Egypt.  The word Pharaoh comes from a word for the royal palace of Egypt’s Kings yet The Bible uses it often as if it’s a personal name, I think the same is happening here and that So is actually a form of Sais also rendered Sau and Zau which at this time was the capital of the 24th Dynasty.  These emissaries may have happened to be of the Tribe of Ephraim and been there when Samaria fell and helped negotiate the city becoming a refuge for fleeing Ephraimites.  The 24th Dynasty was short lived but we know little about Sais's status during the Memphis based Cushite Dynasty numbered as the 25th. Its status as a haven for Ephraimites could have been maintained.  

2nd Chronicles 30 has Ephraimites among both those who rejected Hezekiah’s Passover invitation and those who accepted the invitation.  I think the rejectors of Hezekiah’s Passover are the ancestors of the Samaritans.  Those who accepted it possibly at least partially stayed in Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 9:3 refers to a time when the population of Jerusalem included people of both Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chronicles 15:8-9 refers to people of Ephraim and Manasseh moving south all the way back in the time of Asa) though the Babylonian Captivity and Return is still documented as being only Judah and Benjamin with their Levites.

After this came the reign of Manasseh King of Judah who desecrated The Temple with Idols.  Those who hold the view that The Ark actually came to Ethiopia through Egypt rather than the Menalik story believe this is most likely when The Ark was removed from The Temple.  But I don’t think it specifically came to Elephantine till later.  At first it was perhaps these Ephraimites in Jerusalem who recalled their brethren in Sais and helped some Levites smuggle it there. 

The Cushite Dynasty was destroyed and Egypt conquered for a time by Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.  Nahum 3:8-1 speaks of the Egyptians being massacred and carried away into a Captivity of their own.  But after all that the 26th Dynasty arises from Sais under Psamtik I, his son was Necho.

In 2 Chronicles 35 Josiah among other things orders The Ark returned to The Temple.  But we don’t see the fulfillment of that intent like we do other things in Josiah’s speech.  Instead right after he is done preparing The Temple he attacks Necho, Necho tells him he is doing YHWH’s will and that YHWH is with him and in verse 22 the narrative voice agrees.  I’m convinced that the obvious subtext here is that Necho had The Ark.

The Elephantine Colony were initially mercenaries serving the 26th Dynasty.  I am among those who disagree with the accusations that they were Polytheists.  After the Elephantine Temple was destroyed some stayed and some went to Tana Kirkos. 

Bishop James Ussher in the 17th Century interpreted Psamtik I as fulfilling at least part of Isaiah 19 and he didn’t even know about the Elephantine Temple.  The “Midst of Egypt” is often looked for in the Memphis/Giza area because people want to read it through the lens of the Upper-Lower Egypt divide, but in antiquity I don't think people outside of Egypt thought too much about that.  This Hebrew word for Midst as a geographical term in the context of Egypt I think most likely refers to The Nile.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8 Section 6 possibly alludes to Samaritans being settled in Thebes by Alexander The Great.  What’s said about the Samaritans and Sanballat in this part of Josephus is tied up in Anti-Samaritan Propaganda so I take it all with a grain of salt, but it’s worth noting.  Since Sanballat is called a Horonite it’s possible he had nothing to do with the Samaritans as Josephus accuses but was an apostate Ephraimite leader, or a leader of Gentile settled in Ephraimite territory.

Later in Book 12 Chapter 1 Josephus talks about Ptolemy I settling both Judeans and Samaritans in Egypt.  Book 13 Chapter 3 Section 4 refers to this Samaritan presence in Egypt showing it continued.  

After the Kitos War in 116-117 all Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica who survived were forced to return to Judea, but this may not have included those considered Samaritans.  

A Jewish Community in Egypt would remerge from Jews who migrated there from Judea some time after the Bar Kochba Revolt.  Those may have been partly descendants of those who lived there before.  

But Hadrian banned Jews from living anywhere Jerusalem was even visible from (according to Eusebius Church History Book IV Chapter 6 Section 3), and that includes a good chunk of Biblically Ephraimite territory (today roughly the Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate and Jericho Governorate).  Gophna (Modern Jifna) is one example of a city in Ephraimite territory archeologically confirmed to have ceased being Jewish and became Pagan at this time.

A Law issued by Theodosius I on February 18th 390 AD shows there were still Samaritans in Egypt then.

This website documents evidence of continued Samaritan presence in Egypt down to the Eighteenth Century.

https://members.tripod.com/~osher_2/Pummer.htm

Past Millennialism

I made a post recently about how in my view of the nature of The Millennium I’m more like Amillennialism than Postmillennialism.    

However both those views as they are currently conventionally understood are different from my view in that they are both hostile to viewing Satan as already released from The Abyss. There is one Facebook group devoted to a belief that we are currently in the “Little Season” but it’s also heavily wrapped up in the Tartaria Conspiracy Theory which I don’t believe in.  

So I’ve decided to coin the label Past Millennialism for the belief that all of the Revelation 20 Millennium is already in The Past but the Parousia is still yet future.  InspirisingPhilosphy’s video on time helps us understand how what happens between those events may not necessarily happen as immediately as a casual reading of Revelation 20 will lead one to assume.

Again I want to stress that the only thing that happens at the end of The Millennium is Satan’s release, his attempt to destroy the Beloved City and Camp of The Saints is destined to fail.  Christ’s Kingdom is Without End.

Now this view can have its own internal debate about exactly what dates to give the start and end of The Millennium, which I’m currently still undecided on.  As well as exactly what you view the Mandate of The Church as being.  

Revelation 13-19 fulfilled in the late Second Century?

In my post on the Hadrianic date for Revelation I proposed that if you view the succession of Emperors as rebooting with Vespasian’s victory in the year of the Four Emperors then Hadrian can be viewed as the 6th.  That’s not my main view on the Seven Kings but it’s a good starting point for this theory.

The weakest link of that argument is I can’t think of a way to justify saying Antonius Pius’s reign was short.  It could be Lucius Aelius Caesar was the Seventh.

But the main reason I’m attracted to considering this timeframe for the fulfilment of Revelation is the figure of Alexander of Abonoteichus whose death is usually dated to 170 AD.

That historical figure is also sometimes called Alexander The False Prophet or Pseudophrophetes because I think that was the original name of the Fictionalized Biography of him written by Lucian of Samosata.  In that account he creates a cult for a god named Glycon who he represents as a rebirth of Asclepius and used trickery to make an Icon of Glycon appear to be moving and speaking.

So that combination of a person independently called by the title Pseusoprophetes while making a Statue appear to be alive is compelling to me. Pergamon, one of the cities housing one of the Seven Churches of Revelation, was also an important cult center for Aeslepius.

Alexander was clearly presenting himself in part as a Prophet of Apollo, Apollo under the Epithet Karneia was depicted as having two Ram’s Horns.  But the Voice or Tong of the Dragon could also be alluding to Python, the mythical serpent also tied to Prophets and Oracles of Apollo. 

This Alexander persecuted both Christians and Epicureans.

The Roman-Parthian War of 161-166 AD could be the War with the Kings of the East alluded to in Revelation 16 after the 6th Bowl is Poured Out.  The Antonine Plague connected to that War could also be relevant to the first bowl. It was during this War that Rome completely destroyed Seleucia on the Tigris, a city I’ve already shown was also called Babylon.

During this time Rome had Two Emperors, Marcus Aurelius is who history remembers more but Lucius Verus was his Co-Emperor till January of 169 and during that time Verus mostly handled affairs in The East.  Verus as the son of Lucius Aelius could be argued to be the rightful 8th King then in spite of those who reigned in between.

The dating of Alexander’s death to 170 seems to be a rough guess based on Lucian saying he was 70 when he died.  Lucian’s account does present a number of things as happening seemingly when Marcus Auerelius is sole Emperor already, but that could be a result of his fictionalization.

The Persecution of Christians in Southern France centered around Lyon and Vienne and how it ended is often dated to 177 but other dates are proposed as well.  Marcus Aruelius did not personally Persecute Christians at all, like all persecutions in the first two centuries of Church History the source of persecution was usually local mobs and authorities.  Marcus Aruleius ultimately intervened to end the persecution.

The Story of why, which may not have actually happened but if it did it’s interesting here, involved miraculous rainfall.  I’ve said before that the language of Heaven being opened in Revelation 19 drawing on certain Hebrew Bible precedents and in contrast to what happened in Chapter 11 can refer to rainfall. The “armies in Heaven” refers to Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven not actually people in a non Earthly Location.  I have a prior post on Smyrna and The White Horseman where Lyon and Vienne are relevant as Daughter Churches of Smyrna.

But another candidate for The Beast is Avidius Cassius.  I mentioned him on this Blog before as a genealogical descendent of Augustus and the Seleucids and the Herodians and Hasmoneans, and in turn as an Ancestor of the Carolingians and thus all modern European Royalty. 

He was appointed a leading general for Rome during the Roman-Parthain War and was very successful “who is able to make war with him” and in 165 he led the sack of Seleucia.   In late 166 he was made the Imperial Legate of Syria and in 170 he was made Rector Orientis. 

In 175 Avidius Cassius became a usurper Emperor and for a brief time had the support of much of the East.  It started in Egypt but Antioch also became a key Capital. 

White Horse Rider of Revelation 19

Non Pre-Millennials with an at all face value understanding of the chronology of Revelation have to conclude that Revelation 19 does not depict the Parousia and thus this White Horse Rider isn’t exactly Jesus.

A lot of things said about Him are also said about Jesus elsewhere, but that’s in the context of how Jesus is the beginning of the fulfillment of Humanity's Destiny, and how He gave His Authority to His Faithful Saints.  

The White Horseman cna be viewed as Jesus in the sense of Jesus working through His Ekklesia.

He is Faithful and True to His Father and we strive to be Faithful and True to Him.

The Sword that comes out the Mouth of Jesus in Chapter 1 and this Rider in Chapter 19 is the Sword of The Spirit of Ephesians 6:17, the Word(Rhema) of God. When the Armies of The Beast are killed by this Sword I don’t believe it refers to the physical deaths of bodies but how the Word of God is killing their old selves to begin the process of Spiritual Rebirth.

The Name of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords being written on his Vesture can be interpreted as not his own name but the name of who he’s serving.  That said, given the Kingship of all Believers Doctrine, that too can be a title Jesus Shares with His Faithful in some sense.

Isaiah 63:16 depicts Israel as a Horse and Zechariah 10:3 depicts Judah as a Horse.

At least two things said about this Rider are references back to the Promises to the Overcomers in Chapter 2, the one to Pergamon in verse 17 and the one to Thyatira in verses 26-28.  The Overcomer promises I’ve always viewed as the least actually specific to the Ekklesia at hand, every Overcomer can expect to benefit from all 7 of those Promises, each one is tied to a specific Ekklesia in Chapters 2-3 for thematic reasons.  A third Overcomer promise could also be relevant to Revelation 19’s Horseman and that’s the one to Philadelphia where the topic of Names is again relevant.

Revelation 6:2 and 19:11 have more in common than just the idea of a White Horse and someone riding it, a lot of language is repeated verbatim, the only real difference is the weapon the Rider wields. I have a prior post arguing the Revelation 2 White Horseman is Smyrna.  And that could still be the case here, but the change in Weapon has me looking to the other Ekklesia with nothing bad said about them.

The only time the word “word” is used in Revelation 2-3 is twice in the message to Philadelphia in Chapter 3 verse 8 and 10.  There are also only two verses where the words “word” and “name” appear in the same verse, Revelation 3:8 and 19:13.  I think those verses relate to one another.

Also the Revelation 19 White Horseman already has a Crown while the Revelation 6 White Horseman is given one, just like the difference between the Crown references for Smyrna and Philadelphia.  Now the Revelation 19 Crowns are Diadems rather than Stpehanos, but the difference between those Greek words appears to be that Diadem is more specific, every Diadem is also a Stephanos.

Since Philadelphia is the Revelation Ekklesia who’s origins we arguably know the least about, maybe it was a daughter of Smyrna to begin with?

Heaven being Opened in 19:11 is an idiom just like heaven being Shut in Revelation 11:6 was, it's an idiom Scripture sometimes uses for Rain.  

Through out Revelation "Them that Dwell in Heaven" is not referring to a different location in the Universe then "them that Dwell on Earth", it's about a state of mind, it's about Believers being Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven rather then the Kingdoms of this World.  And it's the same with the Armies of Heaven in Chapter 19 verse 14, in fact the words "which were" in the KJV aren't even in the original Greek.

So no I don't think these verses are about anyone traveling through a Stargate.

I’ve been more Amillennial the entire time I’ve been calling myself Post Millennial.

All because Amillennialism has a branding problem. 

I started this Blog under the mistaken impression that all Amillennials were also Full Preterists, but I now know there is actually no overlap between them.  Amillennials absolutely expect a still yet future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.

Or well that’s the impression I get from the Facebook Groups I’m in and podcasts I listened to.  Wikipedia says Perfect Amillennialism rejects a Bodily Resurrection, and still even connected Imperfect Amillennials to heretical views like those of Cerinthus as well as the view that the First Resurrection and Second Resurrection happen at the same time.  But Wikipedia has a limited understanding of many things. 

The A- prefix implies they don't believe in any Millennium, but that’s only what the Millennium is to Pre Millennials and sometimes also Post Millennials.  They actually more so then Post Millennials believe in the Millennium being fulfilled in the Church Age.

Amillennials are Post Millennial in that they believe the Parousia happens after the Millennium, and Post Millennials are Amillennial in that they disagree with Premillennialism on the Millennium involving Christ physically ruling on Earth. So the difference between them isn’t defined by the terms themselves really.

I do believe the Millennium being a Thousand year time period is literal, but that is equally as atypical for Amillennialism as it is for Postmillennialism.  Holding that view while being not Premillennial is as far as I currently know unique to me.

The only thing that ends when the Millennium expires is Satan’s Imprisonment, his attempt to destroy the Camp of the Saints and Beloved City is destined to fail. And with the help of Inspiring Philosophy’s video on Biblical Time (who is Post Millennial) I can easily argue more time passes between Satan being let loose and his being cast into the Lake of Fire then it at first appears on a casual reading.

Amillennials are sometimes Idealists (which I ultimately am not but borrow some elements from) but also sometimes Partial Preterists or Historicists, which both apply to my view in some ways.

Postmillennials are like Premillennials in how many of their errors come from taking passages about New Jerusalem and the New Heaven and New Earth and applying them to the Millennium.  Revelation 20 depicts a Camp of Saints during this period, representing them as a set apart camp not as ruling the world politically. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 places the Subduing of his enemies after the Parousia. The Olivet Discourse and Thessalonian Epistles also depict the Parousia happening to a world far from perfected.

If He returns to a fully Christianized world why is He returning as a “Thief in the Night” to those not prepared? 

Postmillennials will also cite the same passages I cite to prove Universal Salvation, but that’s what I believe fully happens at the Parousia not before. They also cite The Lord’s Prayer, what we are doing in that Prayer is asking for The Kingdom to Come, it is done by The Father’s Will not ours.

The Great Commission is already accomplished, The Gospel has been Published in every nation.  Our mandate was to be a Witness and teach the Nations not to take them over. Matthew 28:19 says to “teach all nations” in the correct translations not “make disciples”.  Even with the "make disciples" translation that would just mean there being disciples from all nations, not the nations in their entirety.

Bible Prophecy indisputably predicts a time when the Entire World will be converted to Christ, the disagreement is if that happens before or after the Second Coming.  Every account of the Second Coming depicts a world still not perfected.

I do believe we have a mandate to strive to make the current world better as much as we can.  Those are things we are told to do regardless of what our Eschatology is. But we will not be able to make the world Perfect before Jesus Comes Back.  I believe we are principally supposed to lead by example, not by taking the reins of power.  We are to be Separatist Anarchists not Revolutionaries.

Postmillennials acting like only their view believes The Church will succeed is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what The Church's mission is.  Our Goal is to Be a Witness, not to take over the world.  

I have no innate expectation about whether things will get better or worse before the end from where we are now.  But I have Faith in the Victory of Christ.  

I still don’t like the term Amillennial, I like to define my views based on what I do believe in rather than what I don’t.  But academically that’s the situation I’m stuck in.

Volcano in Revelation 9?

When Revelation 9:2 says that the opening of the Abyss causes smoke like a great furnace to arise and darken the skies I can’t help but see that as a description of a Volcanic Eruption.

Now I know “Smoke of a Furnace” language is also how certain people try to argue Mt Sinai was a Volcano.  But in passages like Exodus 19:18,, Genesis 15:17 or Genesis 19:18 it’s not possible to interpret underground as the source of the Smoke, but that is heavily implied to be the source of the Smoke in Revelation 9. 

And I also can’t help but suspect Ancient Greek readers would have been reminded by this chapter of the mythology surrounding Mt Etna (the largest Volcano in the Mediterranean world), inside of which is imprisoned the monster Typhon and also the forge of Hephaestus a god who was cast down from Olympus.  

The last verse of Chapter 1 sets the stage that sometimes if not always in this book Stars represent Angels, so we have in Revelation 9:1 a Star falling from heaven and being given the Key to the Abyss which houses monsters including a King of those Monsters.

Maybe it wasn’t just Etna, maybe most known Volcanoes had similar mythological frameworks surrounding them and Etna’s is just one most well remembered?

In my desire to place as much of Revelation 6-19 in Late Antiquity as possible the most significant Volcanic Eruption is the one that happened in AD 536 causing the major climate issues of the next few years.  The main culprit for that Eruption is far away from the Biblical World, but other Eruptions seem to have possibly also happened the same year including another Eruption of Mt Vesuvius.

But the Vesuvius Eruption of 472 is one that could be notable being close to 3 ½ years before the Western Roman Empire is popularly viewed to have ended.  

And Mt Etna had one in AD 252 just before the Valerian Persecution happened.

Should Satan’s release from the Abyss after the Millennium be expected to be represented in the visible world by the same kind of events?  Those with less strictly chronological readings of Revelation are inclined to see both releases of a villain from the Abyss as the same event being described in different ways, i.e. Apollyon and Satan are the same.  That's not currently my main view but I'm open to it.

The Kingdom doesn’t end when the Millennium ends, the only event directly correlated to the Millennium ending is Satan being released from his prison.  His attempt to destroy the Camp of the Saints/Beloved City is doomed to fail.  

The YLT of Revelation 20:7 says “when the thousand years may be finished” which, along with looking at the Greek word for “Finished” or “Expired” used here, has me considering that during the 1000th could also be a viable reading.

I have been preparing to consider an Idealist model where the Millennium begins with The Resurrection of Jesus or the following Pentecost which I lean towards placing in AD 30 and that Satan was imprisoned in the Abyss about that same time when or after Judas died (who Satan was indwelling within). In which case it’s fascinating that a Mt Etna Eruption happened in AD 1030.

Other models for The Millennium I’m considering could make worth noting for it’s end the possible Etna Eruptions of 1169 or 1329 or 1381, the Mystery Eruptions of 1452/1453 and 1458, the Nuovo Eruption of 1538 or Etna Eruptions of 1536-37, the Vesuvius Eruption of 1631 and the Etna Eruption of 1669.

Mt Etna specifically is believed to have probably had Eruptions between 252 and 1030 that we simply don’t have the exact dates documented for.  Maybe one of them was among the Eruptions of 536?  But Geologists seem to have concluded that about 300-450 was one of its more active periods.  Also 1669 was not its first 17th Century Eruption, an Eruption has been dated to 1634 and in my Heraclius model 634 is a viable year to start the Millennium.  And a possible Eruption of 590-604 could fit one happening before the rise of Heraclius.

An Idealist could also, depending on how they view the relationship between Apollyon and The Beast, want to associate the Revelation 9 release of Apollyon BC with something soon before the Roman Empire “begins” as First Century Jews understood it.  

The Etna Eruptions of 140, 135, 126 and 122 BC can be seen as correlating to a time when the strife that would end the Republic and create the Caesars was beginning.  The 49 BC Eruption preceded Caesar becoming Dictator, the 44 BC Eruption was the year Caesar was killed and the reign of Antony and Octavian began. The 36-35 and 32 BC Eruptions could be seen as heralding Octavian’s Victory at Actium.  Octavian aka Augustus’s deification of himself was largely as an incarnation of Apollo, a name Apollyon can be easily linked to.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d825d5be337c890b5c7d05d52e313e403769dcc8

Papacy obsessed Protestants really want to have it both ways

The foundation of identifying the Papacy with whatever term you want to use for the Big Bad Villain of Bible Prophecy is the argument that the “Temple of God” in II Thessalonians 2 is The Church just as it is every other time Paul uses that phrase in his Epistles.  What makes The Church The Temple of God is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Saints.

That means the “Man of Sin” the “Son of Perdition” is operating from within The True Authentic Church, not leading a False Church.  Paul didn't say a counterfeit Temple of God, he said the actual Temple of God. If only Protestants are real Christians then no The Pope isn't sitting in The Temple of God.

But they do also want to deny that any Non Protestants can qualify as True Christians.  Now on my other Blog I already laid out the reasons I oppose denying that the Christians I disagree with are true Believers.  There is no New Testament promise that genuine believers will be perfect and never mistaken on doctrine.  The Book of Revelation’s entire framing device is a message to Seven Churches in Asia that are all over the place in how good they are, for two of them nothing good is said about them and for both their issues are today Protestant ones far more than Catholic.

I agree with the gist of the above II Thessalonians 2 argument, however I ultimately view it as about more than just the Pope but all Monoepsicopal Church Hierarchy as well as Civil Christian Monarchy.  But I do have a post on this Blog that does zero in on some specifically Papal application of the Prophecy.

Futurists are the ones who invented the idea of insisting all the Villains of various Bible Prophecies are a single “Antichrist”.  The Beast of Revelation I can’t see being the Papacy for a number of reasons big and small I'm not gonna get into here.

What is truly Absurd is thinking you can make the Popes the “Antichrist” of the Johannine Epistles.

The Anti prefix in Greek has precedent for being used with both the “in place of” and “opposed to” meanings.  But the Context in these Epistles clearly intends the “opposed to” meaning, an Antichrist heresy is always defined by what they say Jesus is not never what they claim anyone else is.

Those denials are

Denying that Jesus is The Christ.

Denying the relationship of the Father and the Son.

Denying that Jesus came in The Flesh.

You can’t accuse the Papacy of denying any of those things, not without constructing hyper specific versions of what those doctrines mean to force it so only Protestants truly believe them.  All of these Aspects of Who Jesus is are affirmed by the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Confession and even the so-called Athanasian Creed, all Creeds that most Catholics will call you a Heretic for not accepting.

The original context of these Epistles I believe was about dealing with the Germ of what would become Marcionism and Gnosticism.  The scholarly term is Docetism. 

Do Catholics believe some things that I think could become a Gateway Drug to Docetism like the Beatific vision of Pope Benedict XII?  Yes.  But they haven’t crossed that line, anyone who does ceases to still be Catholic because Docetism is a believe The Catholic Church considers Heretical. 

Day-Year theory Debunked

This theory is pretty much vital to Historicism as traditionally understood, that model largely can't work without it.

The cited Biblical precedent comes from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6.  In both cases a literal period of days did happen.  Numbers connected the 40 days of spying to the 40 years in the wilderness.  And Ezekiel is told to do something for a period of days to represent a period of years.

This is not consistent with how the theory gets applied to the numbers in Daniel and Revelation.  Neither verse justifies saying when God predicts a period of days will happen it really means years.

And it is 42 Months that Revelation 13 defines the reign of The Beast as lasting, as well as the Holy City trodden under foot of The Gentiles in Revelation 11.

There is a third precedent some will embarrass themselves by citing and that's Daniel 9.  No concept of Days as Symbolic of Years has anything to do with there 70 Weeks of Daniel 9.  Some Day=Year theorists know this and will insist it's straw manning when a critic presents Daniel 9 as relevant, but others do include Daniel 9 and have called me ignorant when I refuted the Day=Year theory by addressing only those two above passages without mentioning Daniel 9.

In Biblical Hebrew Weeks came in more then just days, Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25-27 lays out that there also Weeks of Years, Nehemiah 10:31 shows they were on people's minds at the time of the return from Captivity.  

The 70 Weeks Prophecy says nothing in it's context about days but a lot about years.  It's starts with Daniel noticing that the 70 years of Captivity will be ending soon.  Jeremiah 34:13-14 suggests part of the reason the captivity was 70 years was because for 70 Weeks of years they failed to keep the Sabbatical Year, and Daniel 9:2 tells us Jeremiah is the Prophet Daniel had just been reading.  So Weeks of Years are clearly the context of Daniel 9. 

Partial Preterism has a branding problem.

Eschatological positions like Partial Preterism have a branding problem in terms of what they are called. It’s very easy for a Full Preterists to just off Vibes convince people that the only true Preterism is Full Preterism and the Partial position is just a fence sitting compromise.

However if you take the Chronology of The Book of Revelation even mildly at face value there is going to be a period of at least a Thousand Years where much of it is already fulfilled but not the very end of it yet.  And with the Help of IP’s explanation of Biblical Time I can argue more time separates the end of the Millennium from the Final Resurrection then you would at first assume. 

The desire of Full Preterists to say you’re a Futurist so long as you believe any Prophecy is still yet future, especially the Parousia itself, sounds reasonable on paper.  But speaking as a former Futurist, what Futurism is as an ideology, what drives the Futurist mind, isn’t the Parousia itself, it is about obsessing over everything that’s supposed to happen before the Parousia, before The Millennium starts, and looking for signs of those things preparing to happen in the near future rather than the distant past. 

I can't accept Full Preterism because of something I won't comprise on, a literal physical Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.

In a way it’s parallel to the branding issue Mid-Trib has, the Rapture timing position I held when I was a Futurist.  It’s easy to dismiss that as a mere compromise and see the real debate as between Pre and Post.  But I wasn't Mid-Trib because I desired to compromise on anything, I took that position because of my very strong positive conclusions about what certain Scriptures said.  

Actually a lot of what I’m struggling with while forming my new Post-Millennial Eschatology is how I still see a lot of the language of key Parousia passages outside Revelation happening within Revelation in Chapters 11-14 before the Bowls of Wrath.  The Last Trumpet, the Rapture of the Man-Child and the Son of Man on a Cloud.  The word Parousia doesn’t appear in Revelation at all but those context clues are how we refute Pretibbers on their claims that the Parousia of Matthew 25 and 1 Thessalonians 4 aren’t the same event, I believe Paul was basically quoting the Olivet Discourse in that chapter.

A core aspect of my rejection of Post-Trib is something still important to my new Non-Premillennial Eschatology, and that is how I don't view the actions of the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19 as the Parousia.  But when I was a Futurist I was at least still open to that Rider being Jesus because I viewed the Parousia as having happened earlier.  Now I’m firmly viewing him as being the Church and the same White Horseman as Revelation 6.

I’m different from most Partial Preterists in that my view is not focused on AD 70 at all.  I view Revelation 13-19 as having happened over a thousand years ago but the writing of Revelation I place in the time of Hadrian.

Some might say that makes me more Historicist then Preterist.  But I reject the Day=Year theory, so each reference to 1260 Days or 42 Months I believe refers to about 3 and Half years not over a Thousand and that Revelation 13-19 happens over the course of a few decades tops.  I just haven’t made up my mind exactly when to place them yet.

I do lean towards a very Historicist Understanding of the Four Horsemen and maybe even the rest of the Seals and Trumpets.  And I agree with the Historicist position that the Temple of God in II Thessalonians 2 is The Church, but I generally don’t see that as about just The Pope but all Episcopal Polity and Christian Monarchy.

Now I didn't abandon Futurism and Pre-Millennialism because of any single Doctrine I'm as unshakeable on as what keeps me from Full Preterism.   And indeed I still refuse to call Futuristism a Heresy.

But studying of Ancient History had been leading me for awhile to seeing the plausibility of many Partial-Preterist and Historicist scenarios.  It was when I had that Baptism of The Beast Epiphany that the main assumptions keeping me Futurist finally evaporated.