Smyrna and The White Horseman

The idea that the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 6 isn’t “The Antichrist” or some other Villain but something more positive is almost unheard of among Futurists and thus something I was long hostile to when I was a Futurist.  But now that my Eschatology is a mixture of Historicism and Post-Millennialism it’s one I need to reconsider.  The idea I shall propose here is kind of mutually exclusive with some readings of Revelation 6 I’ve proposed before and that’s fine, I’m currently being Dogmatic about very little.

I’m not in favor of interpreting him as an individual, as some secondary Messiah like a Christianized Messiah Ben-Joseph or the Last Roman Emperor or The Mahdi.  I don’t like The Great Man Theory of History, so my Historicism prefers to focus on Collectives and Systems.

In Halley’s Bible Handbook it seems the standard Historicist take is that it’s The Church conquering the world not militarily but by spreading The Gospel.  My take here shall be like that but a bit more specific.

The word translated “conquering” and “conquer” is Nikao (in different forms) and it’s translated that way in The KJV only in this verse, everywhere else in the New Testament including elsewhere in Revelation it appears it is some form of “Overcome” or "Overcomer".  

Each of the messages to the Seven Churches has near the end a promise to the Overcomer.  However it is only Smyrna that Jesus promises to give a Crown (Philadelphia already has one).  So I do think when simply reading through Revelation that Chapter 6 verse 2 is supposed to remind the reader of Chapter 2 verses 10-11.

Smyrna in Revelation is most well known for being directly and explicitly associated with Martyrdom.  As the birthplace of the Roma Cult the pressure to conform to Imperial worship was the most pressing there.  Persecution of Christians in the province of Asia began in the Reign of Hadrian during the Governorships of Granianus and Fundanus.  So this message reflects that, being reassurance to Christians having a very difficult time and promising a reward to those who die for their Faith.  That theme shall recur in the history I shall discuss even though the contemporary descendants of Smyrna are currently pretty safe.  

Polycarp was an important second century leader of the Church in Smyrna, I sometimes speculate that him being called a "hearer of John" originally meant he was contemporary with the initial publication of The Book of Revelation, maybe even the "Angel" of Smyrna if you think the Angels of the Churches were Human messengers.  He identified himself in his letter as merely one among a group of Elders/Bishops showing that Smyrna didn't have Episcopal Polity yet. He was Martyred in probably AD 155 during the reign of Antonius Pius.  

The text known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp is a later text probably not an accurate account of exactly what happened.  But even if Polycarp did say he'd served Christ 86 years that doesn't prove Infant Baptism.  It's an assumption that the 86 years was his entire lifespan, and it's an assumption that how long one serves Christ can only begin with Baptism.  But more importantly I don't even think this was meant to be taken literally, that he may be equating his entire lifespan with how long he served Christ even if that isn't chronologically true, he's speaking poetically.

Saying “went forth conquering and to conquer” suggests that this Rider will not stay in a single location.  The first Christian Community to pop up in what we today call France was based in Lyon and founded by immigrants from Smyrna, its two most well known early leaders were Pothinus and Irenaeus both said to be students of Polycarp.  

Irenaeus has been falsely accused of supporting Infant Baptism, however it is only false beliefs about what happens Metaphysically at Baptism tied to Infant Baptism that makes what Ireneaus said in Against Heresies II.22.4 sound like it’s relevant to Baptism at all, it in fact is not.

Vienne is a French city just a little south of Lyon, and as far as I can tell it’s the only significant French city with even a claim that its Christian presence might predate even Lyon's.  But its earliest Traditional Bishops are not as historically well attested as Pothinus and Irenaeus.  My hunch is that it first emerged as a Daughter Church of Lyon, or that both were together Sister products of the missionary work of Pothinus and Irenaeus.  We know a Christian Community existed there in 177 closely associated with Lyon because of a letter preserved by Eusebius.  Vienne was another center of the Imperial Cult as home to the Temple of Augustus and Livia built by Claudius.

The city of Augustodunum aka Autun seems likely to have also had an early Christian Congregation derived form these Smyrnaeans of Lyon though the traditional origin story is Chronologically confused having Polycarp seemingly still alive in the time of Septimius Severus. 

Other Smyrnaeans said to have been sent by Polycarp to Evangelize in Gaul were Andelolus of Vivarais and Benignus of Djon, and then Ferrelous and Ferrutio of Besançon.

Like many Asian Churches in the second century they followed the Quatrodeciman tradition of observing Pascha on the 14th of Nisan rather than the following Sunday.  While most Churches disagreed with this position it was only Victor the Bishop of Rome who wanted to excommunicate people over this and Irenaeus was one of those who wrote to Victor in defense of Quartodecimanism.

This Lyon community suffered Persecution in 177 when Pothinus was Martyred as did nearby Vienne,  then again in 202 when Irenaeus was Martyred, and again in 208 when Andelolus was Martyred, finally Ferrelous and Ferrutio were Martyred in 212.

Hippolytus of Rome was not a student of Irenaeus, that claim first pops up with Photios of Constantinople in the 9th Century.  Hippolytus taught some similar ideas to Irenaeus especially on Eschatology, but he could have come to them independently or just read Irenaeus.  The clerical heirs of Irenaeus, if he had any at all, (I don't think he supported Episcopal understandings of Apostolic Succession), were those who followed him as "Bishop" of Lyon, Zechariah, Helios and Faustinius.

Fabian who was Bishop of Rome from 236-250 AD sent missions to found Churches in other Parts of France resulting in the first Bishops of Paris, Arles, Narbone, Clermont, Limoges, Toulouse and Tours.  Later the Churches of Reims and Soissons were founded by Sixtus and Sinicius sent by Sixtus II of Rome.  The Gallican Church, the French Branch of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe descends clerically from these Churches.  In time they consecrated their own Bishops of Lyon and Vienne who would claim succession from the original Bishops of Lyon and Vienne but in my view the true Heirs of the Smyrneans of Lyon were eventually Congregations that operated more underground.

The singular Bishops canonized on these later Episcopal Bishop Lists were probably just Preachers who happened to stand out.

When this shift in the official list of Bishops of Lyon and Vienne happened is hard to tell for certain however.  The Bishops of Lyon who would have been contemporary with the Council of Nicaea (Vocius, Maximus or Tetrad) did not attended that Council, it’s well known that only five Bishops from the West attended Nicaea and only one of those was from France, Nicasius of Die, himself the first known Bishop of Die.  Likewise neither Justus or Alpinus seem to have attended the Second Ecumenical Council.  Sicarius, Eucherius and Patiens aren’t documented as attending the Councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon either.  Reticius of Autun also didn't attend Nicaea.

Make no mistake I do believe these Christians were Theologically and Christologically Nicene, Trinitarian and probably also Chalcedonian on the core issues those councils were held over.  Point is they didn’t submit themselves to Episcopal Authority, they operated Congregationally. 

Lyon was part of the Kingdom of the Burgundians when the Western Roman Empire lost control of Gaul, as were Vienne, Autun, Vivarais, Dijon and Besançon.  The Burgundians were Arians but like most other Gothic Arians were tolerant of the other Christians living in their kingdom so the original Christians of Lyon would have been left alone under them.  Their Kingdom however was Conquered by the Merovingians by 534 AD.  Clovis was Baptized by Remigius of Reims making him a clerical descendent of Sixtus.  Lupus was the first Bishop of Lyon after that point and some consider him the first Bishop of Lyon to be an Archbishop.  Nicetius was given the title of Patriarch by the Bishop of Rome, Priscus was appointed explicitly by a Merovingian King and Aetherius was a close associate of Pope Gregory I.  

The true Smyrnaeans surviving underground outside the notice of recorded History during the “Dark Ages” would have been fairly plausible.  

In the 12th Century the Waldenses emerged in the region of Lyon.  Their origins are definitely more complicated than just being founded by a guy named Peter Waldo.  Even their enemies referred to them as having existed since the time of Sylvester (in Catholic tradition the "Pope" at the time of Nicaea).  There is strong evidence they were originally both Credo-Baptists and Congregationalists.  

I’m certain they played a role in the origins of various Anabaptist movements of the 16th Century and through them can be connected to the origins of the General Baptists of England, (maybe also the Particular Baptists), the German Baptists (Schwarsenu Brethren) and the Swedish Baptists.  And from them came The Diggers, The Quakers, and many other offshoots.

So yes I just argued for a form of Baptist Successionism, but I don't believe in the Doctrine that it matters if you have an unbroken chain of Believers Baptisms going back to the Apostles.  And I reject the standard Landmarkism history claiming descent from the Montanists, Novatians and Donatists, Faustinius of Lyon was in fact on record as opposing Novatianism.  

But since I’ve broached the subject of secret underground Proto-Protestantism in France I need to remind readers that NO I do not believe Jeanne d’Arc was a Proto-Protestant of any kind, she wanted to lead a Crusade against the Husites.  And one website documenting her Catholic Orthodoxy even has some quotes to show that if anything those who burned her were more Proto-Protestant.  But they would be more like Proto-Anglicans serving the interests of the King of England not Baptists who were originally the strongest defenders of Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State.

An attempt to return Lyon to something like the Congregationalist principles of Polycarp was made by Antoine-Adrien Lamourette of the Cercle social appointed Bishop of Lyon under The Civil Constitution of The Clergy during The French Revolution.  He was Guillotined on January 11th 1794, another Christian Martyred by the Hebertists.

That Temple of Augustus and Livia at Vienne became a Church after Christianization and then during this period a Temple of the Cult of Reason.

Rome didn’t End, it simply Changed

Unlike a lot of people who’ll say something like this I’m referring primarily to The Western Roman Empire.

According to Genesis 10 in verses 5, 20 and 31 National identity is defined first and foremost by Tongue or Language, and Genesis 11 then explains the origin story of why that is. Modern Romance Languages descend from the Latin spoken by Ancient Rome same as Modern English and Scots both descend from Old English.  

So I consider every modern Nation-State where the Official or Majority Language is a Romance Language a Roman successor state.  And we could maybe also add any Nation whose State or culturally dominant Religion is Roman Catholicism since Latin is still their Liturgical Language (Vatican II allowed Mass to be held in other Languages but it did not abandon their tether to Latin Liturgy entirely).  Additionally I view any communities in the Southwestern United States or Florida or certain U.S. Territories where most of the people’s native tongue is still a Romance Language to be Rome under American Occupation.  Of course Rome only got there itself by Colonizing, Enslaving and Raping the indigenous populations, but still.

By this logic I of course then do controversially consider the Byzantine Empire to not be as authentically Roman anymore once it’s instead speaking Greek.  Every History YouTuber defending the Byzantines’ status as Roman acts like they’re going against popular opinion when in fact few actually interested in the topic disagree with them, but I do.  Rome isn’t a Gender being Roman requires more than self identification.  

Now the counter argument to denying the Byzantines’ true Roman status based on Language is often that the East spoke Greek more then Latin already well before the permanent split. But to me that just proves my point more, Rome only subjugated the East they never truly assimilated it.  Now I do consider the Eastern Empire still Romans ruling the majority Greek population for awhile after the administrative split and even after the West is popularly considered to have fallen.  Justinian I consider to be a Roman, but Heraclius was Greek.  Phokas's overthrow of Maurice I've come to view as the key turning point.

Western Europe was not as densely populated in antiquity.  But more importantly the people that were already there when the Romans came were people the Romans considered uncivilized Barbarians and so they were much more invested in culturally assimilating them. In the East however they followed the example of Alexander and his Successors of mostly ruling those people how they were used to being ruled.  There are some interesting counter examples, Rome did assimilate the Dacians and thus from them descend modern Romania and Moldova, they are the true remnant of the Eastern Empire.  And they failed to assimilate the Britons of Britannia, yet some Sub-Roman Brythonic Kingdoms saw themselves as Roman successor states just as much as the Byzantines did, especially Gwynedd.

Now you may respond “okay some today descend culturally if not genealogically from Ancient Romans, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a discontinuity between the Ancient Roman State and the States modern Romans live in”.  So now I shall go on to argue for the continuity of the State but it is complicated.

When people ask “When did the Western Roman Empire Fall”, they are usually using the word “Fall” differently than it’s used in almost any other context.  Normally someone's Fall refers to falling from their past height not when they flat out cease to exist.  That’s why I didn’t title the post “Rome didn’t Fall”, I’d argue it fell more than once, the Crisis of the Third Century was a fall that it went on to recover from culminating in the Christian Rome of Late Antiquity.  Now as far as when did the Western Half of that Rome fall, if you use the term properly 476 AD becomes the latest possible candidate not the earliest.  It ceased to be an Empire when Emperor Majorian aka Maiorianus died in 461 AD since from then on the Emperors didn’t control much beyond Italy itself. But perhaps the Vandal sack of 455 was the key unrecoverable wound.  Especially from a Biblical POV as that's when the Temple of Peace was plundered and the Treasures Titus took from Herod's Temple were carried away to Carthage.

But I'd also  argue that the Eastern Empire also had Falls before the 15th Century, and that the Empire of Justinian fell when Maurice was overthrown by Phocas and then almsot completely conquered by Persia.

Let’s step back a century now to discuss why French is a Romance Language named after a Germanic Tribe.  The Franks were not one of the Barbarian Tribes whose settlement on Roman territory mostly began after the freezing of the Rhine in the early 5th Century, under Constantine they were allowed to settle in what is now Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands as a buffer.  They were heavily Romanized very early on and some Franks were important officials in the 4th Century Empire like Richomeres and Abrogast, and Magnus Magnentus was a half Frankish Usurper Emperor.  So I strongly believe the Merovingian Kingdom can be considered a Roman Rump State as much as the realms of Syagrius of Nepos can.  (There were Franks who kept speaking their Germanic language, the language is now known as Dutch.)

So no Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of The Romans was not the nonsense some History Tubers want to paint it as, it wasn’t the first time a New Emperor was crowned that the already reigning one didn’t necessarily approve of.  Both Imperial Capitals of the Holy Roman Empire, Achen and Vienna were Roman cities, as were other core cities of the HRE like Pavia, Trier and Munich.

But it’s not just the Franks, even the Gothic Barbarians who never became as linguistically Romanized also served as Foderati for the Roman Empire, as did the Vandals and Burgundians and Lombards.  They are all people who should have been recognized as Roman Citizens even though they never were.

When Odovacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus in 476 nothing changed about the day to day administrative governance of Italy anymore than any prior time who was in charge had changed.  Odovacer was called King in terms of leadership of the Gothic Barbarians in Italy but he was also recognized by the still operating Senate of Rome and the Eastern Emperor Zeno as a Roman Governor governing Rome on their behalf. It was actually Romulus Augustulus who was not recognized as legitimate in the East.

When Odovacer and the Eastern Empire fell out, Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths was sent by the Eastern Empire and again he was recognized as ruling Italy for Rome. But when the Ostrogoths and the East fell out Justinian sent Belisarius.  Later the Lombards also first invaded the west as proxies of the East under Walthari and Audion.

Justinian’s Reconquests of Italy, North Africa and other parts of the Western Mediterranean is often looked at as the Eastern Empire expanding its border westward, but from a certain POV it was a war of Liberation.  The same Roman Senate continued to exist until the early 7th Century, and these reclaimed Western Provinces had administrative self governance. It is the Western Empire under an Emperor based in Constantinople ruling both halves just as it was under Constantine, Constantius II and Theodosius I.  But how the Western Province were governed was reorganized creating the Exarchate of Africa and the Exarchate of Ravenna, with the Duchy of Rome then forming within the Exarchate of Ravenna.

In time much of what Justinian reconquered fell to the Arabs or Lombards, but not all of it.  Rome itself, Venice, Genoa, Gaeta, Amalfi, Ancona, Ragusa and San Marino were never conquered, The Papal States were simply the Duchy of Rome becoming independent when Constantinople lost interest in them and turning to the Carolingians to be their new Emperors. The Maritime Republics were also just pieces of the Exarchate of Ravenna becoming Self Governing.  This is mostly true of Naples and Calabria as well even though there were a few hiccups.  When the Normans conquered parts of Southern Italy they made an effort to keep running it in the Byzantine style, very unlike their approach to England.

And I would strongly argue the same applies to the history of the Island of Sardinia. Which is relevant to the fact that due to how 19th Century Italian Unification happened modern standard Italian descends from what was previously the Sardinian Dialect.

In 754 when there is no dispute the County of Rome is still a Roman Rump State in Italy Pope Stephen II Anointed the sons of Pepin The Short Patricians of Rome, one of whom being Charlemagne.

And going back to my point about Language, maybe it's because the Eastern Empire had become so Greek that they ceased caring about the non Greek speaking parts of Italy.  Losing Rome itself didn't bother them, but losing Athens probably would have. 

The Iberian Peninsula became Roman again because of the Centuries of Reconquista carried out by Kingdoms that descended from Charlemagne's Empire.  Britannia was reconquered by Rome in 1066 but after centuries of strife secured independence again in 1604.

I could add arguments about how modern Western legal systems still have their roots in Roman Law filtered through the Justinian Reforms.  Or the fact that various "Feudal" titles came from Roman Offices.  

I’m posting this on my new Prophecy Blog because my current Eschatology is a mix of Partial Preterism, and Historicism and this way of looking at Rome is part of Historicism.  But it’s different from standard Protestant Premillennial Historicism where it’s only Clerically they see eschatologically relevant continuity between the modern world and Ancient Rome.  

The Seventh Day Adventists standard approach to Daniel 7 involves believing modern Italy descends from the Lombard Kingdoms not its Roman remnants, and likewise Spain and Portugal are the Visigoths and Suebi and the Burgundians are Switzerland.  Why that is wrong somewhat naturally flows from what I already explained.  But to fill in some gaps the Goths of Iberia were conquered by the Arabs.  The Lombards were mostly conquered by Charlemagne leaving only a small rump of them left to slowly be absorbed by the Romans around them. And the Burgundians were conquered by the Franks.

The Eastern Germanic Languages spoken by the Goths, Lombards and other Arian Barbarians are dead languages, no one speaks them anymore and the last one to die died in Crimea not in the West.  Genealogical descendants of people who spoke them in the past still exist but they have long been absorbed into other cultures.  

The Byzantine  Empire does still have Biblical Significance, it’s the restored Third Beast of Daniel 7 specifically The Little Horn.  I argued for that in my Justinian post but it’s also backed up by my Heraclius thesis.

Now you may also ask how do the Romance Languages fit into the Genesis 10 genealogy?  Well I agree with the Italo-Celtic theory among Linguists, that the Italic Languages (including Latin) and Celtic Languages are closely related to each other even more specifically then just both being Indo-European.  And at the end of my 666 post I argued that through Troy the Celts and Romans could share common descent from Ashkenaz son of Gomer.

And hey those who insist on considering the Byzantines Romans in-spite of their Language, you kind of have to do the same for the Brythonic Kingdoms of Sub-Roman Briton which became Medieval Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Starhclyde, they still used Roman Titles and Roman Laws and lived in Roman cities and defended themselves with Roman Forts.  

This is a good video about Gwnedd as a Roman Rump State.  And Cambrian Chronicles has one on how how the title of Prince of Wales came from the rulers of Gwynedd claiming to be heirs to the Roman Emperors and thus outranking the King of England.

The 70th Week was 30-37 AD

The 70 weeks Prophecy four times refers to an awaited personage at the the end of the 69 weeks and/or the 70th week.

Messiah The Prince in verse 25

The Messiah in verse 26

The Prince that shall come in verse 26

He in verse 27

The standard view among Christians who are Premillennial Futurists (and even some Preterists) has been that the first two are Jesus Christ and the last two the person commonly called "The Antichrist".  Chris White however promotes a theory he didn't invent himself that makes each of the four something different. predicating it largely on how unclear it is which of the earlier personages the He in verse 27 appears to be.

However most people reading this Prophecy without a Christian starting point, as well as many Christians who are Preterist, see the clear grammatical logic as saying all four are the same person.

When verse 25 says to await the coming of a Messiah The Prince and then verse 26 says "The Prince that shall come" logic dictates that it's the same Prince.  And if there aren't two or three different people refereed to earlier, figuring out who "He" is, isn't that complicated.

The word translated "Destroy" in many translations of verse 26 can also mean Pollute or Waste.  The People of The Prince were Polluting their own Sanctuary with Money Changers and that's why the Cleansing of The Temple happened.

It's also pretty much unique to Christians to see a Villain in any of the four references.  Because you see the "he" after "Abominations" in the KJV of verse 27 isn't in the Hebrew.  So the first He is not the one who sets it/them up.

Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." 

It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already.   In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White.  To me that grossly undervalues what happened in that Aviv in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.

If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it.  (I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory.)  This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".

Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled.  Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.

I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.

Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.

I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.

A decade ago when I was a Futurist I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic.  But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone.

I've been putting a lot of thought into specifically Daniel 9:27 and am starting to think it's about The Passion in even more ways.

First of all what is the Abomination?  

This ties in with how I have come to view John 5:43 as fulfilled by John 19:15 when the Chief Priest says "We have no King but Caesar".  I've already talked about how Israel demanding a Human King was them rejecting YHWH as their King, and Caesar was being worshiped as a living God in the Eastern Provinces.  The High Priest committed this idolatrous Abomination the same day he later had to offer the Passover Sacrifice in The Temple.

And as I've pointed out before the "he" associated with the Abomination isn't in the Hebrew, it's not identifying any person as setting it up.

The Hebrew word for "Desolation" or "Desolate" is a word that can also be translated "Abandoned" Jeremiah's Desolation of Jerusalem is about Jerusalem being depopulated after it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, but it can also be connected to YHWH's Divine presence leaving The Temple at that same time.  Whatever Divine presence the Second Temple had (in John 4) left it at or before Pentecost to indwell in The Church which is why it's gone in Acts 7.

This word is used twice in Daniel 9:27 however.  In the KJV the verse ends with "upon the desolate" in some translations the last word is "desolator" but in the Young's Literal Translation it's "Desolate one".  On the Cross I think the "abandoned one" is Jesus "my God, my God, why has thou Forsaken me".  

The "Consummation and that which was determined" or "the decreed end" was poured out onto Jesus on The Cross and then He said "it is finished".

As for how 37 AD works as the end of the Week specifically.  March 16th of that year was the day Tiberius Caesar died.  All the people in positions of power referred to in Luke 3:1 seem to have died or been removed form power in 36 or 37 AD.  Pilate was removed while Tiberius was still Emperor but Tiberius was dead by the time he arrived in Rome.

Many have argued the weak temporary Governorship of Marcellus makes most sense for the context of the Martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 6-7.  I think Simon The Magician of Acts 8:9 is the same Samaritan False Prophet who Josephus says in Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 4 started the issues in Samaria that lead to Pilate's removal.  

Maybe even Acts 9-11 are still in March-April of 37 AD given how the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 feels like it's being presented as a significant time Jump from well before Claudius was Emperor to when he had been Emperor for some time already.

So if all of Acts 6-11 is the end of the 70th Week that's some pretty Biblically significant events.

There was War going on during this period between Herod Antipas and Nabateans.

Also an Earthquake hit Antioch on April 9th of 37.

The 69th Week ended in 30 AD

 The Passion happened in 30 AD as I've argued independent of any Prophecies.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-passion-and-resurrection-happened.html

Daniel 9:24-27

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Why the 7 and 62 weeks are distinct I don't know, I'm sure there is a reason, but distinct or not they're consecutive.

Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.

The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding or of returning form Captivity, it's about rebuilding the City of Jerusalem with special emphasis on the wall(s).  

The end of 2 Chronicles and start of Ezra record Cyrus's decree, Ezra 6 records Darius's decree and Ezra 7 records the first of the Artaxerxes decrees.  None are about the City or the wall they are all about returning form Captivity and/or rebuilding The Temple. Jerusalem's walls are mentioned in Ezra in chapters 4, 5 and 9, all of them in context about how they are not rebuilt and still in ruins as the first 3 verses of Nehemiah confirm.

Nehemiah 2 records the 20th year of Artaxerxes decree and it's about Rebuilding the City with special Emphasis on the Wall.  So only this decree can be what Daniel 9 was about.  Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.

The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. 

So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD. Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.

Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.

There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.

The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar.   I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Pentateuch in the days of Moses.

It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.

A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all.  Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.

I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. The Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.

This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 AD by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late.  We also have Greek kings-lists backing up the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.

The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for.  I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

So actually even what this wrong interpretation says the 62 weeks points to happened in 30 AD. So I've come to interpret "Messiah be cut off" as having a double meaning, both referring to Jesus' death on the Cross, and the removing of divine presence from The Temple when the veil was torn.

Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.

After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

And goes on to foretell Jerusalem's coming destruction. The people were judged for failing to recognize prophecy had been fulfilled. And not just because what he did matched what Zachariah 9:9 described, a false Messiah could attempt such a thing. The phrase "in this thy day", clearly tells us timing was the key. The context of the coming destruction of Jerusalem clearly tells us to look to Daniel 9, no where else does the Hebrew Bible speak of Jerusalem being destroyed again in addition to the destruction in 588 BC. And then in verse 44 the matter is made more clear "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.

P.S. A huge section of the original version of this I posted on the retired prophecy blog in 2014 was copy/pasted from some older website I no longer remember what it was.  I'm sorry for that, it's agaisnt my current policy. 

Genealogy of Charlemagne

Ancestry of Charlemagne 

Charlemagne's Descent from Seleucid Dynasty

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Descent through Antiochus Epiphanes himself (A bit less solid)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes = Laodice IV

Laodice, wife of Mithridates V of Pontus

Mithridates VI of Pontus

Cleopatra of Pontus, wife of Tigranes The Great

[Name Unkown], wife of Mithridates of Media Atropatene

Ariobarzanes I of Media Atropatene

Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene

Iotapa + Mithridates III of Commagene

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlamagne's descent from Caesar Augustus

Octavius Caesar Augustus

Julia The Elder

Julia The Younger

Aemilia Lepida

Junia Lepida

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Governor of Syria and Assassin of Caesar

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Suffectus Consul in 30 AD

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Late Roman Aristocracy of Gaul

Ferreolus, a Roman Senator

Tonantius Ferreolus (prefect)

Tonantius Ferreolus II

Tonantius Ferreolus III

Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Merovingians

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Chrodobertus (d. 595)

Charibert of Hesbaye

Robert I Bishop of Tours

Lambert I of Hesbaye

Robert II Lord Chanceler of France

Lambert II of Hesbaye

Rotrude of Hesbaye wife of Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Bishops of Lyon

Eucherius Bishop of Lyon + Galla

Tullia

Aquilinus

Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Maternal Ancestry of Charlemagne's mother's father

Irmina of Oeren

Bertrada of Prüm

Charibert of Laon

Bertrada of Laon

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Herodian Dynasty

Antipater the Idumaean

Herod the Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Hasmoneans descent of Charles Martel (The Hammer)

The Priestly Order of Joarib

Asamoneus

Simeon

John

Mattathias

Simon Thassi

John Hyrcanus

Alexander Jannaeus + Salome Alexandra

Aristobulus II  & Hyrcanus II

Alexander + Alexandra

Mariamne the Hasmonean, wife of Herod The Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Armenian Royal Descent of Charlemagne

Zariadres

Artaxias I of Armenia

Tigranes I

Tigranes the Great

Artavasdes II of Armenia

[Name Unknown] Wife of Archelaus

Glaphyra

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

It's also my hypothesis that after the death of Tigranes V his widow Erato daughter of Tigranes III married his brother Gaius Julius Alexander and was the mothers of Tigranes VI.  But I can't definitively prove that.

Descent from Charlemagne.

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from Charlemagne

If you don't count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John

If you do count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Herbert II, Count of Vermandois

Robert of Vermandois

Adele of Meaux

Fulk III, Count of Anjou

Ermengarde of Anjou, Duchess of Burgundy

Fulk IV, Count of Anjou

Fulk V, Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem

Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou

Henry II of England

King John

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from Pepin of Aquitaine the original intended Heir of West Francia.

Pepin I of Aquitaine

daughter

Ranulf I of Poitiers, Duke of Aquitaine

Ranulf II of Aquitaine

Ebalus, Duke of Aquitaine

William III, Duke of Aquitaine

William IV, Duke of Aquitaine

William V, Duke of Aquitaine

William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine

William IX, Duke of Aquitaine

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from King John

King John

Joan, Lady of Wales

Gwladus ferch Llywelyn

Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer of Wigmore

Edmund Mortimer, 2nd Baron Mortimer of Wigmore

Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March

Edmund Mortimer (died 1331)

Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March

Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March

Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March

Anne de Mortimer

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York

Edward IV of England

Elizabeth of York

Margaret Tudor, Queen Consort of Scotland

James V of Scotland

Mary, Queen of Scots

King James VI of Scotland and I of England

Jacobite Succession to the present day

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Charlemagne

If you count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Beatrice of Vermandois

Hugh the Great

Beatrice of France

Theodoric I, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Sophie, Countess of Bar

Theodoric I, Count of Montbéliard

Sophie († 1148), married in 1128 to Richard II, Count of Montfaucon

Amadeus II of Montfaucon

Walter of Montbéliard

Eschiva de Montfaucon

John II, Lord of Beirut

Eschive d'Ibelin

Rupen of Montfort

Jeanne of Montfort

Maria of Ibelin

Guy

Hugh

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Beatrice of Vermandois

Hugh the Great

Beatrice of France

Theodoric I, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Sophie, Countess of Bar

Theodoric I, Count of Montbéliard

Sophie († 1148), married in 1128 to Richard II, Count of Montfaucon

Amadeus II of Montfaucon

Walter of Montbéliard

Eschiva de Montfaucon

John II, Lord of Beirut

Eschive d'Ibelin

Hugh IV of Cyprus

James I of Cyprus

Janus, King of Cyprus

Anne de Lusignan

Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy

Anne of Savoy

Charlotte of Naples

Anne de Laval, Viscountess of Thouars

Louis III de La Trémoille

Claude de La Trémoille

Henri de La Trémoille

Henri Charles de La Trémoille

Charles Belgique Hollande de La Trémoille

Marie Armande de La Trémoille

Marie Hortense Victoire de La Tour d'Auvergne

Jean Bretagne Charles de La Trémoille

Charles Bretagne Marie de La Trémoille

As far as Wikipedia allows me to trace it

If you don't count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Marguerite of Bourbon-La Marche

Catherine de Nevers

Henri II d'Orléans, Duke of Longueville

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Antoine of Navarre

Henry IV of France

Louis XIII the Just

Louis XIV the Great The Sun King

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louise-Élisabeth of France

Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma

Princess Carolina of Parma

Princess Maria Anna of Saxony

Archduchess Auguste Ferdinande of Austria

Ludwig III of Bavaria

Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria

Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria

Princess Marie Gabrielle

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Eleanor of Aquitaine's Marriage to Henry II of England.

Eleanor of Aquitaine + Henry II

Matilda of England, Duchess of Saxony

Henry V, Count Palatine of the Rhine

Irmengard of Baden

Herman VI, Margrave of Baden

Agnes of Baden, Duchess of Carinthia

Catherine of Heunburg

Frederick I, Count of Celje

Ulrich I, Count of Celje

William, Count of Celje

Anna of Cilli

Hedwig Jagiellon

As far as I could trace it on Wikipedia.

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Charles The Bald who inherited France

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Adalulf Count of Boulogne

Arnulf II of Boulogne

Baldwin II of Boulogne

Eustace I of Boulogne

Eustace II of Boulogne

Eustace III of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne

Marie I Countess of Boulogne

Mathilde of Flanders

Margaret of Brabant

Otto II Count of Guelders

Reginald I of Guelders

Reginald II of Guelders

Marie of Guelders

Joanna of Jülich

Maria van Arkel

Arnold of Egmond

Mary of Guelders

James III of Scotland

James IV of Scotland

James V of Scotland

Mary Queen of Scots

James VI of Scotland and I of England

Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia

Charles I Louis Elector Palatine

Princess Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate

Philippe II Duke of Orléans

Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans

Maria Teresa Felicitas d'Este

Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon Duchess of Orléans

Louis Philippe I King of The French

Ferdinand Philippe Duke of Orléans

Prince Philippe of Orléans Count of Paris

Princess Hélène of Orléans

Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta

Princess Margherita of Savoy-Aosta

Archduchess Maria Beatrice Anna Felicitas Zita Charlotte Adelheid Christina Elisabeth Gennara

The above is based on my admittedly controversial belief that Adelulf was the elder of the sons of Baldwin II of Flanders. Which is tied to me theory that Adelulf's wife was Adele of Vermandois and she only married his younger brother Arnulf after Adelulf died. Below of what that would be if that theory is wrong. 

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Arnulf I, Count of Flanders

Hildegarde

Arnulf, Count of Holland

Dirk III, Count of Holland

Floris I, Count of Holland

Bertha of Holland

Constance of France, Princess of Antioch

Bohemond II of Antioch

Constance of Antioch

Maria of Antioch

Alexios II Komnenos

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Arnulf I, Count of Flanders

Hildegarde

Arnulf, Count of Holland

Dirk III, Count of Holland

Floris I, Count of Holland

Bertha of Holland

Constance of France, Princess of Antioch

Bohemond II of Antioch

Constance of Antioch

Bohemond III of Antioch

Raymond IV, Count of Tripoli

Raymond-Roupen

Maria of Antioch-Armenia

Humphrey of Montfort

Rupen of Montfort

Jeanne of Montfort

Eventually this too arguably converges on Hugh IV of Cyprus

Female Preference Primogeniture Succession from Charlemagne just for the fun of it

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Emma of Italy

Louis V of France

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Adelaide I, Abbess of Quedlinburg & Sophia I, Abbess of Gandersheim

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Richardis of Carniola

Otto III (d. after 15 December 1130), Eckhard III (d. after 11 July 1183), Bernard II (d. c. 1135), unnamed son

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Wulfhilde of Saxony

Sophia of Bavaria

Ottokar III of Styria

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Wulfhilde of Saxony

Judith of Bavaria, Duchess of Swabia

Bertha, Duchess of Lorraine

Alice of Lorraine

Odo III, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy

Margaret, Lady of Molinot

Marie, Viscountess of Limoges

Guy de Penthièvre

Joan, Duchess of Brittany

Marie of Blois, Duchess of Anjou

Louis II of Anjou

Marie of Anjou

Magdalena of Valois

Catherine of Navarre

Isabel d'Albret of Navarre

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Countess Palatine Magdalene Catherine of Zweibrücken

Countess Palatine Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Countess Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

From this point Wikipedia doesn't say one way or the other if any daughters had children

This line is disputed actually but if true it's more senior then the Judith of Friuli lines.

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Below is a line I first documented from Berengar I of Italy because Gisela's own page didn't mention her daughters

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Berengar I of Italy

Gisela of Friuli

Berengar II of Italy

Rozala of Italy

Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders

Judith of Flanders

Henry IX, Duke of Bavaria

Judith of Bavaria, Duchess of Swabia

Bertha, Duchess of Lorraine

Alice of Lorraine

Odo III, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy

Margaret, Lady of Molinot

Marie, Viscountess of Limoges

Guy de Penthièvre

Joan, Duchess of Brittany

Marie of Blois, Duchess of Anjou

Louis II of Anjou

Marie of Anjou

Magdalena of Valois

Catherine of Navarre

Isabel d'Albret of Navarre

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Countess Palatine Magdalene Catherine of Zweibrücken

Countess Palatine Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Countess Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

From this point Wikipedia doesn't say one way or the other if any daughters had children

Female Only Primogeniture succession from Gisela

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Ida of Swabia

Mathilde, Abbess of Essen

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Oda of Saxony

Oda of Metz

Female Preference Primogeniture descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Marie de Bourbon, Princess of Achaea

Hugh of Lusignan

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Beatrice of Bourbon, Queen of Bohemia

Wenceslaus I, Duke of Luxembourg

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Isabella of Valois

Joan of Valois, Duchess of Alençon

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Isabella of Brittany

Jeanne de Laval

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Francis I, Duke of Brittany

Margaret of Brittany

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Francis I, Duke of Brittany

Marie of Brittany, Viscountess of Rohan

Anne, Viscountess of Rohan

René I, Viscount of Rohan

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Magdalena Catherine, Countess Palatine of Zweibrücken

Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

Charles, Wild- and Rhinegrave of Salm-Dhaun

John Philip III, Wild- and Rhinegrave of Salm-Dhaun

Update March 11th:

Male preference primogeniture descent from Charles Martel

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Adalard the Seneschal

Adalhard of Metz

Gerhard I of Metz

Oda of Metz

Godfrey I, Count of Verdun

Gothelo I, Duke of Lorraine

Godfrey the Bearded

Ida of Lorraine

Eustace III, Count of Boulogne

Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne

Marie I, Countess of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne, Duchess of Brabant

Henry II, Duke of Brabant

Henry III, Duke of Brabant

John I, Duke of Brabant

John II, Duke of Brabant

John III, Duke of Brabant

Margaret of Brabant, Countess of Flanders

Margaret III, Countess of Flanders

John the Fearless

Philip the Good

Charles the Bold

Mary the Rich

Philip the Handsome

Charles V Holy Roman Emperor

Philip II King of Spain

Philip III King of Spain

Philip IV King of Spain

Maria Theresa of Spain

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louis, Dauphin of France

Charles X King of France

Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry

Princess Louise d'Artois

Robert I, Duke of Parma

Elias, Duke of Parma

Infantia Alicia, Duchess of Calabria 

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria

Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria

This line would be more senior but it's based on a disputed connection proposed by by Eduard Hlawitschka.

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Adalard the Seneschal

Adalhard of Metz

Gerhard I of Metz

Godfrey of Jülich

Gerhard II Count of Metz

Richard Count of Metz

Adalbert Count in Saargau

Gerhard IV Count of Metz

Gerard the Wonderful

Theodoric II, Duke of Lorraine

Simon I, Duke of Lorraine

Matthias I, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick I, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Lorraine

Matthias II, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick III, Duke of Lorraine

Theobald II, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick IV, Duke of Lorraine

Rudolph, Duke of Lorraine

John I, Duke of Lorraine

Charles II, Duke of Lorraine

Isabella, Duchess of Lorraine

Yolande, Duchess of Lorraine

René II, Duke of Lorraine

Antoine, Duke of Lorraine

Francis I, Duke of Lorraine

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine

Henry II, Duke of Lorraine

Nicole, Duchess of Lorraine

Claude-Françoise of Lorraine

Charles V, Duke of Lorraine

Leopold, Duke of Lorraine

Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor

Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

Archduke Franz Karl of Austria

Franz Joseph I of Austria

Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria

Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria

Franz Joseph (b. 1904 – d. 1981)

Princess Stéphanie Windisch-Graetz 

Henry Victor William Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell (born 1967)

:Bryan Vahram John Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell 2005 

:Eleonore Mélinée Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell 2002

Absolute primogeniture descent from Charles Martel

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Engeltrude de Fézensac

Ermentrude of Orléans

Same as succession from Charles The Bald

Update September 10th 2024: I found this hypothetical Line interesting.

Male Preference Primogeniture Succession from Eleanor of Aquitaine if we only consider her first Marriage Legitimate

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Antoine of Navarre

Henry IV of France

Louis XIII the Just

Louis XIV the Great The Sun King

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louis, Dauphin of France

Charles X King of France

Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry

Princess Louise d'Artois

Robert I, Duke of Parma

Elias, Duke of Parma

Infantia Alicia, Duchess of Calabria 

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria

Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria

Update February 2026: A controversial rightful line of succession from Charles The Bald.

Charles The Bald

Louis The Stammerer

Ermentrude of France

Cunigunda of France

Gozlin, Count of Bidgau and Methingau

Godfrey I, Count of Verdun

Gothelo I, Duke of Lorraine

Godfrey the Bearded

Ida of Lorraine

Eustace III, Count of Boulogne

Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne

Marie I, Countess of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne, Duchess of Brabant

Henry II, Duke of Brabant

Henry III, Duke of Brabant

John I, Duke of Brabant

John II, Duke of Brabant

John III, Duke of Brabant

Margaret of Brabant, Countess of Flanders

Margaret III, Countess of Flanders

John the Fearless

Philip the Good

Charles the Bold

Mary the Rich

Philip the Handsome

Charles V Holy Roman Emperor

Philip II King of Spain

Philip III King of Spain

Philip IV King of Spain

Maria Theresa of Spain

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louis, Dauphin of France

Charles X King of France

Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry

Princess Louise d'Artois

Robert I, Duke of Parma

Elias, Duke of Parma

Infantia Alicia, Duchess of Calabria 

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria

Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria

Virgo and Revelation 12

I don’t think any Astronomical alignments involving the Constellations is the main meaning of any of the Signs in Revelation 12, but I have gone back and forth on the idea of Virgo as The Woman being a secondary layer of meaning.

Joseph’s Dream in Genesis 37:9 and how Jacob interpreted it in verse 10 is undeniably a key piece of the puzzle of Revelation 12’s symbolism.  However I disagree with the common statement that the woman called Joseph’s Mother here is Rachel, Rachel had already passed away and this is a prophecy of events fulfilled later in Genesis, Jacob clearly meant Leah who was the Matriarch of the family by this point, so the Sun and Moon are Jacob and Leah.  When each Zodiac sign is identified with a Tribe, Issachar is often chosen for Virgo because of the story in Genesis 30:14-16 where it’s easy to see Rachel as Virgo and the Mandrakes as Spica.

Back when a lot of people online were hyping a certain 2017 alignment the argument was made that Leo is The Crown of 12 Stars but needed three extra Stars via three planets being there to complete the visual. Well Ptolemy said the three stars we today call Leo Minor were essentially part of Leo, so actually Leo on it's own can be defined as 12 stars.

Principally what I have a problem with is the assumption that when Virgo is “clothed with the Sun” has to mean when the Sun is in Virgo.  There were more obvious ways John could have described the idea of the Sun being inside the Woman. Also the Constellation the Sun is currently in is NOT actually visible in the night sky at that time, at least not entirely, Virgo is a longer one so she sometimes partly is.  The Moon is under the feet of Virgo once every month, the times that happens while the Sun is in Virgo however make it so that is not what it really looks like from a human observer’s perspective, at least not in the way I feel Revelation 12 wants us to visualize it.

Homer described Eos, the Greek Goddess who was the personification of the Dawn, as wearing a Saffron Robe, Saffron is a shade of Yellow that is perceived as being the same color as The Sun. So the description of Clothed with the Sun could be evoking the visual of a female personification of the Dawn.  After all, Psalm 110 talked about the Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek coming from the Womb of the Morning, and the Septuagint translated “Morning” there as Eosphorou.  A daughter of Eos named Astraea was among the mythical figures identified with Virgo by the Ancient Greeks, so seeing Virgo as Eos herself sometimes seems perfectly valid.

While the Sun is in Libra and maybe also Scorpio the Stars of Virgo rise in the East near the end of the night just before Dawn and the brightest of them are on a clear night still visible while the light of the Dawn is first emerging. That in my view is when Virgo is truly Clothed with the Sun.

During this time the Moon being under the Feet of Virgo rather than correlating to the New Moon as it tends to be while the Sun is in Virgo is more the time nearing the end of the Lunar Month, maybe even pretty close to the 25th day of that Lunar cycle? Or maybe the 27th would be a safer assumption?

Two Thousand Years ago this time of year tended to be about late October and early November.  Today this time frame seems to be more fully contained within November.  Neither is a time of year that Futurists obsessed with the Hebrew Calendar are usually looking for Revelation events to happen in.  Typically this time of year would be presumed to be part of the Eight Month of the Hebrew Calendar, which many assume was the second Month back in Genesis where that Month had significance at the end of the The Flood narrative in Genesis 7-8, the word Flood is used in Revelation 12.

That happens every year so something else must also be happening if Revelation 12 is describing a rare or even uncommon astronomical event.

Jupiter is a popular Planet to identify with The Man-Child because every 12 years it spends over a year in Virgo and often it can be easy to argue about 9 months specifically in her Womb.  Also the Man-Child being said to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron fits Jupiter’s association with Kingship.

That happens every 12 years but it perfectly lining up with near the end of the 9 months being when Virgo is in this Dawn personification position doesn’t always happen and the Moon under her feet lining up right also doesn’t always happen.

But if we want an additional variable we can add Venus to the mix.  You see the first time Revelation mentions ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron it is paired with being given the Morning Star in chapter 2 verses 26-28.  Now Jupiter can be a Morning Star, in fact it pretty much always is when in the position we’re looking for.  However as a distinct title The Morning Star is usually a reference to Venus.  So Venus being close to Jupiter, perhaps even having a Conjunction at this time, would be even more impressive.

For those who think the first part of Revelation 12 is looking back to The Nativity.  

I’ve lately been favoring a 13 or 12 BC timeframe for the Nativity.  The morning of October 28th 13 BC has Jupiter and Venus very near each other on the line between Spica and Heze while the Moon is under Virgo’s Feet.  However, that was not the end of Jupiter’s time in Virgo.  A year later Jupiter was in Libra by this time.

Maybe the real reason the BC/AD division is where we wound up putting it is because at the end of December 1 BC it looks like Virgo is giving birth to Jupiter? Preceded by Virgo in the position I described above a couple months earlier.

I had a number of years ago actually argued for a very unconventional 25-24 BC Nativity model.  In that context the morning of October 29th 24 BC is interesting.  

Back when I was a Mid-Trib Futurist I spent a lot of time arguing that The Man-Child is The Church and/or Believers not Jesus specifically.  I still kind of hold that view, I have a post on this blog about how only The Lamb is Jesus specifically in Revelation 4-22:5.  But I’m still working on how to frame my Man-Child view in my new Partial Preterist Eschatology.

In my post on The Fall of Satan I suggested the possibility of literally placing it during the Ministry of Jesus while the Disciples were on their Little Commission based on Luke 10:18.  But my timeline for the First Advent never has Jupiter in Virgo then. But Venus being there on November 3rd AD 28 is perhaps worth considering.

As far as 70 AD centric Preterist models go, Jupiter isn’t in Virgo till after The Temple is destroyed, approaching Virgo in October of 70 AD, in her but not in the Womb yet in October of 71 and entering Libra in October of 72.  And I also had no luck with the Bar Kochba Revolt era.  

October 29th of 309 AD fits well with my Maximianus Daza thesis.

Given my theories about about The Beast being specifically Christian Rome, the morning of November 11th 332 AD is fascinating, Venus is nearby but not in Virgo, however Saturn is, Saturn and Jupiter in the same sign is a very rare combination, and the imagery of Saturn could be equated with the Son of Man on a Cloud in Revelation 14.  The 26th and 27th of October in 368 has Jupiter positioned perfectly but no other Planets nearby.  380 however is the year of the Edict of Thessalonica, the morning of October 14th has Venus very near Jupiter and about to get closer.  392 was the year Theodosius became Emperor of both West and East and reinforced his Nicene Christianity only policy.  Halloween morning that year had Jupiter leaving Virgo with Saturn not far behind. 

439 is the year The Vandals took Carthage on October 19th. On the morning of October 23rd there was a Jupiter-Venus conjunction in Virgo with the Moon under her feet. In 451 the Council of Chalcedon was from October 8-November 1st. October 10th and November 7th are the mornings when the Moon is under the Feet of Virgo. The morning of Halloween in 487 looks interesting, as does November 2nd 522.

534 is an important year in the Reign of Justinian, the morning of October 22nd has Mercury near Jupiter, I can't think of Revelation significance for Mercury yet. In 546 Rome was under siege most of the year leading to a Sack on December 17th and the Lombards had a change in leadership. The morning of November 7th had a Jupiter-Venus Conjunction.

In my Heraclius model, I identity the 1260 days of the Two Witnesses with Nehemiah Ben Hushiel’s governing of Jerusalem in 614-617, so soon after he’s killed in I assume September of 617 is when Revelation 12 would be one of the next events on the timeline.  The morning of November 2nd could fit but Jupiter is the only planet in place.  Next is October 21st of 629 after Heraclius has already proclaimed himself King. It could be the actual killing of Nehemiah and Benjamin as part of Heraclius's Triumph in Constantinople in September of 629.

So I still haven’t perfected this theory but I think I’m on the right track.

There is no Human King of Babylon in Isaiah 14

For some reason YouTube keeps recommending me Videos about how "Satan isn't in The Bible" often with the specific emphasis on "Lucifer" being a King of Babylon not a Fallen Angel.

The thing is as my last two posts on this blog which were also in part about Isaiah 14 show, I am all for questioning the traditional understanding of Satan.  One of those however focuses on "Lucifer" being a mistranslation in Isaiah 14:12 while I'm pretty sure all these "it's just about a Human King" people think the verse is indeed a poetic reference to the Planet Venus as the Morning Star.  Also this "Isaiah is talking about a Human King" thesis often goes hand in hand with the "it's referencing a Canaanite myth about the Morning Star" idea I already debunked.

However a lot of people who do think Isaiah 14 is talking about Satan at least as early as verse 12, think it starts out talking about a Human King of Babylon and then at some point ambiguously or amorphously changes to being about Satan, and will say Ezekiel 28 does the same.  

Ezekiel 28 does talk about the human Prince of Tyre first but the change of subject is not ambiguous, anytime a Prophet says "The Word of The LORD came unto me, saying" it is the start of a new Prophecy, maybe still connected to the prior Prophecy or maybe not but either way it is an unambiguous shift in focus, so no the Prince (Nagyim) of Tyre and the King (Melek) of Tyre can't be interpreted as the same person.

Babylon had a King in Isaiah's time, but he was a subject of Assyria who did attempt to rebel agaisnt Assyria but the attempt failed.  I don't think the Human ruler of Babylon at that time is one truly worthy of the title of King, certainly not a King described with the grandiosity attributed to the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14 does indeed call someone the "King of Babylon", I'm not denying that textual fact.  But the title of King is not in The Hebrew Bible limited to mere mortal political leaders.  All the way back in The Torah the intent was for YHWH to be the King of Israel, but Deuteronomy 18 foretold that Israel would one day reject YHWH as King and demand a Human King like the other Nations had, this happened in the days of Samuel.

Most if not all times you see "King" in English translations of The Hebrew Bible the Hebrew word is Melek, and words derived from it get translated things like "Kingdom" and "Queen".  Every time you see Molech or Moloch in the King James Version it's a word that in the vowless Hebrew Alphabet is spelled the same as Melek but pronounced different via different vowel indicators in the Masoretic Text, and Milcom is it's plural form.  However different texts don't always agree on where it's Melek and where it's Molech like for example Amos 5:26 (quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:43), the Masoretic is Melek but the LXX is Molech for that verse.  

Some Hebrew scholars believe originally the distinction between these words didn't exist and it was always just the Hebrew word for King sometimes being used as a title for certain Pagan gods the same way Baal is a word that means Lord or Master.

I believe every reference in the Pentateuch to Molech or Milcom has no specific deity in mind but is just about worshiping any King other then YHWH whether they were human or a god.  1 Kings 11:5, 7, 23 and 2 Kings 23:13 do use them specifically of the national patron god of the Ammonites, 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 32:35 are about the Tophet where what pagan deity is truly in mind is ambiguous.  Then there is the Malcham of Zephaniah 1:5 where in context it seems to be synymous with Baal.

Tyre had a patron deity known by the name Melqart derived from the same Semitic root as Melek and commonly interpreted to mean "King of the City".    Likewise, when Ezekiel 30 calls Pharoah King of Egypt the Great Dragon I believe the reference is to Sobek the Crocodile god who was the power behind Pharoah not the Human ruler.

Babylon during this period also had a Patron deity associated with Kingship named Marduk, he's also associated with Utu in some texts even seemingly called a Son of the Sun which could explain "Son of the Dawn" since Utu's wife was a Dawn Goddess named Aya.  

Heck if you want to keep the idea that Heylel son of Shahar refers to a Planet, then Marduk was identified with Jupiter, in which contexts Jupiter was called Nibiru.  (The Planet Jupiter in Greek Mythology was also a Son of Eos named Phaethon which meant "Shiner" or "Radiant".)  The Shining One interpretation of Heylel would also fit Marduk being described as "radiant".    But the proposed true readings I actually argued in my prior post can probably fit Marduk too.

The Canaanite deity one would likely equate with Marduk during this period was Hadad called Baal in the Ugarit Baal Cycle, it was he not any "Morning Star" that was the Rebel agaisnt El in Canaanite mythology.  Marduk was also called Bel a variation of Baal.

The King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 is Satan identified with Marduk.

And if you think Isaiah 14 describes this  king being killed and buried like a normal human, you are wrong, that's just it's way of describing when Satan is imprisoned in The Abyss in Revelation 20.