#Eve; greek eschatology

[everarddelanden]

For he said 'I am your god now.' He gave me a taste of his unholy communion. By now I knew it was blood, but it was like wine to my blaspheming tongue and loins. His forceful hands did not bless me, but contorted my body to prayer all the same. He would pierce me as deeply as the Holy Spirit and made me utter words in tongues I did not speak. And after this crucifixion and I was certain I could bear no more, his unholy communion would resurrect me and reanimate my body to do what he chose me for. And after many deaths, he left me hollow as a false prophet's convictions and again and again I found myself sobbing in the bed's linen folds, wishing it to be Mother Mary's lap. And I would beg my first God for forgiveness, for the sin soiled me so deeply, the tar blocked my prayers from reaching heaven. Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned. Forgive me Lord, for I am Judas. I am filthy and I am filth. For he said 'I am your god now.'

[god-whispers]

feb 24

hopelessly devoted to You

"but I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." 2 cor 11:3

i don't know about you or anyone else, but there are times i am overwhelmed by doctrines, teachings, eschatology and all.  there just seems to be so much to learn and so little time.  this added to the fact that i feel i know so little even though i want to know more.  one of my favorites scriptures has always been mark 4:24.  "the measure of thought and study you give to the truth you hear will be the measure of virtue and knowledge that comes back to you — and more besides will be given to you who hear." that is from the classic amplified translation.

i don't know about you but most of my working life was so full and time for study was limited by many things.  oh, i suppose there are things i could have eliminated and substituted study for.  but frivolity and fellowship can also feed the spirit.  my dear mentor and friend used to go and park by an area pond or lake sometimes and just sat by the water without a word spoken and had our spirits refreshed by the Lord.  i don't fully understand why water seems to have a calming, refreshing effect on many.  somehow i come away feeling renewed; kind of like the air smells so fresh after a summer shower.

the fact is, no one will ever know everything - no one but God.  and yes, that is not to say we shouldn't study and try to learn.  the scriptures admonish us: "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 tim 2:15 kjv  it's just that we don't want to make "study" the essence of our venture.  the jewish people did this and stumbled over the deeper truths.  "the words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." john 6:63

the whole point of the scriptures were to bring readers to Jesus; to reveal Him and make us more like Him.  He was there all the time.  hidden in this passage and then in that one.  that's why there is a "rightly dividing" of it.  it's true we shouldn't take a single scripture out of context.  read a little before and a little after and that will give you the intent of the passage.  that's needed when seeking for guidance or enlightenment.  scripture always has a literal meaning, but then, on occasion, suddenly a deeper, hidden truth will jump out.

there are two primary Greek words that describe scripture which are translated "word" in the new testament.  the first, logos, refers principally to the total inspired Word of God and to Jesus, who is the living Word.  logos is found in john 1:1  then there are times when we are reading along and suddenly something jumps off the page at us.  the written word becomes spirit and a life giving force.  God is speaking directly to you through his word.  these are rhema words.  it is Spirit speaking to spirit.  these 'Word's allow us to be conformed more and more into His image.  "and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." rom 12:2

i guess what i'm really saying is to study as much as we are able but not let ourselves be beat down to the "letter" of the law.  let the Holy Spirit have His way.  He changes our wants and desires to our benefit.  let the Spirit flow.  do not let the enemy confuse your mind with the complexities of God.  hold fast to the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.  He will get it done.

study in the Spirit.  read in the Spirit.  trust in the Spirit.  you will find yourself walking in the Spirit and soon all those musky desires of the flesh will start fading away.  "oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  how unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" rom 11:33

[everarddelanden]

When he let out a loud laugh, it was not entirely clear if it was directed at her painfully mortal description of family ties, or her assumption that this would keep her safe from the Greek's cunning. "I do recall Magnus was a bastard to the family. A runt. Godless, untactful, unwelcome and mostly, unfit." he gave a dry chuckle, his dark eyes glittering as he observed her. "He cares nothing of that side of the family." he put in air quotes, his rings glittering as much as his eyes did.

"Did you lose weight?"

"Did you lose your touch? What's with all the buttering me up? Planning on eating me later?"

[apenitentialprayer]

Adam: King, Prophet, Priest

Closely connected with this [the concept of the Imago Dei] is the notion of Adam’s kingship upon earth. Patristic authors generally regard Adam (and humankind) as the most preeminent of God’s creations. Especially authors of the Antiochene school -Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus- but Basilius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraem of Nisibis, and Narsaï, as well, emphasize Adam’s royal dignity. In accordance with his royalty Adam is shown fully dressed and seated upon a throne in the midst of a throng of animals on the mosaic floor of a West Syrian church of the late fourth century C.E.  In this regard it is all the more notable that the motif of Adam being worshipped by the angels can be found only in Christian apocrypha, but -to my knowledge- never in the works of patristic theologians (or Gnostic texts, for that matter). It makes its appearance in the Greek Questions of Bartholomew 4:54-56 and the Syriac Cave of Treasures (Spelunca Thesaurorum) 3:1-7,from where it was taken over into the Qur’ān, Surah 7:12-14 and 38:72-78. [...] In addition to kingship orthodox Christian authors ascribe prophecy and priesthood, as well, to Adam. His prophetical gifts were deduced from Gen 2:24 where Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and Augustine interpret his exclamation about Eve as foreknowledge of the future. Adam’s priesthood is hinted at already in the Book of Jubilees 3:26-27, as well as in [The Apocalypse of Moses] 29:3-6 and rabbinic literature, but here Adam sacrifices only after being expelled from paradise. The idea of Adam being a priest from his creation onwards seems to be peculiar to Syriac writers; it is absent in the Greek and Latin tradition. It was first introduced by Ephraem of Nisibis in his Hymns on Paradise 3,16-17 which may have been dependent upon older texts such as the anonymous Hymn of the Pearl where a primordial figure (not necessarily Adam) is wearing a jeweled garment which can be identified as a priestly vestment. The motif of a “garment of glory” worn by Adam before the fall is known to Irenaeus (adv. haer. 3,25,5), as well -albeit without any priestly connotations-, and played a rather significant role in baptismal theology, where the white gown worn by the neophytes after baptism was generally interpreted to be Adam’s original dress. It might not be superfluous to note here that these vestments are usually donned by inhabitants of heavenly realms and the eschatologically saved in second temple literature.

- Alexander Toepel (Adamic Traditions in Early Christian and Rabbinic Literature). Emphases added.

[mormonmonastery]

So, What’s Up with Joseph Smith Matthew?

Joseph Smith Matthew is an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible or the “Joseph Smith Translation.” “Translation” is kind of a misnomer for the project, at least if we’re working with any common form of the word “translation.” Smith wasn’t working from any original text, Hebrew or Greek; he was revising passages from the King James translation, which is clearest in JST revisions that attempt to resolve problematic readings that only exist in how the KJV renders the passage into English. In addition, he was adding some original content that fleshed out the Bible, which is best seen in the portion of the translation that we publish as the Book of Moses: things like Moses’ vision of God, Adam and Eve offering sacrifices and being baptized, everything about Enoch who’s just an intriguing blip in original flavor Genesis. In their own way, these added narratives are also attempts to solve perceived problems with the Bible as available--if we follow the traditional (and wrong) assumption that Moses wrote the Torah, how would he know about what happens in Genesis? if Cain kills Abel over sacrifices, why did they know to practice sacrifices anyway? if Enoch was so righteous that he got a whole city sent to heaven, don’t we deserve to know what his whole deal was? 

In this way, the Joseph Smith Translation is a lot closer to the Jewish practice of midrash, a rich and century-old practice that’s probably most easily described as “bible fanfic and fanon.” Midrash is the original No-Prize: it’s about spotting things in the Biblical text that don’t make sense or could be explained a lot better and then having the faith to try and furnish that explanation. Compilations of midrash will often include different and even conflicting explanations, which shows that the scripture is still open to interpretation and that the conversation about each passage is ongoing. What Joseph Smith was doing with his inspired version of the Bible is so much closer to midrash than it is to the idea that Smith was furnishing an “uncorrupted” version of some original text. Indeed, the notion that we should view the JST as a direct restoration of some mythical original version of the Bible (an anthology cobbled together over hundreds of years and a situation where the concept of an “original version” is basically nonsensical) prevents us from pursuing the spirit of midrash and interpretation ourselves, which is the most useful lesson we can possibly get from Smith’s efforts here: that it is worth our time to try and figure out what’s going on in the scriptures. The JST can be a roadmap for us, pointing out problem spots that we should pay attention to and offering its own guesses for us to consider. But if we read it as an end-all-be-all, we’re really missing its whole point.

So: what was the problem Jospeh Smith found in Matthew 24 that required him to extensively revise the entire chapter before it made sense to him? It’s in verse 34 of the original, after Jesus has talked about both his second coming and the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem: 

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans. That counts as a major prophecy delivered and fulfilled. But, in case you haven’t noticed, the second coming didn’t happen in 70 CE, or during the lifetime of original disciples. Turns out it hasn’t happened at all yet. Passages like Matthew 24:34 gave early Christians the expectation that Jesus would be back fairly soon--Paul even addresses some saints who are freaking out because other Christians have died before the second coming and they weren’t expecting that. But interpreting that verse in the most straightforward way clearly didn’t cohere with the facts. Was there another way to interpret the chapter so it’s prophecy was more accurate?

What Joseph Smith Matthew does then is take one possible interpretation of Matthew 24 that resolves this problem and make it explicit. The first major change is at verse four of JSM and it more clearly splits the question that the disciples ask into two questions: 

KJV: And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

JSM: And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be which thou hast said concerning the destruction of the temple, and the Jews; and what is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world, or the destruction of the wicked, which is the end of the world?

Remember that Jesus begins the chapter by pronouncing a doom on the temple, so “these things” is easily read as “the destruction of the temple” even in the King James. But the JSM chooses to gloss it clearly as “the destruction of the temple and the Jews” and shuffles everything else to what is unambiguously its own clause and not an explication of “these things,” a reading that is possible in the KJV. It also tosses in the interesting eschatological assertion that the end of the world (or, in a more accurate translation of the underlying Greek word aeon, the end of the age or the end of this life) is equivalent to “the destruction of the wicked,” which I think is a really intriguing and useful idea.

The JSM then proceeds to shuffle the verses focused more on the second coming around so that they are clearly separated from those detailing the destruction of the second temple. It’s easiest to see what’s been changed and moved around in this handy redline (courtesy of Sam Brunson) which strikes out what’s been removed from the King James and underlines what’s been added by Joseph Smith.  This serves to drive home a point that I think exists in the original text but is underlined in bold in the JSM: if anyone tells you that Christ has come back while the temple is being destroyed, don’t believe them; when Christ’s return in glory happens, you’ll definitely know it’s happening (compare Matthew 24: 23-27 with JSM 1:21-26). 

The JSM also corrects that pesky verse 34: now “this generation in which these things shall be shown forth, shall not pass away until all I have told you shall be fulfilled” (JSM 1:38) Tribulation and famine and wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes and the abomination of desolation will all happen again at some future time as a sign of the second coming and the prophecy only includes generation that witnesses those signs. It’s a little inelegant, but it’s an attempt to reinforce that there are two different timelines going on here (destruction of the temple and the second coming of Christ), which is itself a viable reading of the text as originally presented. Joseph Smith is working off the assumption that this reading is the correct one and presenting a gloss of the text where that reading is used to tie up all the loose ends in the chapter. It’s one possible answer and it should be an aid to us as we wrestle with this passage and work with the Holy Ghost to come up with our own answers about it. 

[eli-kittim]

Preterism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

Was 70 CE the Worst Period Ever in the History of the Earth?

In talking about the great ordeal (aka “the great tribulation”), Mt. 24.21 says that there will be the greatest suffering ever in the history of the world before Jesus comes. 70 CE was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst period ever in the history of the earth. We have ample evidence of the Black Death (1346-1353), the Flu Pandemic (1918), and the two World Wars that killed over 100 million people, which were far worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This fact alone severely weakens the Preterist argument of the imminent eschatology of Jesus and the apostles, which is characterised by the notion that the eschaton was supposed to take place in first century Palestine!

Similarly, Dan. 12.1, after discussing the worst period in the history of the earth, goes on to say that the resurrection of the dead will occur during the same time period (Dan. 12.2). Then, the Book of Daniel goes on to talk about “the time of the end” (12.4, 9), which obviously goes far beyond the first century. In point of fact, the Book of Daniel and the Gospel of Matthew offer two conspicuous examples which demonstrate that “the end of the days” (Dan. 12.13), or “the end” of human history (Mt. 24.14), is radically different than what the Preterist interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first century fulfillment. If anything, Scripture’s future end-time prophecies are meant to signal the ultimate dissolution of the universe (2 Pet. 3.10) and the creation of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21.1). Events that obviously haven’t happened yet!

Could the Latter Years or The Day of the Lord Refer to the Time of Antiquity?

Biblically, the “eschaton” is set in the context of a future time-period that is intimately connected with “the day of the Lord” (ημέρα κυρίου)! And as regards the idiomatic expression, the Day of the Lord, almost all Bible scholars believe that it is an event that will take place at the end of the world (cf. Isa. 2.12; Ezek. 30.3; Joel 2.31-32; Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.14-18; Acts 2.20). This, too, debunks the notion that the Day of the Lord was anticipated in the first century CE. Two Thessalonians 2.1-4 warns against such Preterist hypotheses by stating that the Day of Christ has not yet come, and that it won’t come until the arrival of the Antichrist at the end of days.

In fact, Preterism’s interpretative weakness can be exposed through many angles. For example, the end-times war known as the Gog-Magog war in Exekiel 38, which most prophecy experts ascribe to the future, is said to commence “in the latter years” (v. 8)! 70 CE certainly does not qualify as the latter years. It is untenable to suggest this hypothesis which does not fit with any of the end-time biblical prophecies and predictions.

Is the Terminal Generation the one that Will Not Pass Away Until All these Things Take Place?

Modern Greek linguistics demonstrate that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25). In other words, just because a verb is in the present tense doesn’t mean that the action is happening at present! So, this point demonstrates that the insistence on the present generation-interpretation does not necessarily square well with the authorial intent. For ex, the Johannine Jesus says figuratively that the hour “is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God” (Jn. 5.25), and will come out of their graves. But we have no evidence that the resurrection of the dead happened in Antiquity. In fact, we have evidence that, according to Dan. 12.2, the resurrection of the dead is a future end-time event. Same with Mt. 24.34: “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” What things? Answer: all the future end-time events that are described in Mt. 24. Thus, Jesus is clearly describing the last generation on earth. For instance, the notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory (16.27) or in his kingdom (Mt. 16.28) cannot be attributed to a supposed first-century CE context. Since Jesus has yet to come in his glory, it can only be ascribed to an eschatological spectrum of events. Since there is no historical record of these events ever taking place, the context of such passages is ultimately based not on preterism but futurism. In other words, the generation that is alive, at that future time, and sees these signs (as described in Mt. 24.33) is the same generation that will not die and witness the coming of the savior (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11)! In short, the timeline of “this generation” that “will not pass away” (Mt. 24.34) must be interpreted within the context of the prerequisite signs that will take place, not simply on linguistic grounds.

Translation and Exegesis of Biblical Greek Validates the Futurist Eschatology of the New Testament

If you add my particular contribution to the mix——where I discuss the explicit future eschatological verses in the Greek New Testament that refer to the end of the world——it turns out to be the final nail in the Preterist coffin! Phrases like τό πλήρωμα του χρόνου (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.10) refer to the final consummation when all things, both in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ! Furthermore, the phrase επ´ εσχάτου των ημερων (Heb. 1.2) literally means “in the last days” and is an ipso facto reference to the end of the ages (cf. the alternative expression επ´ εσχάτου των χρόνων; 1 Pet. 1.20). These apocalyptic expressions are built on the term έσχατος (eschatos), which means “last in time.” In fact, the word eschatology is derived from the Greek term “eschaton.”

The Timeline of the Great Tribulation and the Resurrection of the Dead Does Not Square Well with the Apostolic Age

Many Biblical exegetes have traditionally misunderstood the inferred time-period associated with the phrase, “the time is near,” and have consequently assumed that both Jesus and the apostles expected the imminent end to happen in their lifetime. In fact, Bertrand Russell (the famous philosopher) wrote an essay indicating that he is not a Christian because, in his view, Jesus and the apostles were wrong about their imminent eschatology. These events never happened. Albert Schweitzer came to the same conclusion. Thereafter, many subsequent scholars followed suit.

(See the following article, which refutes this notion of imminent eschatology based on the koine Greek of the New Testament).

However, good exegesis requires that we evaluate the idiomatic expression “the time is near” (Rev. 1.3; 22.10) within its proper context, and therefore interpret it in light of the revelations that are associated with it. In other words, why is the warning in Rev. 22.10 not applicable to ancient times? Well, there are certain sign-posts that need to be deciphered first. And, in order to understand the particular timeline in question, we need a clear outline of the sequence of eschatological events. For example, the aforementioned apocalyptic locution “the time is near” is not mentioned in a vacuum as if it pertains to all generations, including that of the Apostolic Age, but rather in the context of the specific judgments of the tribulation period (see Rev. chs. 6–16). This specific tribulation period is inextricably connected to the “Beast” of Rev. 13, otherwise known as the “lawless one” (cf. 2 Thess. 2.3–4) or the Antichrist (1 Jn 2.18).

In order to ascertain the overall prophetic message of Revelation, the hermeneutical principle of the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts, as if we’re reading a single Book, rather than employing isolated, out-of-context passages to construct a subjective theology. For proper exegesis, we also need to use “the analogy of scripture,” rather than form opinions based on speculation and conjecture. In other words, we must allow scripture to interpret and define scripture. For instance, 2 Thess. 2.1–7 predicts a sequence of eschatological events in which the “Antichrist” will be revealed at roughly the same time as the “rapture,” the transporting of believers to heaven at the end of days. Incidentally, the rapture is said to occur contemporaneously with the general resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Thess. 4.15–17). Since the general resurrection of the dead is an event that is associated with the apocalyptic time period known as the great tribulation——aka a period of “great suffering” (θλῖψις μεγάλη; Mt. 24.21; cf. Dan. 8.19; 12.1–2; Rev. 7.14)——2 Thess. 2.1-3 is teaching against the doctrine of imminence by stressing that the rapture and the resurrection cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” Similarly, Daniel places the timeline of the resurrection in prophetic categories by stating that it will occur at the end of days (12.13)!

Let’s not forget that at the beginning of Matthew 24.3 a question is asked about the chronology of the signs of the times regarding these eschatological events:

“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be

the sign of your coming and of the end of

the age?”

It’s important to note, parenthetically, that the apocalyptic phrase “the end of the age” is actually a reference to the end of the world (see Mt. 13.39–40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). So, whatever eschatology one imposes on the New Testament, it must ultimately line up with the enumerated events discussed therein. By way of illustration, Mt. 24.21 says that the Great Tribulation (Gk. θλῖψις μεγάλη) will begin “when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15). This is further discussed in 2 Thess. 2.3–4 (cf. Dan. 9.27). Apparently, this is the same time period when the Great Tribulation will commence. Then, Mt. 24.29–31 goes on to discuss the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. the rapture) within the time frame of the Great Tribulation (Gk. μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). Therefore, the events of the rapture (1 Thess. 4.16–17) and the resurrection (Rev. 20.4–6) echo Daniel’s 12.1–2 reference regarding the general resurrection of the dead which must occur approximately in the same period of time as the phenomena of the Great Tribulation!

Further Evidence of Futurism from Revelation’s Global Wars & Geological Events

Further evidence that the eschatology of the New Testament is uniformly futurist, and not preterist, comes by way of the prophecy of the last empire on earth (Rev. 17.11), which has yet to come, that will play a major role during the time of the Great Tribulation (cf. Rev. 11.7; 12.3–6, 14; 17.9–13). Not to mention the prophetic references, in the Book of Revelation, to major geological events the scale of which has never before been seen in human history. For example, Rev. 6.14 alludes to how tectonic plates had been shifted to such an extent that “every mountain and island was removed from its place.” Revelation 16.20 adds that “every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.” Such cataclysmic events have never been recorded before in human history! What is more, the descriptions in Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation pertain to global, not local, events. For example, Lk 21.10-11 talks about “Nation … against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,” and about earthquakes, plagues, and famines “in various places.” Revelation 6.8 tells us that “a fourth of the earth” will be wiped out “with sword, … famine, and plague.” Similarly, Rev. 6.15 mentions “the kings of the earth” and all of mankind seeking shelter “in the rocks of the mountains,” while Rev. 9.18 says that during this period “a third of mankind was killed by … three plagues.” Obviously, these are not local but global events. Incidentally, the phrase “was killed,” in Rev. 9.18, is a translation of the verb ἀπεκτάνθησαν, which is an aorist, indicative, passive, 3rd person plural form from ἀποκτείνω, meaning “to kill.” It is important to note that many verbs expressed in past tense, such as the aorist or the perfect-tense, do not actually tell us the timing of an event. There are, in fact, many perfect-tenses that are used for future prophecies. For example, Revelation 7.4 uses the perfect-tense τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων for those who “were sealed.” But this event obviously hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, Isaiah 53 is filled with past-tenses and yet it is a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about! Thus, a superficial reading of the text can often lead to erroneous interpretations.

Conclusion

Revelation 22.7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 repeats over and over again that this Book represents an exclusively prophetic Biblical text:

“Blessed is the one who keeps the words of

the prophecy of this book.”

This is also mentioned in the introduction (Rev. 1.3). Yet many Biblical expositors of a Preterist persuasion repeatedly violate Revelation’s reminder by interpreting certain events within a historical context, as if these events were expected to occur during the lifetime of the apostles. Not to mention that the Book of Revelation itself was written sometime around 96 CE and thus postdates the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is often seen as the target date of the supposed eschaton.

As we have seen, good exegesis of “the time is near” phrase is only possible by way of the overall canonical context. Thus, Preterism involves a “proof-text fallacy” which comprises the idea of stringing together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate the assumed imminent eschatology of the apostles. In other words, the Preterist conclusion is not compatible with the overall canonical context. This is equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence. Preterism also misinterprets the original Greek language of the New Testament, which is interested in the “aspect” rather than the “time” of an event.

I have outlined the overall canonical message of the Bible along with its specific prophetic content. So, when we look at all the prophetic predictions and combine them together to get a holistic understanding, we get a bigger picture of what will occur before the end. Therefore, how close we are to these events largely depends on how close we are to these prophetic signposts, temporally speaking. If you want to explore the prophetic markers of Mt. 24 from a historical perspective, see my article, Are We Living in the Last Days?

Therefore, Revelation’s caveat that “the time is near” is most certainly not a reference to first-century Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11; Mt. 24.3)! In light of this study, that interpretation would be completely false. Rather, it means that if the reader understands all the Biblical predictions and the specific end-time sequence of events as parts of an integrated whole, then he or she can properly infer if the time is near simply by discerning whether or not the major prophetic events of the New Testament have taken place on a global scale. A close reading of the apocalyptic genre of the New Testament reveals that it is not alluding to a first century fulfillment but to an end-time expectation!

[wakingthefury]

The Bible Answer Man is no longer capable to answer Bible questions

Listen to Today's Program JD: We’ve been fallowing a story that first began breaking this last week concerning Hank Hanegraaff. He’s know as the Bible answer man who actually has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and has become a member of a Greek Orthodox Church. What can you tell us? DJ: Well that’s right and actually in explaining and responding to questions and comments and concerns about his conversion he said he’d actually been attending an Orthodox church for over 2 years and he officially became a member on Palm Sunday. He was what’s called the term chrismated into the Orthodox Church. What’s interesting about this Dr. Hanegraaff has been talking about these things he says that nothing about what he believes in his faith has changed. Well, if nothing has changed then something was wrong in people thinking that he was actually a conservative Evangelical in his beliefs because there are distinctive differences and important problems between Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.

Hank Hanegraaff became the president of the Christian Research Institute and took on the title of the Bible answer man. So, he’s been on the radio for a long time. But you know it’s not always been a smooth ride he’s come under criticism on a number of fronts and we’ll talk about some of them later as regards to eschatology.

But on the other end of the Bible in the beginning Ken Ham took him to task in an article posted on the answers of Genesis website where he notes that the Bible answer man does not hold to a literal creation, doesn’t believe that there was a literal serpent in the Garden of Eden that spoke to Eve. And so he would except a long day age theory or some kind of evolutionary theistic evolution. So there are problems with is theology.  

JD: David James with this report on the Bible answer man.

We report this information because it is setting the stage for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled.

The purpose for this report was for alerting the church the body of Christ about someone who may not be what he claims to be. I.E. Hank Hanegraaff known as the Bible answer man who has recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The bible exhorts each of us who are true Bible believing born again Christians to study the Bible. It’s the word of God. Let me quickly say that there is nothing wrong to listen to Bible teacher’s maybe that you hear on the radio but we must make sure who we are listening to are what they say they are, true born again Bible believing people as well. That is why we have reported this story on Hank Hanegraaff.

Jesus actually warned during his earthly ministry for each of us to be aware of false prophets and false teachers. In fact, in Matthew 24 Jesus says that false teachers would be the main sign of his soon return. My suggestion for today is study the word and keep looking up, He is coming.

via Jimmy DeYoung's News Update http://ift.tt/2pbYqPw

[everarddelanden]

HC: The de Landen family Curse

I find it endlessly fascinating to think about the progression of Everard de Landen finding out what happened to his family. Here are the elements of those HCs, based on the timeline the books give us (not the Alphabettery) and the theories we created around it.

1.) The Family Curse

The gentle soul that used to roleplay Notker (notkerthewise) on here, once pitched the idea to me, of the de Landen family having this legend of ‘the family curse’, where certain members of the family had suddenly disappeared, probably due to wrongful behaviour. I absolutely loved this idea and it makes so much sense. Warning the children with scary bedtime stories to keep them in line; the stories passed down from generations, varying from the devil, to monsters, to witches, but based on the true events of Benedict, Allesandra, Eleni and Eugénie all suddenly disappearing, with decades and sometimes centuries between them. For Everard (and his brothers) to be brought up on these stories, only to realise it was all true, after getting snatched by Rhoshamandes himself, must have been horrifying. That moment he realised Rhoshamandes would not let him go. The moment he realised Rhoshamandes was immortal. The moment he realised Benedict was a long forgotten ancester of his own... And then connecting the dots. That he himself had been ‘the next one’.

2.) Immortality

To be turned, and getting that final piece of the puzzle; understanding why the others had never returned to the family, must have been heartbreaking to him. For doing so, would add the complications of the danger of possibly killing them, not being able to explain to them what happened to him (and those before him), especially in those times and understanding it’s best for the family to think himself dead, rather than know he is damned to an eternity of bloodshed and murder. He loved his family and would have done anything for them, including crossing himself out, for their sake. 

I personally feel like (and feel free to pitch in, @rhoshamandes), that Rhoshamandes did not share much with Everard about the other de Landens. Perhaps out of remorse or shame for his own fledglings, whom he had deemed strong and worthy of his blood, to be ‘so easily swayed by indoctrination’ by the cult. Because perhaps by getting abducted and not escaping, they had proven themselves unworthy after all.

All the information Everard could get about ‘those before him’, might have come from Benedict, who, no doubt, spoke of them all fondly, but careful to tread on what to share, respecting Rhoshamandes’ own silence on it. 

3.) Children of Darkness

And then came abduction number two, where the Children snatched Everard too. Despite the inescapable trauma of starvation, torture and over three hundred years of living in a cult, there is such a gentle element to it, where Everard met those whom he had heard of, but never met before; the stolen family members. To find family not only double by blood/Blood, but also experience and Maker.

Despite reuniting with three of them (Allesandra, Eleni and Eugènie), Reineke (@actricedesvampires-blog) and I agreed that Eleni and Everard were instantly drawn to each other and found comfort and company in their shared misery. Something that helped them survive in the cult for so long, as it is sort of common knowledge that none lived beyond three centuries without going mad.

Knowing he was not alone in all this, a connection he could only make through that strong love for family and did not quite click with him when it came to the other Children, was perhaps a spark of relief for him that was so bittersweet, that it was something they could not squeeze out of him, even if they wanted to. Therefor I also believe, that whenever he stepped out of line, his punishments would be complete isolation, which would be most effective in breaking him. But knowing that giving in and falling back in line would give him the company of Eleni again, was enough to keep him going.

In a way it reminds me a lot of Sirius Black (one of my all time favourite fictional characters) who stayed sane in Azkaban, because his most important memory, was not a happy one and thus could not be ripped from him, preventing him from going completely mad. There are some definite parallels there that make so much sense, as we all know Everard survived and eventually escaped to become the obnoxious outsider I came to appreciate so much.

[everarddelanden]

There was another reboot of internal bracing in the pit of his stomach, brought on merely by the fact of Rhoshamandes moving right in front of him. It was unusual for the tyrant to acknowledge him this fully so quickly, yet it might reflect his own unusual request.

But it did not feel new. Everard had never been able to pinpoint exactly what this feeling was; intimidation, weariness, misplaced respect, plain old deceitful attraction... It did not matter. What he felt now and was keenly aware of, was his Maker's power, focussing in on it, because he wanted access to it. The switch in the other's mood was significant and it seemed Rhoshamandes was enjoying this too much. Being the bud of the joke as it may, it was terribly refreshing to Everard to be talked to by Rhoshamandes without contempt in that deep voice. He kept his dark eyes on Roshamandes', despite feeling the need to look away. Keeping the other entertained or guessing might be his only way to get what he wanted. "Why not." he humoured him, with a casual shrug, hands still in his pockets. "I don't expect you to want the whole boring story, but let's say necessity calls for it." Everard said with some smoothed-over agitation or impatience in his words, but not because of the request, but the reason for his visit in the first place. "I've had your Blood plenty of times before." he continued, that natural arrogance slipping back in. "Why stop now? It's your legacy, non?"

everarddelanden​:

“Quoi? I can’t just visit to say ‘hello’?“ he answered quite immediately at the rather unpleasant greeting, remaining where he lingered, but his dark eyes following his Sire’s every movement. He sucked some air through his teeth. “Yes, who am I kidding.“ he admitted, nulling his own response instantly. They knew eachother too well to know they would never seek each other out for the mere purpose of company. He picked himself off the door frame to lean on both feet. Everard sensed Rhoshamandes’ bad mood like a quivering, hissing heat in the air. It kept him from talking for a few seconds, feeling it out and wondering if he could speak his mind without getting burned. But the chance of that happening was always a four out of five and so, although contemplating on his words, Everard also braced himself for impact. “A refill.“ he dared utter, but with confidence or even entitlement. “I won’t let it go to waste.“

Rhoshamandes scoffed at Everard’s wording, although there was a small, almost imperceptible ounce of amusement in the brief, discreet way the corner of his mouth crooked up. 

‘There is a first time for everything,’ he thought with some intrigue, one of his ash-blonde brows arching subtly beneath his impassive grey eyes. He walked over the other, his gaze scrutinizing; his arms folding before the sculpted chest. “The reason, then, what is it?” His lips parted, a short, challenging smile making its way on them. “Having a taste for power, are you now?”

[everarddelanden]

“I take it my ‘Castle visitation voucher’ did not yet expire.“ he voiced casually when the piano music stopped. Everard stood leaning in the doorframe, his hands in the pockets of his dark blue dress pants, matched with a jacket of the same ilk and oddly matching, colourful, floral shirt underneath.  He was fully fed, knowing Rhoshamandes hated a fledgling half-full. His skin had the slightest hint of colour and as usual, his straight dark, yet full hair hung like curtains at his temples. Everard had entered without objection and had been standing here, watching Rhoshamandes work the piano keys for the past ten minutes. Typical of the Ancient to give permission to enter by not bothering to stop playing. Typical of the Ancient to not even acknowledge Everard until he was done.

@rhoshamandes

[everarddelanden]

how’s benedict lately?

Go ask him yourself. See how long you last. Rhoshamandes' Castle doors are like the angel statues in Never Ending Story. Once you are deemed unworthy, you die.

[everarddelanden]

If you could change five things about your past, what would they be?

I would prefer not to have been flung off a horse, that's one. Two, I would still like to know where my left glove went. Three, warm showers. Four, not having cut bangs when I was twenty. Oh, and five, not being turned.

[everarddelanden]

Would you ever kiss a demon? 👀

"You see, the pesky thing about demons, is that you never know when you run into one. They are masters of disguise and deceit. Rhosh for example."

[everarddelanden]

📖

What is she doing here? How on earth did this come to be? I know and yet I don’t. I get it, but I don’t. If he is as kind and patient with her as he is with him, it is easy. 

Does she not spar with him? I can not believe that. Does she not push her curiosity beyond appropriate with him as she does with me? And if she does, then why does he tolerate it? Is his lack of respect and decency truly only reserved for me? If even I seem to fail to reason with her on anything, than how on earth does he?

I almost warned her. I almost told her to tread carefully with him, but I abstained from it. And not just out of respect. Not just out of the sole decorum of letting her make her own choices. But because I knew right away that he would treat her well. How can I be convinced of such a fact, when my experience has been the exact opposite? How deep under my skin has he instilled the guarantee that his disregard solely exists for me? 

She will only feel eager impatience rather than forceful strength. She will only experience a strong caress and not a hand around her throat. She will only know pleasure. No pain. On her terms. With eyes that adore her. 

[everarddelanden]

Do you want set Rhosh on fire? I do!

"Occasionally." he answered with a lazy shrug, making clear that he would never even attempt such a thing.

[everarddelanden]

👀 did you ever love Rhosh or Benedict?

“Oui.“ he said after an exasperated sigh. “Or at least I thought I did. It is a pesky little thing, when you are in a position where it is impossible to distinguish dependency from genuine feelings. That difference is something I learned much later in life.“