The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

End Times
steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:47 am

The temple could not possibly have been NORTH of the current Dome of the Rock location as he thinks. The temple was SOUTH of the current Dome of the Rock location, where the waters of the Gihon Spring were available to service the temple’s needs for ceremonially pure “living water”. There are no such springs of water north of the Dome of the Rock site. Skolfield should have done a serious review of Nehemiah’s wall and gates construction, and those chapters would have informed him of the true location of the temple.



I listened to Chris White's video on this at Bibleprophecytalk.com & he said 600 feet rather then 300 feet & gave the same info you did but Skolfield's point is simply that whether it's north or south of the Temple mount this is a fulfillment of Rev 11.2 "But the court is without the temple leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city shall be tread under foot forty and two months."


42 months is 1278 days and using the day for a year method (688AD + 1278 years) = 1967-68 (Capture of Jerusalem)


"I give you a day for a year" Ezekiel 4.5-6

3Resurrections
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by 3Resurrections » Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:24 pm

Sorry, steve7150, but Ellis Skolfield does not have liberty to arbitrarily assign the day-for-a-year formula wherever he pleases, without specific permission in the scripture context. It says 42 months PERIOD in the text - not 42 months of days multiplied into years. Skolfield presumes too much, and thereby contradicts Revelation’s own very clear “AT HAND” time limits that confine those unsealed prophecies to the immediate future of those first-century days when Revelation was written (between late AD 59 and early AD 60).

This 42 months of the Gentiles treading that space underfoot was the period during AD 66-70 when the different Zealot factions were battling each other for supremacy in Jerusalem - even on the temple grounds. The leaders of these rebellious Zealot forces originated mainly from “Galilee of the GENTILES”. (Remember “Judas of GALILEE” of Acts 5:37 who revolted against Rome?)

Between the Zealots and their civil conflict, their competing armies tore the city and it’s helpless inhabitants to pieces like a pack of mad dogs - as Josephus gave ample testimony. It was this internecine warfare that weakened Jerusalem enough to cause its eventual fall to Roman troops. It was a tribulation period of “DAYS” (not years) that Christ said would be “shortened” for the elect’s sake, or no flesh would have been saved.

Again, if John said that the prophecies of Revelation were “AT HAND” at the time, according to God’s terms of definition in Ezekiel 12:21-28, there is no way on earth they can be “prolonged” into “times that are far off”, such as 1967/68. That would be a ridiculous interpretation of what was *THEN* “AT HAND” when John was writing Revelation. This is not rocket science.

steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:26 pm

Again, if John said that the prophecies of Revelation were “AT HAND” at the time, according to God’s terms of definition in Ezekiel 12:21-28, there is no way on earth they can be “prolonged” into “times that are far off”, such as 1967/68. That would be a ridiculous interpretation of what was *THEN* “AT HAND” when John was writing Revelation. This is not rocket science.





I don't find Revelation or the bible necessarily as black and white as you seem to. First of all "at hand" may or may not apply to everything In Revelation , i think it's possible more then one view is can be true. It's also possible Revelation was written around 95AD as i think the evidence is close between the two dates. The evidence for 95AD is much more then one statement from Irenaous. For one example one argument from Preterists is that since the 70AD Jerusalem destruction is never mentioned then that just about proves it was written prior to 70AD. But John speaks about New Jerusalem coming down from the heavens & it does suggest that Old Jerusalem is no longer there.
God created the universe using Laws of Physics involving highly complex mathematical relationships between objects like stars and planets and moons and many other things, so it's clear God uses math. Computers running highly sophisticated software applications in numerous tasks run on math based software language all available because God made it available for man to discover because God uses math.
So for Skolfield to discover a mathematical connection between the date of the Dome and 1967 when Israel recaptured the Temple grounds because he arbitrarily decided to use a day for a year method which has been used in the bible elsewhere, i respond to Skolfield with a "Well done brother" use the brain that God gave you!

3Resurrections
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by 3Resurrections » Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:40 pm

Here’s a simple mathematical calculation that has escaped Ellis Skolfield’s notice completely. Count back 666 years in time from the year John was writing Revelation (just prior to the AD 60 earthquake judgment God was soon about to pass on the Laodicean church - Rev. 3:16), and you arrive at the year in ancient history when the Sea Beast of Revelation 13 first came into existence.

As a conglomerate blend of leopard, bear, and lion features, this Sea Beast had a biography as old as the lion feature it displayed. In other words, it was as old as Nebuchadnezzar’s (the lion kingdom’s) first deportation of Jews from Jerusalem in 607 BC, which began the 70-year exile, including Daniel and his 3 friends being taken captive. With just a little wisdom, John’s readers could figure this out by counting the 666 number of that Sea Beast by how many years it had existed. A degree in mathematics wasn’t necessary either then or now. What comfort would that have been to the ordinary first-century persecuted saint if it was such an esoteric puzzle that only the highly trained scholars of the day could figure it out? That’s not God’s habitual practice. He hides things from the wise and prudent and reveals them unto babes. Keep it simple.

There is much more internal evidence that all combines to prove Revelation’s composition date was in a year prior to AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem. I’ve listed all of it I could find at this link, beginning at reply #14: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_ ... n-written/

All those listed proofs narrow down the year of Revelation’s composition to a period between late AD 59 until early AD 60, just before the devastating AD 60 Laodicean earthquake when God was “about to spue them out of His mouth”. And prophecies that were all “AT HAND” to that year had nothing to do with a distant future AD 1967/68. Ellis Skolfield is mistaken. Thoroughly.

steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:19 am

All those listed proofs narrow down the year of Revelation’s composition to a period between late AD 59 until early AD 60, just before the devastating AD 60 Laodicean earthquake when God was “about to spue them out of His mouth”. And prophecies that were all “AT HAND” to that year had nothing to do with a distant future AD 1967/68. Ellis Skolfield is mistaken. Thoroughly.
Top


Don't most Preterists think Revelation was written later in the 60s but that would pose a problem since the Laodicean Church was called "rich" and having wealth but that would be unlikely with an earthquake destruction in 60AD?
On the other hand if it were written in 59AD the "the time is at hand" doesn't quite fit since Jerusalem didn't get destroyed for a decade. I would imagine "time is at hand" to mean a few days or weeks or months but not a decade.
Also at the close of Revelation Jesus said "Yes i am coming soon" but there is no evidence he did and the events associated with the second coming never happened so these time related expressions are not always literal.
I also still wonder why after Jesus clearly described the destruction of Jerusalem in three gospels and in effect said it would happen by about 70AD , why we would need the same event repeated in symbolic language later on and why this description would be called a "Revelation"?

3Resurrections
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by 3Resurrections » Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:56 am

You’re right, steve7150, that if Preterists think Revelation was written in the middle of the 60’s, this poses a problem when we look at the prosperous Laodicean church as then described in Rev. 2:17. “I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing...” couldn’t possibly describe a city just recovering from that devastating AD 60 earthquake. THEREFORE, Revelation had to be written at a time JUST PRIOR to that earthquake, while they were still prospering and increasing in goods. God’s impending judgment that He was “ABOUT TO” dump on this smug, self-satisfied church was on the very near horizon for them. Like a matter of no more than a few months only before the AD 60 earthquake.

Remember, Christ’s list of “the beginning of sorrows” (even BEFORE the “great tribulation” of AD 66-70’s Zealot rebellion) was going to include “earthquakes in divers places” (Matt. 24:7-8). The AD 60 Laodicean earthquake was only one of these that happened BEFORE the great tribulation broke out in AD 66. There were other major earthquake catastrophes prior to AD 66 recorded for us in the history books.

You ask how AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem could be an “AT HAND” judgment if Revelation was written as early as late AD 59. Well, those “days of vengeance” were not all compressed into a single year. Once those AT HAND “beginning of sorrows” started, they would steadily and inevitably continue to escalate in intensity until Jerusalem was finally crushed.

The whole decade from AD 60-70 was a traumatic one - presently beginning, and “AT HAND” for John’s readers. Some of the faithful at Smyrna were “ABOUT TO SUFFER”, and were “ABOUT TO BE CAST INTO PRISON” by the devil (Rev. 2:10). This imminent persecution was the fallout effects from the AD 57 Ephesian riot (capitol of Asia) instigated by the Ephesian silversmiths, and then joined later by the oppressive Jewish leadership in Asia. We know that they hated Paul and his teaching with an enduring passion. That’s why John was writing from Patmos (the island just off the coast of Asia, and under Ephesian jurisdiction). As a “companion in tribulation”, he was sharing the same tribulation period that had broken out against the believers in Asia following the AD 57 Ephesian riot (Rev. 1:9).

And yes, there actually IS physical evidence that Christ physically returned and stood on the Mount of Olives in AD 70. We have earthquake rubble from two landslide layers filling up the Kidron Valley as far as Azal (the “Wadi Yasul” on today’s maps). These two layers are dated by archaeologists from King Uzziah’s day and also from the AD 70 era. Remember, Zechariah 14:4-5 said that the mountain was going to break apart and lean in all directions? That’s an earthquake landslide being described. Which took place in AD 70, leaving the Kidron Valley “blocked up as far as Azal” (Zech. 24:4-5 in the LXX) to a depth of about 40 feet. That was Jesus’s “calling card”, so to speak, proving that He actually did come before that generation had all died off - exactly when and where He said He would return to take all His resurrected believers back to heaven.

Don’t worry though; He’ll return again for the third time in our future to resurrect to life all the saints who have died since AD 70. Not one saint gets “left behind” in the dust at the close of human history. We have the pledge of the Spirit on that.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by backwoodsman » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:00 pm

steve7150 wrote:
Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:19 am
Don't most Preterists think Revelation was written later in the 60s but that would pose a problem since the Laodicean Church was called "rich" and having wealth but that would be unlikely with an earthquake destruction in 60AD?
A reasonable hypothesis, but hardly a given. A rich city could very well have been able to rebuild and still be rich.
I also still wonder why after Jesus clearly described the destruction of Jerusalem in three gospels and in effect said it would happen by about 70AD , why we would need the same event repeated in symbolic language later on and why this description would be called a "Revelation"?
The answer to that might be in Hebrews 5:12 - 6:8, also written to Christians who were very aware of Jesus' prophecy. They lived in what would shortly be the focus of the 70AD destruction, but they'd become spiritually fat and lazy, and had regressed to a spiritually infantile state, so were in danger of destruction. Maybe Revelation was another part of God's effort to wake them up so they'd escape that destruction, which apparently worked.

steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:24 pm

Don't most Preterists think Revelation was written later in the 60s but that would pose a problem since the Laodicean Church was called "rich" and having wealth but that would be unlikely with an earthquake destruction in 60AD?
A reasonable hypothesis, but hardly a given. A rich city could very well have been able to rebuild and still be rich.







With intense Christian persecution under Nero? A church destroyed by an earthquake & under Nero if it could rebuild at all it most likely would be an underground church & fearful. If i were a Preterist i think the earlier date seems to fit better. Plus as Steve G has pointed out Rev ends with Jesus being called "The Word" and John opens up with that phrase which may imply Rev was written before John.

steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:29 pm

I also still wonder why after Jesus clearly described the destruction of Jerusalem in three gospels and in effect said it would happen by about 70AD , why we would need the same event repeated in symbolic language later on and why this description would be called a "Revelation"?

The answer to that might be in Hebrews 5:12 - 6:8, also written to Christians who were very aware of Jesus' prophecy. They lived in what would shortly be the focus of the 70AD destruction, but they'd become spiritually fat and lazy, and had regressed to a spiritually infantile state, so were in danger of destruction. Maybe Revelation was another part of God's effort to wake them up so they'd escape that destruction, which apparently worked.





You are the first person to try to answer this although i have brought up this question several times, so thanks. But Hebrews was written in a straightforward manner & not difficult to get the message. Revelation is highly symbolic and hard to understand, not normally the way a warning is written?

steve7150
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The False Prophet by Ellis Skolfield

Post by steve7150 » Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:36 pm

You ask how AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem could be an “AT HAND” judgment if Revelation was written as early as late AD 59. Well, those “days of vengeance” were not all compressed into a single year. Once those AT HAND “beginning of sorrows” started, they would steadily and inevitably continue to escalate in intensity until Jerusalem was finally crushed.





Skolfield says the great tribulation is the entire church age and he also says "at hand" is the beginning of the tribulation period.

I actually like his thought about the church age being the tribulation because any short period whether from Preterism or Futurist doctrine can't be the worst period of time that has ever been seen.

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”