My Letter to Brooklyn about the Parousia that got me disfellowshipped

by cofty 85 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    ANOTHER TECHNICAL NOTE: LIGHTNING

    YOU SAID:

    As Jesus passed through Samaria for the last time he said "even as the lightening by its flashing shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven so the son of man will be" Luke 17:22

    In these and in other references to his return there is nothing that would cause the disciples to ask for signs so that they could discern when Jesus would be invisibly present.

    Since Jesus had used language like coming in the glory of his father with the angels and spoken of being like lightening shining from one horizon to the other is it really likely that the disciples meant what we have assumed them to mean when they asked "what will be the sign of your parousi'a?"

    LARS:

    You are confusing the brightness of lightning with his glory. No can do. Please note, therefore, that Jesus' reference to lightning, while it does shine from horizon to horizon is very SHORT! It's just a flash. Christ arrives "in the clouds" which means privately. That is, even though he is visible and physical, he is not in the open for the most part. He's there, but you can't see him, much like you can hear a jet plane in the clouds but you can't see the jet. But lightning comes out of the clouds and can be seen for miles around, but only for a split second!

    So what Jesus was telling his disciples is that his followers while not seeing him in person for the majority of the time, for a brief point in time, he would become a public figure and could be seen over a very wide area. That is, he would come out of the clouds and make a brief public appearance and could be seen in a very wide area. But after that brief appearance, he would vanish again into privacy into the clouds.

    In addition, when they saw him they would 'beat themselves in lamentation" over him. This means that when he does make this public appearance, he will be a carcass, spiritually dead. So this means his public appearance would not be after he returns to God's house and God's favor, but during the time he is cast out of God's favor and spiritually dead. Thus when they see him, they mourn over him.

    The fulfillment of this part of the prophecy takes place due to the modern invention of television! Sounds corny, but that's how you can be seen over a vast area for a flash of time like lightning. So this person who becomes the Christ in 1992 did appear on international television on two shows: "The Gong Show" and "20/20", each time dressed as a woman. So all seeing him would mourn over him since if he was dressed as a woman he would still be in a spiritually dead state.

    In the meantime, Christ coming on the clouds with great glory and with his angels is more associated with the actual 2nd coming. That is, when the prodigal son returns and becomes the Christ and Christ returns to a fleshly form via this individual. So his appearance like "lightning" is specifically not to be associated with the brightness of his GLORY at the time of the second coming. The emphasis on the lightning, therefore, is not its brightness, but its briefness! During his appearance like lightning, the elect mourn over him; that's not glorious, it's shameful. When he arrives at the second coming, he has returned to spiritual life and acceptance by God and when the Christ in heaven and this individual become one, then that is glorious and that is a time of great rejoicing, not mourning.

    So in summary, the messiah does return in the flesh and does lead a private life for the most part except for one brief moment in time when he appears on television and can be seen by all the elect. This fulfills his appearing like lightning, which is bright but brief. Even so, when he is seen, it is during his prodigal son phase and he appears at a time when he is considered to be spiritually dead, he is a disfellowshipped JW at the time, appearing in drag. Thus when he is seen at this time, the elect who know he's the messiah mourn over him and his spiritual death.

    So in relation to the parousia, the messiah does appear in the flesh, but "in the clouds" meaning he is a private individual and doesn't start a public movement. He is unseen for the most part except for a very brief time when he can be seen by the public which is made possible by two television appearances. But after that, he returns to a private life away from the public and thus "in the clouds." His appearance like lightning is thus not his moment of glory which occurs at the time of the actual second coming. He is born in early 1950 but doesn't combine with Christ in heaven until December 25, 1992. So for a period of time, there are actually two messiahs and you have to figure out which messiah the Bible is talking about separately or when combined!

    You've come this far to understand scripture and realize the WTS doesn't have it right -- you may as well go all the way. The Bible is true and everything is fulfilled, just not the way most people would imagine.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Thanks for your feedback everybody - I will post some background and answer questions later. Its a beautiful afternoon here so I'm out enjoying it.

    Lars please keep your long rambling nonsense for your own threads.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Lars,

    Excuse me. I like you. It is a shame you are not a law student or lawyer. If you studied law, you would read exactly what the text says before any analysis. Analysis and personal experience are even more impt than text. You start with the text itself and temporarily forget everything else you know. Jesus never says I am lightning. If he did, several generations of son of man scholars, conferences, books, arguments, refinements would not occur. Jesus says the son of man will come as lightning.

    I had no clue what son of man was for many years. When I read it, I automatically son of Man meant son of God which means Jesus. Well, I discovered to my astonishment that many sons of God exist but few sons of man. Son of man is a Jewish messianic reference, I believe with Isaiah. There is little evidence to determine whether Jesus meant that he was the son of Man or whether he was talking about an abstract son of Man, or even that his cousin, Benjamin Simon was the son of Man. I could not believe my ears the first time I heard this info.

    I've been present when important figures in Christianity have to deal with son of Man scriptures. Daniel Berrigan gave the sermon at the Jesuit chapel at my college. I believe he put it more succintly than any book I have ever read, any journal article, or any lecture. To quote Dan, "The Son of Man text is in this scripture. You know the son of Man tradition. What can I say to even address the Son of Man issue. No, I am only human. So I am just going to end my sermon. Have a great day." He crossed himself and said the prayer when you leave. They invited me to coffee hour. I tell Fr. Berrigan that I've read his books. I don't know what to say about them so I just said that I read them and they interested me. While I am there, all these other hard-core Jesuits and Roman Catholic intellectuals are making a special effort to tell him that it was the most brilliant Son of Man analysis they ever heard or read.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley
    Lars please keep your long rambling nonsense for your own threads.

    I second that motion!

    I'm sure others do what I do- when I see a post by Lars I scroll quickly past his to the next poster.

    Cofty- Great letter. Isn't it amazing that you can present sound arguments, done respectfully, and your only source material is WT publications- and you're still considered a threat by the Watchtower?

    Using WT publications to present evidence is, astonishingly, considered "apostasy".

    Thanks for posting your letter.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    COFTY:

    Lars please keep your long rambling nonsense for your own threads.

    LARS:

    Sorry. I sure will. I respect you. I won't post on your thread.

    But, really, I was impressed with your focus and was just trying to help you fill in the blanks.

    I've come to the point of confrontation with others and we have agreed not to post on each others' threads, so I will gracefully cease.

    Have a great day! I wish you the best.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    was just trying to help you fill in the blanks.

    There were no blanks, Lars.

    "Give a man a public forum and the whole world becomes a blank." -ADCMS

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    Cofty's letter was great. I saw nothing in it to warrant a J C....

    I am no scholar, but this concept of an invisible prescence from Heaven is now ridiculous to me,

    Say I had business interests in New York, and I had negected them of late. Now I "turned my attention" to them and by the use of telephone and the 'net I sorted matters out and did what I needed to , all from home.

    I had done the business but had I been present ? No Way!

  • Oubliette
    Oubliette

    Cofty: As an organisation we enjoy the unique privilege of accurate knowledge on a number of important bible doctrines. The hallmark of such truths is their beautiful simplicity, they appeal to reason, logic and common sense. If you read the bible for the first time with no preconceived ideas they are exactly the beliefs you would be left with. The more you study the scriptures the more solid such beliefs become as they interconnect all the closer with other facets of scriptural truths.

    You must laugh to know that you actually believed what you wrote back then.

    I feel the same way myself when I look back on what BS I spouted as an elder!

    Cofty: I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of proper subjection by articulating my thoughts.

    Yes you have, as you quickly found out.

    This letter and the organization's reponse are yet further proof that the WTBTS is NOT interested in "accurate knowledge" or "truth." All they care about is obedience: blind, unquestioning obedience.

    Isn't it nice to have your mind back?

  • tenyearsafter
    tenyearsafter

    Cofty, excellent research and articulation of the subject...your approach was very Ray Franz-like. I think your comments were very non-threatening...

    Too bad it is the utterances inspired by demons, spewed by mentally diseased apostates! (LOL)

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    I also wish to state emphatically that I have had no contact of any kind with apostates whose divisive works I despise.

    Famous last words, Cofty

    Eden

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit