by Terry 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Interesting how astrology can be woven into the bible mP....just goes to show, we can interpret it to say pretty much ANTHING we like can't we? No wonder so many relgions that don't agreee with each other, can spring forth from one book.
I agree with you Terry...its a big jumble of ideas from previous relilgous beliefs put together to form a new belief. Inspired...NO. Fantasy...YES.
@stillthinking
naturally its rrasonable to be akeptic, but my poimt is astrology explains vast amounts of the gospels in particular from names of places, the order of the ministry, dates when things happen, why mary has to be a virgin etc.
while xians cannot prove jesus existed, that is not necessary for astrology. even if jesus is a story the info presented in the text itself is enough to unravel the connextion. astrology isnt about fact, its myth on a cosmological scale. theres also a message thrown i to the tale, of peace, stoicism.
if we attempt'to tally the number of statements taken from an astrological viewpoint we have hundreds. from a historical proofs, we have almost none, with many major events mentioned in some gospels absent from hisyorical records, im talking about the mass taxation edict, earthquakes and zombies after jesus death and so on. even if we review some of the quotations within the gospels against other books in the ot, we find lots of mistakes. its a very case to demonstrate jc is fulfillment or exists in the ot. i wpuld argue the more we examine this last point the more it shows to be falsifications.
the major problem is of course as i mentioned, most people wamt more and cant see whats right in front of them. its just to difficult to'accept the bible itself is a fraud.
the classic scripture is job 38:31-32 where god days he controls the zodiac. just dont look in the nwt, they refise to translate those scriptures leavbimg the hebrew .
Well, the narrative frames of material drawn from the sayings tradition are generally contrived; people are less inclined to remember the occasion than the content of one's teaching, especially content given on multiple occasions. One common tendency in human memory is to conflate similar occasions together in the interest of enhancing the narrative; in this case, one could imagine two separate occasions on which Jesus discussed the role of the Temple in the close of the eschaton with his disciples -- one while they were at the Temple and another while they were overlooking the Temple on the Mount of Olives -- being merged together in a single narrative. On the other hand, either occasion could have been a literary construction. But one must also recognize the terseness in ancient narratives; they were not novelistic like modern stories...one only needs to look at the crucifixion narrative to find similar gaps and junctures. As for putting things into characters' mouths, that was par for the course in ancient historiography (Thucydides and Josephus come to mind). By the way, there is no reason to suppose this passage was added by a later writer; it is found in Matthew's source (Mark), and it is reproduced in the earliest witness to Matthew (i.e. Luke), and it is part of Matthew's overall apocalyptic eschatology. BTW, the author of Luke smoothed the discontinuity of locale; there is no change in setting in Luke 21:5-7. This is a typical sign of the Third Gospel's redactional secondariness; the smoothed text is less likely original.
In terms of adjusting the oracle in light of actual history (the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), the disciples' question is illuminating. Note what the original Markan form of the question presupposes: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?" (Mark 13:4). In context, the reference is to the destruction of the Temple buildings (v. 1-2). But the answer to this question doesn't just address the destruction destined for Jerusalem (v. 14), but has universal scope referring to such cosmic events as the coming of the heavenly Son of Man and the gathering of the elect (v. 24-27, events associated with Judgment Day in the synoptic gospels). These are not separate events at a time far removed from the destruction of the Temple; these events occur "in those days" (v. 24). Mark was thus published sometime before it became clear that the destruction of the Temple wasn't going to usher in the end of the world. Matthew is a later, expanded and rewritten version of Mark that corrects for this; the author still expected that the end was still shortly ahead (Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 24:34, 26:64). But the disciples' question is now revised to eliminate the implicit assumption that the destruction of the Temple = the end of the world; the latter is specified as a separate event: "Tell us, when will this be, and (in addition) what will be the sign of your coming and the close of the age?" The change in wording is significant. By the time Matthew was written, the Olivet discourse no longer made sense as an answer to the original Markan question; revising the question that prompts the discourse justifies the latter. Another alteration is the timing of the universal events associated with Judgment Day. In the original Markan version, this was to occur "in those days"; now it is to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matthew 24:29). The events are still imminent, but their apparent delay is accounted for. Finally, the author inserted into the synpotic apocalypse a series of parables all having to do with the theme of delay in the coming of the Son of Man (24:37-25:30). These parables are not found in Mark. This confirms the writer's aim in adapting the eschatological discourse to present circumstances.
Hi Leolaia.
I always enjoy your in-depth commentaries. However, in this case, you are following a common misinterpretation over "Judgment Day" vs. Armageddon and the "great tribulation" versus Armageddon, which are three separate events. When you confuse them together then it seems the gospels are revising or contradictory. But it is easy and common to confuse these, as the WTS does.
1. The "great tribulation" of Matthew where it notes "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." the messiah would arrive is a reference not to Armageddon, as the WTS and you suppose, but a reference to WWII and the Holocaust. This "great tribulation" as the Bible indicates occurs before the second comikng and is completely over at the time of the second coming. The "great tribulation" that is mentioned in Revelation, though, is a reference to Armageddon (Rev. 7:14), thus the confusion. But really there shouldn't be any confusion since one clearly occurs before the second coming and the other afterward. Confusing the two, you presume the gospels are contradictory and revised in this regard, but they are not.
2. "Judgment Day" is not Armageddon either as you clearly have confused. Again, the confusion is understandable because when Christ returns and that leads up to Armageddon it will be a great day of judgment for most of the world. But the reference to "Judgment Day" is specific in scripture to the time of the second resurrection when all the dead come back, both the righteous and the unrighteous and are judged. (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, etc.) So your specific statement about " the coming of the heavenly Son of Man and the gathering of the elect (v. 24-27, events associated with Judgment Day in the synoptic gospels)." is incorrect. The coming of the heavenly Son of Man, which is the second coming, is associated with the first resurrection and Armageddon moreso than "Judgment Day" which occurs after the 1000 years is over and after Satan is destroyed. At that point, Judgment Day, occurs and is specifically associated with the second resurrection.
3. "Armageddon", to clarify things, is an event that occurs after the second coming and after the gathering of the elect. It is not the "great tribulation" mentioned that occurs before the 2nd coming, which is a rerference to the Holocaust as noted above in #1. Armageddon, likewise, although a great day of judgment is not the common reference to "Judgment Day" elsewhere in scripture. Armageddon is long over before this special "Judgment Day" occurs where all the dead come back to life and are judged.
Now I can see why it might be easy to confuse these things, as the WTS does regarding the "great tribulation" of Matthew wherein it clearly says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... the sign of the son of man will appear..." They twist this to suggest that sometime near the end of Armageddon some people will see this sign and repent or something. But "after" means after not during. In your case, confusing Armageddon with this "great tribulation" lead you to think the gospels revised or reversed themselves: "In the original Markan version, this was to occur "in those days"; now it is to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" Thus this is an incorrect assessment based on the concept that Armageddon and the "great tribulation" and "Judgment Day" are all one and the same event, which they are not. They are three separate events.
Hope that helps a bit.
TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS, WHAT WAS PROPHESIED:
1. The "great tribulation" occurs as part of the signs leading up to the second coming. That "great tribulation" was the Holocaust.
2. After the "great tribulation" the State of Israel is also set up just before the messiah arrives. This is represented by the budding of the fig tree.
3. A divine period of spiritual darkness is imposed regarding specifics of the second coming represented by the darkness of the sun, moon and stars.
4. Then the "sign of the son of man" appears. This occurs shortly after the Sate of Israel is reestablished when the Bible says he is "near at the doors."
5. The "sign of the son of man" appears when the new "pre-messiah" is born into the world. At the second coming, Christ takes up an imperfect body of one of his followers to fulfill the wave offering at Pentecost that is with leaven. But there is a test period of 40 years for this messiah who ends up leading the life of the prodigal son. So the "sign of the son of man" appears from the time of the birth of who will become the messiah, although he is not anointed and combined with the messiah in heaven until 45 years arfter the "end of the gentikle times" which end the 1290 days, occurring on November 30, 1947.
6. After the prodigal son messiah returns he becomes the Christ, that is, the Christ in heaven, Michael the archangel, comes down to the earth again and manifests himself in the flesh again via this prodigal son pre-messiah. This occurs in 1992. The first resurrection occurs just before the messiah arrives. The first ressurrection is invisble because, like the Christ, those resurrected are "sown into physical bodies" (1 Corinthians 15:44--"It is sown in[to] a physical body...") of living anointed ones just as Christ inhabits the body of someone else at the second coming.
7. Satan is kicked out of heaven at this same time of the second coming. He has a "short while" to get the nations ready for Armageddon.
8. Armageddon occurs and the millennium reign of Christ begins. Christ and all the elect are now back in the flesh, in physical bodies.
9. Christ rules for 1000 years while Satan is bound in the abyss.
10. Then Satan is let loose to test post-millennial mankind who have experienced rule by God through Christ and who know and understand God's rules and requirements. Even so, some rebel and then are destroyed along with Satan.
11. After Satan is destroyed, then JUDGMENT DAY begins. All mankind are judged. First those left over from the millennium are judged who are called "the dead, the great and the small" (Rev. 20:12). Then after that, all the dead in the memorial tombs come to life to be judged. This is the second resurrection.
12. After Judgment Day is over and all have been judged, then death is no more and cast into the lake of fire. At this point, the so-called "rapture" takes place where Christ and his bride class are then transformed into new spiritual bodies and go up to heaven.
WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED SO FAR:
So far, everything that has been prophesied has occurred right on time, including the 2nd coming after November 30, 1992 but prior to November 30, 1993. We are now awaiting Armageddon and the millennium to begin. By now the majority of the elect have been sealed. 20 years post the 2nd coming will expire this year on December 25, 2012. But everything else has occurred, including the appearance of the "sign of the son of man" which is the image of a sleeping (dead) black child. representing the death of the prodigal son and the fact that he does happen to be black.
In conclusion, when you don't know the correct interpretation of the scriptures, perhaps due to some divinely imposed spiritual darkness but in part due to not paying close enough attention to the details or presuming there are errors and contradictions in the gospels, then it seems the gospels are not being fulfilled, when in fact, they are being fulfilled just as prophesied.
Key points are the 'great tribulation" of Matthew 24 is a reference to the Holocaust, not Armageddon, and "Judgment Day" is also not Armageddon but a special time of judgment of the dead which occurs after the millennium and after Satan is killed. You can confirm this by a careful reexamination of the scriptures.
I hope this was helpful for your next commentary, Leolaia, which I will look forward to.
P.S. The messiah was born on January 19, 1950, which is when the "sign of the son of man" began to appear to the elect. An image of the sign, the face of a dead black child, shows up in the cryptic Freemasonry style artwork of the WTS in the Revelation Book (see below). The gospels are true and consistent and unrevised. Representing them otherwise is a matter of incompetence.
LS
Well, now you have gone and done it, Terry...
Why is it that psychotic delusional people ( no names mentioned ) end up fully embracing themselves with religion ?
By the time Matthew was written, the Olivet discourse no longer made sense as an answer to the original Markan question; revising the question that prompts the discourse justifies the latter. Another alteration is the timing of the universal events associated with Judgment Day. In the original Markan version, this was to occur "in those days"; now it is to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matthew 24:29). The events are still imminent, but their apparent delay is accounted for. Finally, the author inserted into the synpotic apocalypse a series of parables all having to do with the theme of delay in the coming of the Son of Man (24:37-25:30). These parables are not found in Mark. This confirms the writer's aim in adapting the eschatological discourse to present circumstances.
I think we sometimes overlook the fact that it is perfectly natural--when we are absolutely sure of something---to "help" others to understand by "clarifying" what we are repeating without giving a moment's consideration to the violence accompanying such "help".
Violence? Yes, corrupting the actual original by accretion or layering in our editorial comment and sealing it to the original WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF FALSEHOOD. Pious Fraud. Accidentally representing something as pure and true when we are the one who has changed it.
I'd venture to say that ALL the problems of text have been caused by "helpers" through the ages kindly snipping, editing, modifying, clarifying, recontexting and otherwise with innocent intentions.
We latter day donkeys confront what we are left with and regard it as HOLY TEXT perfectly preserved intact and pure. We force ourself to search and interpret without pausing to challenge the "actual words on the page" as being corrupt in some way. In fact, we are sternly admonished NOT to do so.
And we wonder why so many perfectly intelligent, pious, right-hearted souls have had to argue and argue over---ahem---"meaning."
By the time Matthew was written, the Olivet discourse no longer made sense as an answer to the original Markan question; revising the question that prompts the discourse justifies the latter. Another alteration is the timing of the universal events associated with Judgment Day. In the original Markan version, this was to occur "in those days"; now it is to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matthew 24:29). The events are still imminent, but their apparent delay is accounted for. Finally, the author inserted into the synpotic apocalypse a series of parables all having to do with the theme of delay in the coming of the Son of Man (24:37-25:30). These parables are not found in Mark. This confirms the writer's aim in adapting the eschatological discourse to present circumstances.
This is commentary based on an opinion and perception I believe held commonly in academic circles. But it is irrelevant and nonsensical from the spiritual point of view, since the interpretation of the Biblical is a religious rather than academic exercise. In this case, in particular, not understanding the message of the gospels, many contradictions are perceived. But that's just cultural bias. This is no more than commenting on what is misunderstood. I'll give you an example of how ridiculous it gets.
You know how in modern Latin countries how many "Marys" there are. It's so common! Well in the Jewish culture, the name "Mary" was extensively given to daughters. This was so much so, that even within the small circle of women from Galilee that attended the domestic needs of Christ and his disciples there were lots of Marys, including three different Mary Magdalenes. Each seemed attached in some way, perhaps as a housekeeper, to three different households.
One was attached to the household of Peter and John. She was the first MM to come to the tomb alone and who saw Jesus in the garden. This was when it was still dark. The second MM to come to the tomb was attached to the household of "the Other Mary." They arrived to just view the tomb. They arrived as it was beginning to get light. They encountered Jesus on the road. The third MM came after sunrise with Jesus' mother and other family who brought spices for the body, so she seemed to be attached to the household of Jesus' mother or his mother's sister, Salome.
Now the gospels present three different times and scenarios for these three different Mary Magdalenes which should make it obvious there must be three different women. But our eve-so-bright Bible commentators have missed this entirely. They think this is just three different confused stories about thre same person. They are just as ignorant in this regard as they can be, and they think they are smart. So they find one error after another in the gospels based on their own incompetence which they transfer to this gospels.
So picking up the gospels and then misinterpreting them and then finding problems with that misinterpretation doesn't qualify as Biblical criciticism. It's not irrelevant and nonsensical, with nothing left to do but to shake your head and ignore it.
But it is not entirely their fault. If you are not CHOSEN to understand the scriptures, then God keeps you in darkness. So God has never intended for all and everyone to understand everything in the Bible. Many things are specifically to be understood by the elect and to have no meaning for outsiders.
But, of course, that's the conundrum here. What good is understanding the true meaning if you're not chosen? So what difference does it make if you have the wrong interpretation when having the correct interpretation wasn't going to do you any good anyway? It's like me giving you the winning lottery numbers for tonight's lottery but you're in jail and can't buy a ticket.
So, just to let you know, the elect are enjoying the harmony of the gospels and we just have to ignore those who are excluded from the correct "insight." Unfortunately, the WTS is among those who have been excluded from a lot of advanced understanding.
LS
Well, one thing I agree with Lars about is this order:
-The tribulation (whatever/whenever that is - though I believe it is happening now and has been ongoing since Christ rose and returned to His Father -... I do not believe it was the holocaust)
-The coming of Christ (and the thousand year reign... which does not have to be a literal thousand years)
-Armageddon
Well, I think my point is MAINLY either scripture is INSPIRED (carefully directed and preserved) DIVINELY or.....
it is just memory, word of mouth, scuttlebut, apologia, folk tales, modified conversations crafted into lessons, half-remembered anecdotes, polished
hand-me-down tales beautified for edifying indoctrinations, etc etc.
Either....Or......
I would hardly think, BOTH.
Well, all scripture is inspired... but not all that is written in the bible is scripture. So I do think there is both in the bible, as you mentioned above. However, I do not think scripture is divinely preserved. There is no reason to think this at all, and there are reasons to think otherwise. Woe to the scribes. The warning in Revelations about tampering with that book. (why place a warning for something that could not be done?) Pen and paper can be corrupted by men and time. The Spirit cannot. That is why those who worship the Father are meant to do so in Spirit and Truth.
Peace,
Tammy
At Gilead, Bowen said that MT 24 and 25 have things so spliced together, that "not even" the GB knew what to make of it... yet.
Those entire chapters are all over the place. If you just read it without thinking that you were sniffing holy spirit as you turned the page, I think one would be persuaded to conclusions similar to Terry's.
