Greatest tribulation upon Judaism?

by peacefulpete 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  Why don't you write "IMMEDIATELY after"?

  Why not? Because the point was the second coming which was "after" the Holocaust. What came immediately after was first the interval of darkness of the sun and moon and the stars. This is considered to be a spiritual darkness among the anointed with respect to the details of the second coming. This is the "nodding" of the ten virgins just before the second coming, showing that they would be sleepy as far as their full understanding of the date and nature of the second coming.

  Daniel, of course, times this interval of darkness occurring "immediately" after the great tribulation as being at least 45 years after the "end" of the 1290 days which would be near the end of the "great tribulation". The great tribulation was to be the final last blow against the Jews for leaving God's covenant, after which his anger would be "rested" and he would then forgive the remnant of the Jews and restore them as his people and reestablish them in their homeland as promised, which occurred in 1947.

  So, if you wish, as far as detail goes, what happens "immediately after" is this darkening. The second coming is 45 plus years away at this point, so thus no need to emphasize "immediately" in regard to the second coming, only "after". I wasn't trying to avoid the "immediate" reference.

  Some have focussed on this since they'd presume this was a second coming reference and thus would suggest that the second coming came immediately after the HOLOCAUST, but that is not specific to the text, just in case you were going in that direction and entertained that argument before.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leolaia..Thanks for the response. I am of a different mind about the Josephus reference to Jesus. I think that the discussion naturally flows to associate the Jesus bar Damnas as the brother of James. It is the next paragraph and the lack of other introduction makes the identity manifest. But perhaps it is not Joes intent that is paramount, but how it was read by Xtians eager to place their Jesus in history.
  
  The Galations issue doesn't concern me. The opening chapters are sprinkeled with interpolations. One is the very verse (1.3-5) you mentioned as identifying the lord. As well as he other usages of the late name title "Jesus Christ" which stands in contrast to the simple title "Christ Jesus" used else where in the book. Vers 19 "brother of the Lord" likewise is suspected as secondary, as is the Peter references that follow. The whole book in fact before these interpolations was likely an early second century work (possibly by Marcion) using Romans, 1 Cor and possibly some otherwise unknown Pauline materials. We know that when the proto-orthoxy adopted Paul their version of his books differed from those of Marcion. Was it Marcion who was the redactor or them? It seems more likely it would be the camp to just recently adopt them (and the authors of Acts) rather than the camp that revered Paul. If verse 19 is viewed in such a way then where's James? Is he not simply a radical Jew that ran into trouble with the moderate crowd? Imagine for moment that James never met Paul and that in fact he was not Xtian. All of this the product of an evolving character (and a representation of the historic conflict between cults), possibly the one referred to in Joesephus.
• 

  peacefulpete

  please JCannon no expounding about the end times chronology on my threads.