Posts by Cold Steel

6

Went to church for the first time in a long long time.

by Crazyguy in

well its been since i was around 5 years young that i last went to church.

so today i went to a church of a friend and it was very nice.

they sang some songs with a band, good songs unlike jw's.

Cold Steel

Yes, too bad those worldly people will be destroyed forever at Armageddon.

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Lisa Rose: I don't know why you keep posting on this board, nobody here will ever want to join the Mormons. One stupid cult is enough in a lifetime.w

Don't read it if you don't like it. I didn't think up this weird thread. I'd rather talk about Jehovah's Witnesses.

So unless anyone has anything pertinent to say:

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Qcmbr: I don't believe in that person as a divine being and the myth of Christ is awful to me. A cult is a cult. So agreed.

So you’re willing to pre-judge any religious group based on the negative things people say about them? I don’t understand how anyone can read Isaiah 53 without seeing Christ...or understanding the law of sacrifice. What other reason would God have for commanding that an animal without blemish be offered up unless to act as a teaching device? I don’t know why the Greeks, Babylonians and others would offer up animal sacrifices because, to them, the smell of the sacrifices pleased their gods. But to the Hebrews, animal sacrifice had a much deeper meaning in that it pointed to Christ.

You could argue that it wasn't sexual but then you'd have to argue that since the sealing keys weren't given till later on, that Joseph was simply marrying pluraly with no celestial hope or promise. I can think of no rational reason why someone would simply marry additional women for no particular reason.

Since I haven’t made the plural marriage issue a point of study, I know that the vast majority of disdain came from external sources. But as we’ve stated, God is the author and framer of all righteousness. If there is no God, there can be no right nor wrong. FairMormon describes the Fanny Alger incident thus:

Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics).

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly that—a marriage.

The keys for eternal sealing were restored by Elijah in 1836. All marriages up to that point were systematically sealed with the proper keys, but not everything came at once. Helen Mar Kimball, the one I mentioned earlier, she suffered through the persecutions in Nauvoo and made it out to Utah, where she lived to a ripe old age. She was the one supposedly victimized by Joseph Smith, but shortly before her death she wrote:

I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction [and] that He has condescended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail [and] I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation [and] the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family [and] with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.

I was referring to the Book of Mormon which Joseph tried to sell the copyright of with its impossible historical events, incorrect flora and fauna and anachronisms. I did post links to the books he lifted style and content from earlier in this thread but you missed them; I care enough about you to do your homework though....

First, please tell me about the incorrect “flora and fauna and anachronisms” the Book of Mormon is guilty of. Meanwhile, I took a look at your “books [Joseph Smith] lifted style and content from and I’m stunned. Do you really believe these books are where Joseph Smith got his writing style from? (As far as content, I’m unsure of how to piece your arguments together here.) It’ll take more than a few “it came to pass” phrases to get very far with that argument, which is why no modern anti-Mormon I know of today uses it.

In the books you listed, where are the Hebraisms that are found throughout the Book of Mormon? All I saw were some “thees” and “thous” and some of the formal English used in the Book of Mormon. But where are the chiasms? Where are the simile curses?

Apologist Dr. Daniel C. Peterson said the Book of Mormon would be more fairly compared with another well known book:

The only book that I could think of that may even resemble it in some way (some people have pointed this out) is something like J. R. R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings. But we need to remember that Lord of the Rings was produced over a period of about 30 years by a man with a doctorate who taught at Cambridge and Oxford Universities. It's quite a different thing than a book that was produced in about two months. So the very existence of the book is an astonishing thing. It was not something that could just be produced by an upstate New York farm boy just off the top of his head.

The Book of Mormon was produced in two months and comprised some 420,000 words, a phenomenal feat, plus, as Peterson notes, it generates “a plausible and coherent geography can be deduced from the book that was produced so rapidly.” The writers quote from each other frequently and appropriately, small, obscure towns that are mentioned once turn up many pages later and a long time in the future, yet the town is in the same spot. Writers of fiction usually always get these things wrong, he said.

Then there are the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris gave hundreds of accounts of it, and the story was always the same. There were no lapses in memory or contradictions. The same was true of David Whitmer. Again, Peterson notes: “[Whitmer] was given many opportunities to step back from his witness, to say, ‘Well, I might have been mistaken’ or ‘Joseph Smith fooled me,” or something like that. He never availed himself of that opportunity. He always stood by his witness. In fact, he did more than stand by it—he insisted on it. He had his testimony of the Book of Mormon placed on his tombstone. That, I think, is striking.”

Very similar things can be said of all the witnesses—all those who saw the plates directly, or those who felt them while in a canvas bag.

Peterson also has notes: “...ancient Near Eastern law did distinguish between thieves and robbers very rigidly, and particularly, ancient Israelite law did. Thieves were thought to be local. They stole from their neighbors; they were common; they were a nuisance, but they weren't really a threat to society. So when they were caught, they were dealt with judicially, civilly, usually by their neighbors, their townspeople, and they weren't a big deal. Robbers, on the other hand, were a very big deal. They were a threat to society. They were seen as outsiders, as brigands, as highwaymen. They would organize in groups, they would swear binding oaths; they would extort ransom from the people around them. And when they were caught, they were often caught by the military. This was a military thing, a kind of war. They were dealt with not civilly, but militarily, and they were subject to summary execution. They were quite a different thing [from thieves].

“Now, it's notable in the Book of Mormon,” he adds, that “thieves and robbers are never confused, and robbers—specifically the Gadianton robbers—are dealt with as a military problem, just as they would have been under ancient Israelite law, but not necessarily the way we think of them today because we don't make this clear distinction. So the Book of Mormon is found to be in precise agreement with ancient Near Eastern—and specifically, Israelite—concepts and usage.”

These are only a few items, and there are many more. You really think your evidence against is better than my evidence for?

.

43

Disciplinary Actions

by Cold Steel in

during a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation?

an advocate?.

why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused?

Cold Steel

During a disciplinary procedure, what would the response be if you wanted representation? An advocate?

Why don't they have a group of unbiased men, a prosecutor to present the case against you and an advocate that would represent the accused? It just doesn't seem right when the judges are the prosectors and YOU have no representation. It certainly doesn't seem fair.

I understand, too, that you can appeal a decision to elders in a different KH. But have you ever known of a decision to be reversed? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really don't know. Also, if a person goes into a disciplinary court, if that person is humbly repentant, is that normally enough to get him/her off the hook? Or in many times has the decision already been made?

.

8

Truth about the truth of my potential DF'ing

by Crazyguy in

a lot of you know my story and my issue with whether to da, fade, fight , go to the jc meeting ect.

and a lot of you have tried to help me on advise of what to do and finally i decided to da myself and some of you thought this was a bad idea.. well the plot thinkens abit as i now have it of very good bethel soures authority, that back several months ago when i sent in to headquarters a 13 page letter asking for clarification on the subjects of the new covenant and mediator as i showed in the letter that via the bible their understanding was crap.. this letter and my actions of sending it sealed my fate.

that according to my sources, instructions were most likley sent to my body of elders or atleast one to get rid of me as a i was a troublemaker.

Cold Steel

CrazyGuy: ...several months ago...I sent in to headquarters a 13-page letter asking for clarification on the subjects of the new covenant and mediator ... I showed in the letter that, via the bible, their understanding was crap. This letter and my actions of sending it sealed my fate.

You write a 13-page letter to the HQ of a religion known for arrogantly assuming power and authority and you tell them, in essence, their interpretation of scripture is a smelly product of defecation, and you suspect your actions may have caused them to act adversely towards you?

Well, it's an interesting theory, although I can't imagine why you would think a group of kind, loving Christ-like men would be intolerant and petty enough to hold it against you. In fact, it's probably your imagination. I'm sure they took it as constructive criticism and nothing more, but I could be wrong. They are a John-class group of anointed persons and...who are you? You think Jehovah is going to resurrect someone who would dare question his called, chosen and ordained faithful and discreet servant...er...slave? Still, he might resurrect you for a few moments so he can obliterate you into extreme nothingness, but not before he tears your letter to pieces and scatters the pieces over a giant sucking black hole. So, in the words of one of our most beloved political leaders, "Embrace the suck!"

That according to my sources, instructions were most likley sent to my body of elders or at least one to get rid of me as a I was a troublemaker.

Did they ever respond to your letter? If you were...disfellowshiped...did anyone produce the letter in evidence against you?

.
.

18

been on jwn for about a year, here is what i've learned or had an inkling about

by nowwhat? in

the organization:.

engages in revisionist history [1914 christ's presense foretold].

judge rutherford was a false prophet and a crook [1925, beth-serim].

Cold Steel

TTATHElder: My exit will take much longer unfortunately.

Farkel: Own up to your own hypocrisy and get the f--- out of that stupid cult, and don't whine about about, make excuses about it, or cry about it.

For many people, it's more complicated. Some people have families, friends, employers, people they're helping. It's not always easy to pick up and leave. The Society has thought things through and it knows how to keep people quiet and controlled. Even though divorce might not be an option, children can think of their father as a worldly apostate, wives can withdraw and weep. The family environment can become hostile, so please give the guy a break. His employer might be a JW or his best friend might be a member.

Granted, I've never been a JW. When someone begins to have doubts, I have no idea how they're treated. Concern? Love? Intimidation? A trip to the back room?

Once one comes to a realization that it's a religion based on fairy tales, they're pretty much inoculated against it. The cloak of invisibility that hides the incredible exegeses is astounding. Nothing is verifiable. Miraculous events are all carefully deeschatologized so as to obfuscate the truth. This Red Dragon book I'm reading on the book of Revelation is designed to make members think that they are the fulfillment of prophecy. They are the 144,000 and they are the "large crowd" destined to populate heaven and Earth. When one wants to pull away from this, spouses become resentful that they're now married to apostates. It also affects their social status in the church. Most wives I imagine would be thrilled if their husbands became elders or overseers. None would want to be married to apostates. So if one wants to leave, in many instances it takes time and tact. Build up friends outside of the Organization, fabricate stats for missionary work, read religious books published by members of other religions with opposing interpretations and views (including scholarly works). The Red Dragon book says Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 B.C., but no one factored in the zero year, so it was readjusted to 607 B.C. By reading other books, one can ascertain that that's ridiculous.

But leaving doesn't have to be immediate...probably shouldn't be immediate. It needs to be done with some planning.

139

Ever consider joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

by rawe in

has anyone here left jehovah's witnesses to join the churuch of jesus christ of latter-day saints?

what was your motivation for doing so and how has it worked out?.

if you haven't joined the lds or considered it, as an ex-jw, what is your general view of the lds faith?.

Cold Steel

Qcmbr: There has to be a point where you recognise a charismatic con man when you see him.

The same was said of Christ. In fact, in all of my studying of anti-Mormon literature, I have found the vast majority to be false, followed by other areas that are misunderstood or intentionally made to look foolish (“magic underwear”).

Joseph has sex with his adopted daughter (16 years old)

Who said? The only 16-year old I know of was Helen Mar Kimball, and it was a political marriage only done at the request of Joseph’s lifelong friend, Heber C. Kimball. Since the Latter-day Saints believe that marriages contracted here carry on into the next estate, Heber very much wanted to unite his family with Joseph’s. At first, Helen wasn’t for this marriage, but she remained a faithful member of the church and died an old lady in Salt Lake City. When she wrote her memoirs, she had very much changed her mind and she never indicated anywhere that her relationship with Joseph was any more than political in nature. She lived right over the print shop, and the residents of that area never recall seeing Joseph visit her. You can believe what you wish, but have you any proof?

Joseph has sex with married women

Such as? Please provide names and evidence.

Joseph drinks alcohol, owns businesses involved in alcohol production and sale all after his factually incorrect Word of Wisdom revelation

When the “Word of Wisdom” revelation was given, it explicitly states that it was not given “by commandment or restrain,” but as a word of wisdom. Mormons, including Joseph, continued to drink in moderation until the days of Brigham Young, who put the issue up to the Latter-day Saints for a vote to make it a commandment and binding. This was done on our own initiative and, in my view, it has served the church very well. What you mean by “factually incorrect” is beyond me.

Joseph makes up tall tales regularly (for example claiming a stone structure was actually Adam’s altar but forgetting what a flood would do).

This is hardly a major issue to base an objection on, especially since we have nothing directly from Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, we know that Adam lived in the general area, and the people who visited the “altar” said it was not in one piece. The following is by Benjamin H. Johnson, who said he visited the area. If the Book of Mormon is true, and if Joseph was a prophet (which I’m convinced he was), then I would say that if he said it was the altar of Adam, that it most likely was what he said it was. The answer depends on his prophetic calling.

With all the written scriptures he produced; with everything he left us, if you have to go dancing around the gray areas of Mormonism to find fault, one wonders why the Book of Mormon can’t be debunked once and for all, decisively? It claims to be an ancient record dating back to 600 B.C. And while little was known about that period of history at the time the Book of Mormon appeared (1830). We know considerably more about it now. Yet Nephi’s account, far from being debunked, is completely consistent with what we know of the region and time period. If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then I’d think the Book of Mormon would be quickly proven a fraud. Yet it’s holding up fine. How is that possible?

Joseph caught pretending to translate (kinder hook, Greek psalter and in our day Book of Abraham)

The Book of Abraham is a book I’ll stand by to the end. Our critics act as though the issue has been completely settled and that Joseph Smith was proven a fraud. This is most certainly not true. As of now, an intellectual battle is raging, and I come down on the side of the Book of Abraham. The Greek Psalter incident is ridiculous and I can’t believe you’re even brining it up. What evidence do you have that it took place? The story was invented by an anti-Mormon professor who, in his account, quotes Joseph Smith as uncouth, unlearned and ignorant. Joseph never used the language that Caswall reported and we have his writing samples from the time to prove it. This is one of the things you should have known about. It takes my time to answer the charge, when you should have known better. You’re reading nothing but anti-Mormon literature and most of it is crap. As for the Kinderhook Plates, we have no indication whatsoever that Joseph had the least interest in it. After a historical analysis, our historians have concluded:

“The best argument against Joseph’s attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had ‘tricked’ the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn’t they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn’t fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.”

The only two accounts of the plates contradicted each other in numerous areas. Smith never showed enough interest in them to write anything in his journal, as he did concerning the Book of Abraham. BTW, anyone interested in the Book of Abraham should check out the numerous listings by FairLDS lectures on YouTube.

Joseph writes a book full of copy errors, factual mistakes and impossibilities — in the style of a pious schoolbook from his youth — and then tries to sell it.

Of what book are you speaking? Sounds like you’re copying and pasting from somewhere.

Joseph tells people of supernatural occurrences many years after and gets his salient facts wrong many times (confusing Nephi with Moroni, giving different divine responses to different questions to different people in the same ‘First Vision’)

You mean, like the apostle Paul? Actually, the church looked into a number of those allegations and also found them to be false. First it was claimed there were no revivals in 1820 — that they came later — and that was disproven. Then they said he concocted his first vision story many years later, but then they found earlier references to it in the journals of people who talked about hearing Joseph relate the story earlier than the published accounts. Also, as a journalist and editor, myself, I know how easy it is making errors in published accounts. Which change bothers you the most?

Regarding anti-Mormon literature, some deserves serious consideration (such as the first vision accounts, whether there were revivals in the Palmyra area when Joseph claimed and, of course, the Books of Mormon and Abraham. But it’s easy to just grab mud and fling it, and then the person you’re flinging it at has to go through the time and effort of cleaning it up.

Cofty: It's intersting that you dismiss ex-Mormons in the same way that JWs dismiss ex-JWs and evangelicals do the same to ex-christians.

At first blush that may seem like a valid criticism; however, the ex-Mormon community, with but few exceptions, are not competent scholars and historians. Clearly I’m going to take the criticisms of ancient scripture scholars, anthropologists, geologists, archeologists and competent historians more serious than those of ex-Mormon rank and file members. To undermine the JWs, all one needs are past issues of their own publications. Mormonism is much more problematic.

Margaret Barker, a very respected Methodist scholar with a specialty in 600 B.C. Middle East history, theology and tradition, and specifically, on early Israelite temple worship is going to carry more weight than someone who does Internet searches in their basement and creates anti-Mormon websites.

For example, she notes:

The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:18), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on noncanonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruit like grapes (1 Enoch 32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes. I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy.... [See 1 Nephi 8:10-11]

Consider as well the mysterious rod of iron in this Book of Mormon vision (1 Nephi 8:20; 11:25). In the Bible, the rod of iron is mentioned four times as the rod of the Messiah. Each mention in the King James Version says the Messiah uses the rod to “break” the nations (Psalm 2:9) or to “rule” them (Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). The ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) is significantly different; it understood the Hebrew word in Psalm 2:9 to mean “shepherd” and it reads, “He will shepherd them with a rod of iron.” The two Hebrew verbs for “break” and “shepherd, pasture, tend, lead” look very similar and in some forms are identical. The Greek text of the Book of Revelation actually uses the word “shepherd,” poimanei, of the Messiah and his iron rod, so the English versions here are not accurate. The hold child who was taken up to heaven (Revelation 12:5) was to “shepherd the nations with a rod of iron.” The King James Version of Micah 7:14 translates this same word as “Feed thy people with thy rod,” where “guide” would be a better translation. Psalm 78:72 has, “He fed them...he guided them,” where the parallelism of Hebrew poetry would expect the two verbs to have a similar meaning: “He led them...he guided them.” Lehi’s vision has the iron rod guiding people to the great tree--the older and probably the original understanding of the word. ("Worlds of Joseph Smith" conference at the Library of Congress in 2005)

She has written more extensively on the LDS views of the temple and traditions in non-canonical apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. And the fact that no anti-Mormon can get past is the fact that no one living in 1830 knew enough to write the Book of Mormon and other works Joseph produced. Even in the hotly contested Book of Abraham, the work includes extensive information on the premortal council of the gods, which is now a recognized area of study based on writings that simply weren’t available in Joseph Smith’s day. Had he produced the Book of Abraham today, anti-Mormons would have a field day dragging these documents forward to show where Joseph Smith stole his material. But in his day, the greatest biblical scholars had no access to such documents. The same thing is true for research in the Mesoamerican field of Book of Mormon studies. Each year, the Book of Mormon becomes more plausible, not less.

If it’s a fraud, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

6

Divine Name display at Watchtower

by mindnumbed in

this is being shared on facebook.

the beginning says "bible showcase" brooklyn, ny.. http://secure.smilebox.com/ecom/openthebox?sendevent=4d7a67794f4455784d7a493d0d0a&blogview=true&campaign=blog_playback_link&partner=msn.

Cold Steel

.Oldie but goodie....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

.

28

Revelation, It's Grand Climax at Hand

by Cold Steel in

it's a rather large red book.. if i wanted to purchase one from a pioneer, how much would it cost?.

i'm reading a borrowed copy now.. thanks!.

.

Cold Steel

I know what you mean.

I've been reading more of the Red Dragon, and I can't believe grown people are interpreting scripture in this fashion. I've read a number of various takes on what the book of Revelation means, and this book is by far the most incompetent. When a group of men (who have no degrees in ancient scripture or knowledge of apocalyptic writing) purposely take an English translation of a document and incorrectly apply homemade interpretations is laughable. When the WT people take a literal prophecy, such as the one cited above, and apply completely irrational interpretations to them isn't light, new or otherwise; it's fraud. It's like that compulsive liar on SNL.

"Yeah...that beast is...ummm...the United Nations...yeah...that's the ticket. And as I was telling my wife...uh...Morgan Fairchild...yeah, that's right...that the dragon was the...uh...Pope, yeah, and...the seven angels were B52s, yeah, and...." In fact, they ought to make him the official spokesman. One source states concerning the pathological liar: "This person may not be completely rooted in reality, believing the lies they tell, often in an effort to remedy low self esteem. Unlike telling a few fibs here and there, or slightly exaggerating the truth once in a while, the pathological liar lies about literally every aspect of his or her life."

I think the folks at Bethel do suffer from low self-esteem. If they couldn't find themselves in the Bible, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So Israel becomes "spiritual Israel" which becomes "Jehovah's Witnesses." And the two prophets are merely figurative references to today's pioneers. Anything is up for negotiation. This same source says: "Being lied to on a consistent basis is not only frustrating but also disrespectful to the other person."

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4

.

28

Revelation, It's Grand Climax at Hand

by Cold Steel in

it's a rather large red book.. if i wanted to purchase one from a pioneer, how much would it cost?.

i'm reading a borrowed copy now.. thanks!.

.

Cold Steel

I'd rather have a hard copy. I'll ask the pioneers for one and see if they cobble one up.

How does one tell whether a prophecy is to be taken literally or is figuratively?

Let's take the JW Revelation book (hereafter called "Red Dragon") up on it's argument and compare Ezekiel 37 to the prophecy in Revelation:

Note how the vision is given. The Lord explains the resurrection process. First the body is formed, then breath is put into the body. In Hebrew, the word for "breath" and "spirit" is the same, so the breath represents the life, or the spirit of man. This entire experience is a prophecy, the Lord states. And who is the body being reanimated? Behold, saith the Lord, "these bones are the whole house of Israel" which will be restored through the power of God.

Now take the prophecy in Isaiah 53. Christians believe it's an obvious reference to Jesus Christ; however, most Jewish scholars believe it refers to the nation of Israel, again personified. If one goes back to the end of Isaiah 52, we read:

Verse 10: " The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." But what kind of salvation? How do we know this isn't simply a temporal salvation of the nation of Israel?

Because the books of the Bible were not written in chapters and verses, we sometimes have to go to the previous chapter to fully understand a prophecy. Verse 10, above, is an example. So if we continue to the end of Chapter 52, we read:

Because of the reference to "my servant," if we take it literally, as I believe we should, it makes far more sense. Jesus' suffering was so intense, we can understand why "his visage" (or countenance) was marred more than any man. This is a way of saying that his suffering would be greater than any other man in the human race. This is reflected in the Abbaton Discourse, a very old work, which reports the conversation between the Father and Son regarding the Son's mission:

This, of course, reflects the Christian outlook of the suffering of Christ, who suffered more than any man who ever lived, and did so for the sins of mankind. But notice the nature of the prophecies. Ezekiel's prophecy of the resurrection of a man was explained by the Lord as the restoration of Israel. But Isaiah 53, according to Jewish scholars, also is figurative and represents the nation of Israel. But Christians see this "suffering servant" as a spot-on prophecy of the Messiah.

Finally, going to Revelation 11, we read:

The only figurative aspects here are clearly stated. There is a literal temple that John is measuring, indicating that the Jews will build another temple before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. The prophecy of the two witnesses, or prophets, also appears to be quite literal. The figurative representations aren't the two prophets, but the two olive trees and two candlesticks. The Lord also is quite clear in saying, "I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy" three and a half years. Further, we read that the Beast and the False Prophet will finally overcome the two prophets and leave their bodies on the streets of Jerusalem:

There is no indication that this is figurative in any way. The prophets were figuratively depicted by the two olive trees and two candlesticks. Now we're told in the Red Dragon that these witnesses aren't to be taken literally, but that they represent the combined forces of Jehovah's Witnesses, who were figuratively killed and then figuratively resurrected in 1924 by a resurgence of dedication. The trumps sounded by the angels, while clearly figurative, they say are declarations and proclaimations of the Society, which, the Red Dragon indicates, rocked the world leaders in fear.

So it's nice being part of biblical fulfillment where even God, the great Jehovah, is describing the work done by the Governing Body and the forces of the two prophets who represent them. Everything stays nice and unprovable. It's all invisible and no need for flashy miracles. Every prophecy means something else than what you think it is. But I think the JWs can't keep this up forever. Or can they? Those pioneers who visited me seem awfully convinced that the Red Dragon contains great wisdom. That anyone can put any credance into it at all is, to me, astounding.

.