Posts by Cold Steel

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

The pre-trib rapture is a recent idea, but I don't think the rapture at the return of Christ is a recent concept. The prophet Zechariah tells of Christ's return in detail.

As you can see, prophecy is not too difficult to figure out. When people tell me about figurative fulfillments, I ask them to show me some. Those that have figurative or apocalyptic elements are rather obvious. That is, if you start reading about dragons, stars, beasts, horns and such, one knows one must look for literal elements. But when the prophets speak about things that are literal, you can pretty much bet that they're literal. Read Isaiah 53, for example. It's all about Christ as anyone who's read the New Testament can tell. The ones who don't want to find a literal fulfillment (like the Jews, who reject Christ) will mind a more mysterious angle.

As for the two prophets, Zechariah talks about two olive trees and two candlesticks, but doesn't tell us what they represent. John does, though. He tells us about the prophets and then said, "These are the two olive trees and candlesticks...." It's doubtful he would throw us another spiritual bone so that later someone could say, no the two prophets were actually two classes of missionaries that were abolished and then reinstated. By the time we're done they'll be two red ants on an ant hill somewhere in Tyre. Remember, too, it was the Beast who kills the two prophets. And as soon as the prophets ascend to heaven, the Beast is killed where he stands. So if you don't buy into the JW interpretation, well, it's just too bad for you.

But back to the rapture. Here again is Zechariah:

It's very easy to understand because it's all there. Does it strain critical thinking? Yeah, but so does the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension. All religion does that, but I have no problems believing it. Note in the above the prophet states that the Lord my God (Christ) will come and "all the saints with thee." Saints means "holy ones" and can refer to the Jews, Israelites, early Christians and Christ's followers today. But John talks about how "every eye" would see him, including those who killed him. Is that a reference to the Jews he's with or those who were part of the Roman army and who are now in the spirit world?

Other than that, the scripture above is pretty clear cut.

If one reads Isaiah 63, it's difficult not to see this as Christ's second coming.

Clearly this is Yahweh speaking. He asks a rhetorical question, "Who is this that cometh....?" but then answers and says, " I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. " Again, it inescapably points to the fact that Jehovah is Jesus Christ, and that Jehovah is not the Father, but the Son of the Father. If the Governing Body is looking for some "new light," that should be good for a few lumens. I mean, "And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...." (Zech. 12) and " Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives...." Here we see that Jehovah's feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, when it's a clear reference to Jesus. "Hello, McFly!"

But that's another topic.

Jesus ascended into heaven and two
angels appeared saying he would come
in like manner. They were on the mount
of Olives, where it's prophesied he will
return.

.

22

There is no end of the world

by maccauk11 in

revelation was wirtten to those seven 1st century churhces not thechurhc of doolaly in florida etc.

those 1st cnetruy beleivers were fully expectant of the returning king in power and he did.

he didnot lei or mislead them.

Cold Steel

Well, this would present quite a few problems for Christians if what you say is true.

Preterists and fulfilled eschatology proponents live in an odd dreamworld that is both unfulfilling (no pun intended) and confusing. Many believe in Jesus and that he is the Christ, but then turn around and say the future is a sealed book with no future.

One looks at Zechariah 12-14, for example, and Ezekiel 38-39, where Jerusalem is devastated by a foreign enemy. It evokes images of ancient Rome's assault on Jerusalem, where utter destruction faces the Jews by a very determined foreign leader. But unlike Rome, this despot of the latter days, despite his overwhelming military superiority, will be destroyed by the God of Israel, for the Lord suddenly enters the fight and personally intervenes on the side of Judah, destroying their enemies.

The scriptures are clear in that Judah would be destroyed and the remnants would be scattered among all nations of the earth. But as Isaiah said, " And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Once back in their own land, the day of the Lord would come when a great military despot decides to come down upon Israel and sweep it off the land. As the great prophet Zechariah writes:

This is the last great battle of the earth and it's one that clearly hasn't taken place. We've already seen that Jerusalem has become a burdensome stone for all that burden themselves with it. It's already the world's hotspot and, because of it, it's the greatest threat to the peace of the planet. Also, as we've seen, thouse "round about" Israel have threatened to destroy the Jews and retake the land God gave to Judah's sons.

But before Judah is rescued, it will be on the verge of destruction. Again, the prophet states:

Only one-third of the city will remain when the Messiah steps in to save the people.

"All nations" most likely is hyperbole. Most likely, it means all nations in the region, probably mostly Muslim. Again, if one looks for fulfillment of these prophecies, one will not find it. Note that the scripture states that Yahweh's feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives. This is where Jesus ascended and where he will return, as the angels who were with him foretold.

But who will be this great despot, the one John calls the Beast, who gets his power from Satan? Ezekiel calls him Gog, and the Lord addresses him directly. Obviously, whoever Gog is will be familiar with these scriptures, yet will proceed anyway.

The "prey" are those who were gathered out of the nations, as Isaiah prophesied. His goal will to take it as a spoil, for gain. But isn't this battle supposed to take place at the end of the Millennium? Although there are similarities between this battle and the one at the end of the Millennium, the rebellious at the final battle will obviously see it as the conclusion of the same battle at the beginning of the Millennium. It's clear the battle being discussed in Ezek. 38-39 is in the beginning of the Millennium.

Note it will be in the latter years and be against those who were gathered out of the nations.

If one examines the scripture closely, this battle will be in the latter days, and it will be the battle the Lord had spoken about through other prophets. The great battle at the end of the Millennium has not been spoken of by the other prophets, except John. So we must conclude Gog and the Beast are one and the same. Gog shall come against the land of Israel and there will be a great earthquake associated with both Gog and the Beast. This is the earthquake that will occur at Yahweh's coming, the "great shaking in the land of Israel."

This is the chapter telling about the two prophets of the last days who would confront the Beast and keep him at bay for three and a half years. Note the earthquake in verse 13. Note, too, that this is no "spiritual Israel" but the actual city "where also our Lord was crucified." Preterists and fulfilled eschatology scholars and proponents like to ignore this prophecy. But has it been fulfilled? Did it happen, but just occur "invisibly"? Moses ascended to heaven in a cloud. In like manner, these two prophets would ascend into heaven in a cloud.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that prophecy still remains unfulfilled is this part of Ezekiel 39:

At the conclusion of the battle of Armageddon, in Jerusalem, the house of Israel would finally know that Yahweh, or Jesus Christ, is the Lord their God from that day foreward. This is clearly at the beginning of the Millennium due to the time frame and the promises. At the end of the Millennium, there won't be seven months to bury the bodies or seven years to burn the weaponry and fuel. It also is a time when the heathen shall know that Israel went into captivity because of their iniquity and because they trespassed against the Lord. Also that they were scattered throughout the world, but that they had been regathered and blessed forevermore.

If the preterists are right, then none of this saw fulfillment, and the prophecies were false.

.

20

Children believe Santa Claus is coming. As an adult, do you believe Armageddon is coming?

by LoisLane looking for Superman in

Cold Steel

Kaik: ...or getting [chased] by two [hungry] bears.

Just a word or two in defense of Elisha and the Lord in the incident between the prophet and the rabble of youth, which led to the attack of the she-bears.

First, these weren’t just a group of children. They were a mob of rabble rousers, most likely in their upper teens. Elisha, at the time, was in the prime of his life and not necessarily bald at all. The term “bald head” was frequently used to refer, not to a bald person, but to one who was afflicted with leprosy. Add to this that Elisha cursed them in the “name of the Lord,” and the fact that the bears were already in the vicinity, and it’s pretty clear that the Lord knew what was in the hearts of this mob and intended to offer them a lesson in respect for the Lord’s anointed. The bears also may have prevented the mob from escalating the incident to a state of violence.

How do we know this group weren’t “little children”? Because the word for them was naar, which referred to someone who was “a young man, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle: and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version.” (See Smith’s Bible Commentary.) It also was applied to Solomon at the time of his accession, at which time he was about 20 years of age. So, again, these weren't little children.

.

20

Children believe Santa Claus is coming. As an adult, do you believe Armageddon is coming?

by LoisLane looking for Superman in

Cold Steel

Abe: Not only that, I am absolutely convinced that "Armageddon" started over 100 years ago!

Recommend you read Joel Richardson's THE ISLAMIC ANTICHRIST and THE MIDEAST BEAST, both available through Amazon.com.

What is Armageddon?

A: Armageddon is about a 3-hour drive from Jerusalem and is both a small mountain and a valley. Armageddon also is mentioned by John as being a war at the place of Armageddon, during the final war between God and the Adversary.

Where is Armageddon?

A: In the Middle East beginning in the valley of Armageddon and extending to Jerusaelem.

Who is the Beast and the False Prophet?

A: These will be the leaders of a massive kingdom that comes down on Jerusalem. This kingdom includes many kings and nations throughout the region?

What will happen to the Beast and False Prophet?

A: This is answered in Zechariah 12-14, Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 11-13.

Will it involve Jehovah's Witnesses in any way?

A: Ha...no...not unless they happen to be in Jerusalem. It will be known as the day Judah converted to their messiah in a single day.

.

20

Children believe Santa Claus is coming. As an adult, do you believe Armageddon is coming?

by LoisLane looking for Superman in

Cold Steel

With all the talk about the U.S. use of drones, we should just go ahead and tell our kids that the Obama Administration accidentally killed Santa Clause with a drone after the old fellow failed to file a flight plan to the FAA. Instead, he accidentally sent the plans to the FDA, who responded on the nutritional qualities of reindeer cooked well done to crispy.

As for Armageddon, that's just an old story the anointed class uses to keep the great crowd in line.

.

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

Rawe/Randy: Using KJV text of 1611 in this manner does not square with the story of how the Book of Mormon was produced. As explained, the claim is the Book of Mormon is a divine translation of reformed Egyptian (a language not known to exist) into English.

Actually, it wasn’t known at Joseph Smith’s time, there were a number of reformed Egyptian languages at 600 B.C. So much research has been done on this topic that it’s best I just point the way. Suffice it to say that the Book of Mormon is the first historical book to mention that Egyptian had been modified and reformed by anyone anciently. Since 1830, archeologists have found a number of reformed Egyptian texts, reformed Greek texts and other writings that were used to spell out other languages. My wife sends her relatives a “reformed” English, where she uses English letters to spell out words in her native Farsi. This is what our scholars believe Lehi and his family did: spell out Hebrew using an Egyptian shorthand (which we now know was common in 600 B.C.) And though no examples of Nephi’s reformed Egyptian have been found as complete text, there are examples of individual characters having been used.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H8TXk-QiS6I

.

When would you say, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, 607 BCE or 587 BCE? If you looked it up on Wikipedia you would get the correct answer: 587 BCE. Yet, don't think for a second that a determined stick-to-their-guns Witness couldn't argue for 607 BCE. There is a thread here between Jeffro and AnnOmaly (sp?) and Scholar where Scholar argues post after post for 607 BCE, citing all sorts of supposed evidence.

What seems to happen in both faiths, is we subconciously use different standards for evaluating claims. When you look at the Witness claim of 607 BCE, as an outsider who is not committed to JW dogma, it is easy to dismiss. However, for the Witness to dismiss that would dismantle the entire foundation of their faith that points to 1914. Thus, even the most outlandish approach in the work of an appologist supporting 607 BCE is accepted and the considerable evidence for 587 BCE get a glib dismissal. And let's face it saying "God did it" allows for anything — maybe God just liked how the KJV sounded.

You make it difficult to convince you, but we LDS stand by the Lord’s promise in Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Later, Moroni tells readers, “deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.” In other words, all through the history of mankind, the Lord has never had a church or a movement representing him in which he did not operate through prophets, angels, visions, priesthood, miracles and power. And each time he has manifested his power, there are many people who simply will not accept it. There were those in the days of Jesus who, after hearing him, really believed he was nothing but an intenerate preacher who deceived his followers. The entire world at that time, led by the Greeks, completely rejected the idea that a living man, once dead, could rise again. It was as hilarious to them as the gold plates were in the days of Joseph Smith. Often the apostles would preach Christianity to the Greeks, who would listen intently until the resurrection was mentioned, then they laughed and frequently chased their speakers from their midst. It was the one big thing the early saints just couldn’t get over. It took a thousand years before people began to believe.

Mormons know that Jerusalem was destroyed years after 600 B.C. because Nephi records entering the city several times during that year and it was still intact. He didn’t find it in ruins. It wasn’t until a number of years later when his father learned by revelation that the city was destroyed (most likely in 587 or 589). Proving that that’s when Jerusalem was destroyed would, in itself, not prove that the Book of Mormon was a true record. But then there’s Nahom, being right where Nephi said it was, and indisputable archeological evidence that it was there in 600 B.C.; and in 1996 it was found to be a burial site. (How did Joseph Smith know that?) Three days out of the city we found a “steadfast and immovable” canyon with a “river of water” continually flowing through it and an encampment that dated back to 600 B.C. with an altar, indicating that someone there had priesthood. Again, it is right where Nephi said it would be. Then, if one continues to follow Nephi’s directions, then end up in a lush, tropical area by the sea on the coasts of the desert in a region our critics said it could never be. And it had fruit, grains, honey, bees, trees suitable for building a ship, a protected harbor, enough iron ore to build all the tools you would need and a steep cliff, that met the criteria for the one Nephi’s brothers almost pushed him from. And all this stuff is documented, photographed and videoed. Again, it’s all in the Book of Mormon in areas where our critics for years have said these things couldn’t be.

People can read the book and pray about it, or they can ignore it and join all the people in the past who rejected God and his prophets and his angels. Will you be destroyed at Armageddon? No. Will you burn in an everlasting (non-ending) fiery hell? Again, no. But you’ll lose the chance to reach your full potential in God’s Kingdom.

In short, we’ll never be able to prove conclusively and beyond all doubt that what we say is true; however, you can know of a surety through the power of the Holy Ghost. And despite your reservations about the translation process, the general authorities of the LDS church continue to tell us that the Book of Mormon is the most accurately translated book on Earth. And if Joseph read a term in the original that was Messiah, and it was translated Christ, it may go against what you think is a valid translation, but with Joseph, his power to translate was through the gift and power of God. So if he’s really a prophet, this means you can treat the Book of Mormon as though it was written in English, for God is its translator and bears all responsibility for its outcome. And yes, some changes have been made, but they're editorial changes that do not affect the doctrines found therein. Many, in fact, have been discovered to be Hebraisms (text that makes sense in Hebrew, but makes for very bad English).

.

5

Alan Watts - Jesus and his Religion

by yadda yadda 2 in

listen to the brilliant alan watts on this subject and on many other spiritual/philosophical matters.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytivrfv3s2c.

Cold Steel

He's very entertaining to listen to, and he makes some very good points; however, ultimately it comes back to who Jesus really is. Is he merely someone who has attained a double whammy of cosmic consciousness, or is he God in the flesh? Is he merely another iteration of Buddha or is he the Savior of the World and man's intercessor with the Father? These are the questions that get lost in the philosophy. "God became man so that man could become God," the Orthodox church has always maintained. The Jehovah's Witnesses are at the other end, saying, "The Son of God became man so that man could become man; that is, Jehovah's son, Michael, became man so that man could become largely what he was before the fall.

Watts, eloquent as he is, seeks the divine in all religions and in all philosophies and tries to extract the commonality, or mutuality, of them all. But in this he is too quick to overemphasize the condescension of God (Jesus) in becoming human. Only Jesus, among all men, Christians teach, can bring us to God. And only the Holy Spirit -- not cosmic consciousness -- can lead man to all truth.

It's also correct, I think, that God isn't going to put a small pearl on the earth, then destroy everyone who fails to find it. Too many religions are too much into destroying or condemning the other guy, the one who doesn't agree with us. How can they sell such a God as kind, loving and merciful, then threaten people with either destruction or eternal flames?

Although the people of God are, throughout the scriptures, called the "sons of God," any attempt of anyone to say that we can become like God is instantly viewed as blasphemy. But isn't it the nature of sons to become like their fathers? Didn't John say, as Watts noted, "that when we see God, we shall be like him"? But this won't come through a variety of gurus. It will only come through one -- Jesus Christ.

31

They made me throw away a windchime!!!

by quellycatface in

i had a lovely mirrored windchime in my house.

my study conductor told me it attracted deemunz and i threw it in the trash.

i've since bought another.. what's the reasoning behind that idiocy??

Cold Steel

19

According to JW.org it's now ok to celebrate xmas.....pass it on! Faders..Lurkers...SEE THIS

by Lied2NoMore in

one fb friend posted the faq link about "why dont jw's celebrate xmas?

" after reading the link i concluded that it is either another collossal lie the wt is telling, or it is now ok to celebrate x-mas!.

from jw.org faq:.

Cold Steel

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

Band On the Run: Why would anyone here even consider becoming Mormon? They make the Witnesses look sane.

It would be nice if people would explain their reasoning. It all depends on what one knows and understands. I know quite a bit about both religions, and I can’t cobble up any reasons why I’d prefer being a Witness. As pointed out, we don’t skunk people like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do; we can attend church anywhere we wish; we’re actually encouraged to seek higher education; we don’t have any restrictions on religious materials that we read; our eschatology is far more in line with early Christianity and Judaism; we have an incredible welfare system; our scholars are recognized outside of our religion; and, if one believes in ancient Christianity, we don’t believe in anything outside of those bounds, meaning, of course, angels, revelation, apostles and prophets and gifts of the Spirit.

So in what way does all this make the Jehovah’s Witnesses look sane? Or, possibly, we have two different ideas what sanity is all about.

Rawe/Randy: The reason why I've been pointing to 2 Nephi 22, is it shows a translation style of the KJV translators. Where the divine name YHWH appears in Hebrew, they typically did not translate it, but instead substituted the word LORD.

The translation issue is one of the far most misunderstood issue of the religion. We LDS have never claimed that Joseph Smith used the same translating process as scholars and linguists. We even have no issues with the KJV of Isaiah being used in the Book of Mormon, as long as the translations are accurate. For example, people get upset when they see the word “Christ” being used in the translation of a Hebrew document produced several hundred years B.C. Mormons understand that “Messiah” would have worked equally as well, but “Christ” means the same thing in English. Or the word “adieu” in the book of Jacob. It wasn’t the word Jacob used or even a derivation of it, but readers of the Book of Mormon knew what the word meant, and it was a word that Smith knew and used in his day. So again, the final and enduring question is and remains, is the Book of Mormon translated correctly? And our reply is, it is.

Note: This article, from BBC, reports these gold
plates date back to 600 B.C., same date as the
gold plates found by Joseph Smith.

Following the directions given in the Book of Mormon, members of
the Nephi Project ended up just where Nephi did...in a great valley
("steadfast and immovable"), with a stream of water running con-
tinually through it. Subsequent research showed the encampment
dates back to 600 B.C. So did the river of water.

1 Nephi 2:9-10: And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness! And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!

.