Posts by Larsinger58

83

The perplexing conundrum 607 b.c.e condensed down to ONE SIMPLE FACT

by Brother of the Hawk in

i was encouraged to post this thought, so here it is.. i recently finished reading "the gentile times reconsidered" by bro.

carl olof jonsson, ( third edition).

phew!!

Larsinger58

WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S "RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY" FOR THE NT PERIOD?

Well, for those wanting to compare what the Bible says directly with this period, we have these references:

1. The exile of Jehoiachin began the very last day of the 8th year, when a new Babylonian year began the next day. So the exile of Jehoiachin is parallel to the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, as well as the reign of Zedekiah. Thus there is an 8-year difference. 9 minus 1 = 8. That is why for the year Jerusalem was destroyed, year 19, it matches the 11th year of Zedekiah. 19 minus 11 = 9. Thus when Jehoiachin was released from prison the same year Ewil-Merodach became king, which was late in his 37th year of exile, we know this was the 45th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, not his 43rd year. That is 37 plus 8 = 45. So the current records reduce the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II by two years per the Bible.

2. The Bible follows Josephus in introducing a 70-year period from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. This is confirmed by Zechariah 1 and 7 where we find in year 2 of Darius the Mede that the Jews are still in exile 70 years after the fall of Babylon. Zechariah 7 confirms the Jews are still in exile as well in year four of Darius the Mede. But if the 70 years did not begin until year 23, which is 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19, then the 70 years would not have been over for another 2 years, after Darius the Mede ruled for a full six years. So no way does the Bible's timeline for the NB Period match that of the revised secular Bablonian records from the Persian Period! These used to reflect that Darius the Mede ruled for 2 years and then Cyrus came to the throne. Now the WTS and others are saying that the rule of Cyrus and that of Darius the Mede were parallel and that Darius the Mede had no years of rule apart from Cyrus. But per the Bible, Darius the Mede must rule for a full six years before Cyrus comes to the throne. So this is another clear conflict for serious Bible chronologists, between the Bible and the surviving Babylonian records.

These two references are Bible-required corrections to the current timeline.

But is it reasonable to think that the pagans were actively engaged in historical propaganda rather than fact? Well, Darius I, the Great, decided to catalog the events of his rule, at least the first couple of years, on a sheer cliff at Behistun. He did so in three different languages, one of which was already extinct. So that tells us right there that he was well aware of the ease of revisionism back then and he wanted to make it extremely difficult to revise his own historical story.

My issue is not to just believe the Bible and whatever it says, but check it out. But at the same time, what about the secular records and history? Don't they have to undergo the same skepticism and critical review? Of course! Let's learn about everything, put everything under a microscope, and then if you can make a decision about what seems most reliable to you, then you make a decision at that point.

I like COJ a lot, in fact, I'm one of his fans. But as convincing he is of manking his own point, he skips over a whole lot of stuff that need answers. When you try and corner him on the hard points, he runs like crazy.

83

The perplexing conundrum 607 b.c.e condensed down to ONE SIMPLE FACT

by Brother of the Hawk in

i was encouraged to post this thought, so here it is.. i recently finished reading "the gentile times reconsidered" by bro.

carl olof jonsson, ( third edition).

phew!!

Larsinger58

The confusion is in the "HOWEVER. which immediately confuses the fact that all business records DO NOT end untill 587 b.c.e. MY question to you, dear. If Jerusalem was truly destroyed in 607 b.c.e. then would not the business records end at that point in time, instead of continuing untill 587 b.c.e.??? And yet with the assertion of HOWEVER, the WT offers absolutely no evidence that there was ever any break in the line of kings.

Please note that business documents represent only "relative chronology" and not "absolute chronology." That is why there is so much fuss over eclipses and astronomy, since these provide us with potential absolute dates. Thus the WTS assigns 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar II just like those who think Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE. The 43 years are just applied to different years. As far as I know, the WTS adds in those 20 years during the reign of Ewil-Merodach; otherwise, I don't think they really know or care where the extra years come from.

Of interesting note, in Antiquities, Josephus originally claims that Ewil-Merodach ruled for 18 years. But in his later work in Against Apion, he follows the current traditional reduced timeline and says Ewil-Merodach ruled for just 2 years. Even so, he still claims in Against Apion 1:18 that the Jerusalem was desolated for "seventy years." So, indeed, there is a lot of confusion and clear revisionism going on for the NB Period. In COJ's book, he notes that the Jews had always claimed the Persian Period was too long and had too many kings, but this is generally ignored.

83

The perplexing conundrum 607 b.c.e condensed down to ONE SIMPLE FACT

by Brother of the Hawk in

i was encouraged to post this thought, so here it is.. i recently finished reading "the gentile times reconsidered" by bro.

carl olof jonsson, ( third edition).

phew!!

Larsinger58

There are many offered interpretations of when the 70 years of exile or the land being desolate occurred. According to Jewish tradition, per Josephus, these 70 years began with the last deportation and ended in the 1st of Cyrus:

Antiquities 11:1:1. "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

This means there is a direct conflict between the Babylonian records, which are copies from the time of Darius II during the Persian Period and Josephus in Antiquities. Both can't be right. Since revisionism among the pagans was common place back then, we have to presume that either the Jews/Josephus revised their records or the Persians revised the Babylonian records. The answer to this question is a matter of research. This has nothing to do with the Bible's "relative history" for this period, but at some point a comparison with the Bible and secular historians is what true Christians would be interested in. That is, what does the Bible itself tell us about this period of time? Both via "relative" and via "absolute" dating? I agree, COJ is extremely convincing and is a good writer. But he is only telling you one side of the story and one side of the debate. You have to look at the other debate points before deciding the Persian-copied records are completely reliable.

Plus there are new things to consider now, including good C14 (radiocarbon) dating of certain events, like the fall of Jericho and the invasion by Shishak, events we can then apply to the Biblical and secular timelines.

So someone should ask what Jonsson thinks about Josephus' claim that there is a 70-year period from the last deportation, year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, down to the 1st of Cyrus! Do we dismiss this record as spurious and erroneous compared to the secular records? Or were the secular records revised? We should get his quotes about Ant. 11.1.1 -- maybe Josephus was confused here!

6

The Nerve of Denial

by braincleaned in

i thought the page on the official jw site "are you an american sect?

" is quite disturbing.

the borg really has no problem lying thru their teeth!".

Larsinger58

All their teachings are not based on the Bible. The Bible clearly shows that the passover is eaten on the first day of UFC, which means it is eaten on an annual high-sabbath day. That means Jesus was arrested on the 15th and could not have died the same day he ate passover. But for some reason theWTS and the rest of Christendom just can't figure that out!!!

16

Question re: Anointed, Last Supper, Pentecost, Ressurrection??

by mind blown in

i've been away from the wts so many years, my memory on certain things is rather fuzzy.

my question is if the holy spirit wasn't poured out til pentecost, how does the last supper come in to play when the apostles weren't even anointed then?

so why is the anointed only to partake of the wine and bread?.

Larsinger58

The anointing could not take place before Christ made his sacrifice and surrendered his perfect body. Only then could the anointing take place.

As for Abraham and others who died before Pentecost, they get to be anointed when they return in the flesh. You see, there is noting preventing them from being sealed and anointed retrospectively if they come back in the flesh. The 1st resurrection is back into the flesh, since Christ himself returns in the flesh to rule for 1000 years. So indeed, many faithful men of old, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob indeed will be in the kingdom, though the WTS does not understand this.

Amazing what the WTS does not understand, but can we not all read? The Bible clearly indicates those like Abraham will be in the kingdom! And why not? !!

21

Ricky Gervais on atheism & some ideas we can relate to

by alecholmesthedetective in

i found this article really interesting because of the similar thoughts ricky expresses i could relate to and think are good food for thought irrespect of what you believe at the present time.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/.

for example.... people who believe in god dont need proof of his existence, and they certainly dont want evidence to the contrary.

Larsinger58

This might apply to many, but now, especially since 1947. Now we are experiencing the miracles God promised, like the appearance of the "sign of the son of man" (Matt. 24:29-30). Plus, I, of course, being the Christ, got to have a personal interview with God, so I can confirm for those who can figure out from the bible that I'm the Christ that the God of the Bible is truly real. I'm an eyewitness!

So atheism is just a fantasy, completely disproven for those who know better. The mistake many make is the presumption that because God doesn't appear to the masses or to them personally, that he isn't apperaing to anyone. That's just not true.

Anyway, it is very nice to KNOW FOR SURE rather than to have to guess!

2

HOLD ON! EVERYBODY BETTER CHECK OUT THIS INFO!!!

by bjc2read in

the watchtower society and governing body have many times told us that jesus is the mediator only for the anointed and not the "great crowd" of other sheep.

(revelation 7:9-15) for example these quotes,.

*** w09 4/15 p. 27 appreciating the greater moses ***.

Larsinger58

The WTS is represented by the vineyard workers who work for 11 hours. Each hour is 7 years and thus this is 77 years from 1914-1991. But there is a two-class system implied here, beginning with the third-hour workers who are not told up front they will get the penny, even though ALL the workers get the penny in the end.

So in this case, it really doesn't matter if the WTS emphasizes the covenant is with those who go to heaven and thus not the "other sheep" who look forward to life on th earth, because in the end, the "other sheep" get invited to heaven as well! So if the covenant is only for the heavenly class, that's fine, because after the work is finished, ALL are part of the heavenly class, including the "other sheep."

When an hour is 7 years, then the 3rd-hour workers show up after 21 years. Add 21 to 1914 and you get 1935, which is when the official "earthly class" or "other sheep" were recognized within the organization. So this strange two-class system with JWs was actually prophesied in the Bible. The only thing is, though, the "other sheep" class get the "penny" just like the first-hour workers, something of shock, surprise and a little disappointment to the first-hour workers, who are said to murmur against them. So regardless, this is something new to them and thus JWs don't understand this parable nor recognize that ALL the workers get the penny, which even they clearly know represents the heavenly calling.

So, in a way, you could say the covenant is not offered to the "other sheep" but that is only temporary, from 1935-1991. After Christ returns during the "last hour" (1991-1998) and starts paying the workers, from the last to the first, everybody gets the penny and thus everybody gets invited to join into the heavenly covenant. Thus this becomes a non-issue, doctrinally speaking.

4

New Light?

by Wholly in

the emerging church (new light?).

matthew 7:15 (nasb)a tree and its fruit15 beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.. john 7:2424 do not judge according to appearance, but[a]judge with righteous judgment.. footnotes:john 7:24 lit judge the righteous judgment1 corinthians 5:1212 for what have i to do with judging outsiders?

do you not judge those who are within the church?.

Larsinger58

In the esoteric physical world, Christ is the Sun and Satan is the Moon. Thus it is of note that the light originates with Christ and not with Satan, Satan as the moon would simply reflect that light, but that can also be described as "bearing that light." Can the Moon be said to be a "light bearer" in that it reflects the light? Sure. So even in Isaiah as the "lightbearer" this would not be a reference to Venus as Satan but the Moon as Satan. The moon "bears" the light of the Sun, which represents Christ, the true "bright morning star." Of note, the Sun, indeed is a star, but Venus is a planet and also has no light of her own, but bears the light of the Sun as the Moon does.

THE BATTLE IN HEAVEN -- WHAT HAPPENED? Now. Those here are fortunate since I'm the Christ. Thus I experienced and witnessed the "battle in heaven" just before becoming the Christ on December 25-26, 1992. The battle in heaven between the angels was actually a trial. Satan was on trial and making excuses for his actions, basically. Now this was being considered, but ultimately, while some understanding about Satan's situation might be tolerated, at least in a strictly legal point of view, Satan got condemned for being a murderous b*tch and little else. That is, if Satan was so unhappy under God's rule and wanted to commit suicide as a noble gesture for her cause, like most people do -- that is, are willing to die for their cause to make a point (i.e. "Give me liberty or give me death!"), then that would have been understandable, maybe. But what's the point of killing a lot of innocent humans? That was just vindictiveness and no excuse whatsoever was being tolerated in heaven to justify that. That was just an opportunity to be spiteful. So Satan's cause was lost and he/she was cast out of heaven.

After that, the angels in heavens partied for about 3 whole days after that! They were so glad to be rid of Satan. So Satan in heaven was just a huge pain in the arse up there. You know, someone who was just always complaining and always b*tching constantly, like a nagging wife you want to flee from who allows for no peace in the home.

The closest thing in mindset to the way Satan thinks is a young Nazi. A Nazi basically refuses to acknowledge anything not like themselves, hates anything not like themselves and wants to destroy anything not like themselves. Now that's not enligtenment, that's just sick and dumb, and will not be tolerated.

4

New Light?

by Wholly in

the emerging church (new light?).

matthew 7:15 (nasb)a tree and its fruit15 beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.. john 7:2424 do not judge according to appearance, but[a]judge with righteous judgment.. footnotes:john 7:24 lit judge the righteous judgment1 corinthians 5:1212 for what have i to do with judging outsiders?

do you not judge those who are within the church?.

Larsinger58

"Lucifer" comes from Isaiah 14:12 and does mean lightbearer and in pagan tradition as a reference to Satan is associated with Venus, which is considered a beautiful planet. In occult paganism, therefore, Satan is considered to be beautiful and is represented by the many beautiful mother goddesses.

But there is a conflict between the specific reference to "bright morning star", Venus and the Sun as far as the Bible is concerned. That's because Jesus himself references himself as the "bright morning star" more than once in Revelation. Note especially, Revelation 22:16:

16 “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.

Thus in this case, the specific "bright morning star" is not a reference to Venus and Satan, but to Christ and the Sun itself. In esoteric astrological tradition, where the physical universe reflects what is in heaven, the Sun reflects Christ, the originator of light, and the Moon, being beautiful, reflects Satan, who was once married to Christ. Satan is called the "covering cherub" and there are only two covering cherubs who pose over the Ark of the Covenant. One of those angels is Michael the archangel, and the second angel, considered his wife, is none other than "Lucifer" the light bearer.

In Eden, Adam reflects Christ; Eve reflects Satan, Christ's wife. Likewise, in the Garden of Eden, there were two forbidden trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. The Tree of Life reflected Christ and the Tree of Knowledge reflected Satan. Thus we find Satan associated with the tree of Knowledge. It was from this tree that the serpent spoke to Eve. Also, we see that Satan went through Eve first. So likely the voice Satan used through the serpent was that of a woman, not a man (just saying).

So, it is fine and clear that Venus, the beautiful Mother Goddess represents Satan. But this bringer of light is a loose reference to the "bringer of dawn" which then loosely gets to be a reference to the "bright morning star" which is understandable, but for the Bible, specifically, the "bright morning star" is not Venus but the Sun and refers to Christ.

SATANIC TRADITION OF OCCULT KNOWLEDGE: But indeed, the identity of Satan as a focus on knowledge and enlightenment is quite clear. Now this makes Satan look rather innocent or even practical in the context of what happened in Eden. But, in fact, Satan lied and introduced darkness under the guise of enlightenment. Satan's aim was to use knowledge to deceive Eve and kill her. Was Satan doing Eve a favor? Did Satan want her to be "enlightened" and free her from the bonds of God's rule? No. Satan just wanted to kill her. Aspiring to "enlightenment" is a deception.

Why is aspiration to Satan's enlighment a deception? Because while enlightenment is spectacular in itself, it is not needed by everyone. That is, only a few people really need enlightenment. For instance, how many architects do you need to build a pyramid or a high skyscraper? Only one or a few at most. The buliding itself is effected by lots and lots of workers. How many people need to be enlightened to have a working government? Only a few. The rest of the people can enjoy the benefits. You only need one designer and engineer to create a car, but you don't have to be an engineer to drive one.

So that is where the philosophy of enlightenment fails. It is linked with creating an elitist class, like the point on the pyramid, who then can dominate over the masses.

CONCLUSION: The "bright morning star" which is specifically mentioned in Revelation and not in Isaiah, is a reference to Christ and the Sun itself and not Venus. As far as I can tell, Satan was clearly linked with Venus first and a "light bearer." Venus was considered the "bringer of dawn" certainly, and then that got distorted into "bright morning star," which works as a general reference to Venus. But it conflicts with the concept of the bright morning star being the Sun itself and a direct reference to Christ as found in Revelation. If Christ himself as the Sun had not been called the "bright morning star" in Revelation, then "bright morning star" would have been acceptable reference to Satan and Venus. But now, when "bright morning star" is so exclusively a reference to Satan and Venus, it makes for a conflict with the Bible's reference to Christ as the "bright morning star" in Revelation.

Of important note, is that Christ and Satan were once husband and wife. Thus the angel that is described as the most beautiful in heaven, whose beauty corrupted him/her, was clearly the appropriate wife for God's only-begotten son, Michael the archangel. But of note, Christ had more of a passion for the beauty of man than the beauty of angels and he fell in love with mankind. Satan couldn't understand this, since mankind was clearly inferior to the angelic nature. In the end, Satan viciously murders the love of Christ, mankind. God then steps in and saves mankind from Satan's evil and as a reward to Christ, creates a new wife for Christ to replace Satan, made up of his new true love, mankind! Thus the new wife of Christ, the "church" is made up of former humans.

Satan's "enlightenment" is seen as giving light and knowledge, but it is only meant for a few, who use that light of a few to create darkness for the many. But basic human culture doesn't work that way -- everybody doesn't need to be a doctor; how many doctors do we need for every community? Enlightenment and knowledge certainly gives one an edge and it is even true in some cases that "knowledge is power," but it was not meant to be used as a tool of suppression and oppression, but guidance. Satan used the deceptive power of knowledge to lead mankind into death, which is why he/she is going to be executed after a short stint after the 1000-year rule of Christ, soon to begin.

When you think of Satan, think of Venus and think of beautiful Mother Goddess, the former wife of Christ, the "queen of the heavens."

26

The importance of 1975 or was that 1976?

by Listener in

i came across an article in the feb 1, 1955 watchtower (questions from readers) which discusses 1976 as being 6,000 years since the creation of adam.

the question being addressed was -.

what are the reasons for changing the date of adams creation first from 4028 b.c.

Larsinger58

It's amazing. The Bible clearly shows that 70 years of desolation of the land preceded the return. Josephus as well shows this understanding in Jewish historical tradition, except Josephus introduces the 70 years in connection with the last deportation in year 23 of Neb2 as does the Bible, rather than year 18 as do the witnesses. Even so, it is clear if the Bible's history and timeline are correct that the Babylonian records were revised. We get a quick confirmation when the records themselves admit they are "copies" and when they were copied, which was during the Persian Period.

So even academically, we know the Bablonians didn't revise their own records and probably were good, honest historians for the most part. But that doesn't stop later cultures and kingdoms from destroying or revising those records. It is clear that is what has happened, yet no one here or anywhere else are siding with the Bible and going toward more criticism of the pagan historical records! So all this anti-Biblical discussion under the pretense of intellectualism is just a farse and totally biased. But, why not, since Satan wishes to control and deceive the entire world with his propaganda, so powerful, it might even deceive the elect.

But now, the elect have the reality so all that propaganda is swallowed up by something more concrete. Truly, "the truth shall set you free."