Posts by Larsinger58

4

Oh, The Irony (vol 1)

by Splash in

reading through some old volumes i saw this:.

w54 9/1 p. 529 par.

5 recognizing the theocratic organization for life.

Larsinger58

ROFL! If you actually follow the Bible, John and Paul were never to die!

21

1914 must go... they have no choice now (at least it would seem)

by sosoconfused in

i am sure this may have been discussed previously and if so just disregard this.. .

as a born-in 1914 is a date stamped into my head that is pretty much the foundation of our religious beliefs.

nearly everything that sets jw's apart from everyone is this date of 1914. forget all the chronology that proves that daniels prophecy and the 2520 years is incorrect - there is far worse damning evidence that makes this date useless and in error.. with the magazine that shines new light on the whole faithful slave thing - charles taze russell is no longer a member of that faithful slave class that jesus is using to feed his people./ by getting rid of russell the no doubt were able to distance themselves from all his crazy ramblings and teachings that are appearing all over the internet.

Larsinger58

1914 will always be a Biblically significant date as well as 1874, regardless of whether the WTS fully understand it.

1874 begins a generation of 120 years from 1874 to 1994. 1914 begins a generation of 80 years (Ps. 90:10) from 1914-1994.

1874 was not the date of the second coming, but it still can be considered the date that begins Christ's "presence" or PAROUSIA. That is, Christ goes to heaven and sits at God's right hand until it is time to start events that will lead up to his actual arrival. A "parousia" is a term that references the custom in Roman Period times when a dignitary would arrive in a city in a long procession. The dignitary himself would be at the very end of that procession. So what the disciples were asking was what would be the events LEADING UP TO Christ's actual arrival. Christ's final arrival, though, would need preparation. The correct understanding of things, a focus on chronology, etc. would have to come out. So Christ is considered to be inactive at God's right hand until the last 120 years before his actual arrival, which would be at the very end of that generation of 120 years and 180 years. The beginning of that preparation, including the identification of the "temple" sect through which Christ would arrive would begin when Michael (Jesus Christ) symbolically "stands up" (Daniel 12:1). So when Christ "stands up" is when the true "parousia" begins and that is still a good event to align with 1874, a date focussed on by the Bible Students/WTS, which is the chosen "temple" sect until it becomes corrupt and is abandoned by Christ after he removes the "little flock."

As far as 1914 is concerned, it is also a date that is not fully understood, but is still a good date for beginning the "last generation" of 80 years that would see the arrival of Christ before that generation ended in 1994. That's because that "last generation" would begin with an actual international event, that of a world war: "nation vs. nation and kingdom vs. kingdom." So WWI is the international event that begins that last generation, unconnected otherwise to any other chronology.

What 1914 is not, however, is the date for thre "end of the gentile times" or the end of the "7 times" and thus the date of the 2nd coming. The "end of the gentile times" is a reference to the end of rule by the gentiles over the Jews who were to be in exile after the fall of Jerusalem. Clearly the "appointed times of the nations" (i.e. gentile times) is connected with the literal Jews as we see them going into exile after Jerusalem's destruction by the Roman army. So when we see them returning and the gentiles no longer ruling over the Jews, that is, when they officially come out of exile and have their own country again, then that is the true date for the "end of the gentile times." That event occurred on November 30, 1947 when the UN initiated the Partition Agreement that gave the Jews a homeland again.

What 1914 is not, as well, is the date of the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming occurs 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem and the removal of an earthly representative of God's kingdom, which is correctly understood by the WTS for the most part. The only problem is, is getting the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem based on secular records dating the Neo-Babylonian Period. This period was manipulated by the Persians and so all those dates are distorted. Using the Bible's chronology, our best means of dating the fall of Jerusalem is in connection with the "70 weeks" prophecy which begins the 70th week when Christ is baptized in 29 CE. Even the WTS got that right by dating the beginning of the 70 weeks in 455 BCE. The diffeence is, the Bible links the beginning of the 70 weeks with the rebuliding of Jerusalem and its temple in the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus. Thus 455 BCE actually should date the 1st of Cyrus rather than the 20th of Artaxerxes. When you do have enough faith to rely on Biblical chronology rather than revised secular records, then you get the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem and, in turn, the correct date for the 2nd coming. So based on 455 BCE being the 1st of Cyrus, the Bible dates the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar 70 years earlier and thus in 525 BCE. Jerusalem fell 4 years earlier and thus in 529 BCE. Whether you can accept that date as real or not does not matter. But based on that possible reality, when Jerusalem falls in 529 BCE, the 2nd coming occurs in 1992 rather than 1914. Our only concern at this point is whether or not this date for the 2nd coming occurs before the end of the 120 and 80-year generations in 1914? Of course, 1992 does occur prior to 1994 and near the very end of that generation as the comparison to a "parousia" indicates. Also, fortunately we have secular evidence from the original timeline in the astronomical text called the VAT4956, which hides the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, which is 511 BCE. That confirms that Jerusalem fell in 529 BCE using a secular source.

So the most important point is that the Bible is true in regards to 1914 and the "last generation" even if the WTS doesn't understand it. That's because they expected "Armageddon" and the "great tribulation" to occur before the end of the generation.

" The present wicked system of things, which extends worldwide , entered it's last days in 1914, and some of the generation alive then will also be on hand to witness its complete end in the " great tribulation."_____Reasoning book page 234

The above is the fundamental reason why the "last generation" doesn't work for the witnesses now. They are expecting the "great tribulation" or Armageddon to occur before 1994. The "great tribulation" of Matthew is not a reference to Armageddon, but a reference to HOLOCAUST. How is it that women without children will fare better during Armageddon? How can anyone escape Armageddon by fleeding from the city into the mountains? And why is it that the days were cut short for the sake of the "holy ones" or else none of them would survive? Would Armageddon be such an out-of-control event that possibly all the "holy ones" would be exterminated as well along with the wicked. That reference alone, though, tells us that during the "great tribulation" the majority of the "holy ones" apparently would be killed. Does any of the elect die at Armageddon/ Of course not. The "great tribulation" of Matthew 24 which is linked witih Daniel's prophecy pertains to the natural Jews who are considered the "holy ones" who would undergo this final "great tribulation" before being restored to their homeland. Zech 13:8 prophesied that two-thirds of the Jews would be exterminated during this "great tribulation" and that is precisely what occurred: six million out of nine million (2/3rds) were exterminated during the Holocaust. Further, Matthew 24:29 clearly says, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... the sign of the son of man would appear..." That means the "great tribulation" is completely over before Christ arrives. The Holocaust was over in 1945. The 2nd coming was not scheduled to occur until near the end of that generation ending in 1994. So all this was fulfilled as the BIBLE says, though the WTS does not understand this.

The current 1914 pickle they find themselves in is that the date 1914 is seen as the "end of the gentile times" - meaning the end of man made governments ruling without the intervention of God's heavenly kingdom. But, for 100 years now the governments/nations continue to manage the worlds affairs without divine judgement. That's rather odd...

Again, the "gentile times" are not a reference to God's rulership over the nations of the world, but the gentile nations ruling over the natural Jews in Palestine. Thus the end of the gentile times occurred on Noember 30, 1947 when the official end of Jewish exile ended. The "great tribulation" is not Armageddon, but the Holocaust. And the true date for the fall of Jerusalem in not 607 BCE but 529 BCE, meaning the 2nd coming should have occurred sometime between the Summer of 1992 and the Summer of 1993. We can use the VAT4956 to date year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II to 511 BCE, or follow Martin Anstey who considers the "70 weeks" prophecy beginning in 455 BCE must date the 1st of Cyrus. Either way, you get 529 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem which, in turn, dates the end of 2520 years ("7 times") in 1992. This is significant since the "parousia" requires Christ's arrival as the very last sign or event prior to that generation ending.

So it is wonderful we have all this "chatter" about 1914 and the WTS' misunderstanding, but at the same time, who is asking what the true understanding of the "last generation" is? Who is putting faith in the Bible regardless of what the WTS says?

SO THE BIBLE'S CHRONOLOGY IS TRUE! That's my main point here. We know the WTS has got some of this wrong, but in that case, where's the true understanding? I've just provided it. In the meantime, the WTS was to serve as the temple sect from 1886 to 1996 after which it would be deemed apostate and cast out. So even though the WTS is apostate now from God's point of view, its focus on the dates of 1874 and 1914 are still relevant as far as Bible prophecy is concerned.

So I'm just making sure that just because the 1914 doctrine isn't working out completely for the WTS, you shouldn't transfer that over to the Bible not being true. Finally, the "great tribulation" is not a reference to Armageddon but to the Holocaust. Once you have the correct understanding, then you can have the truth. The true fall of Jerusalem occurs in 529 BCE and not 607 BCE or 587 BCE, which anyone can research now, so there's no excuse if you get that wrong at this point. The Bible has always begun the "70 weeks" in the 1st of Cyrus and thus 455 BCE. If that boils down to a hard choice for you between the Bible and secular history, then you have to make that choice.

18

2014 means nothing

by konceptual99 in

i know there have been many comments over the recent past about 2014 being potentially a key point in time for the wts as it's 100 years since 1914 but my view is that it means absolutely nothing.. people are people and history shows the psychological hold that organisations like the wts has just carries on captivating people.

the org survived the 1975 debacle and they will potter on for years to come regardless of things like 100 years since 1914, especially since this is something the wts are simply not talking about.

it means nothing to anyone other than people looking for something to bash the wts with.. it's not mentioned in the literature and is unlikely to be anytime soon - why the heck would the wts want to remind people of the length of time?.

Larsinger58

You know, the people who love the organization are getting what they love. They love the idea that they have found the "true religion." When confronted with defending certain beliefs, they don't want to do it. They are more in love with the WTS than the Bible, so they have lost their way.

Now the WTS has all these false teachings, but they notice nobody cares about it, nobody notices. So they just shove that in my face! They know they are leading people who have their eyes closed. Those who stay are not really interested in TRUTH. The WTS knows it. They are going to play the game until they are destroyed.

50

Big Revolt Among CO, DO, Bethelites, and Branch Servant Likely

by frankiespeakin in

as the information age is apon us and it doesn't take that much information to easily prove this new light by the governing body granting them absolute loyalty and power is a blatant power grab by a bunch of over the hill ego maniacs i see a revolt in the making..

Larsinger58

Sounds great, but aren't those people where they are precisely because they follow the company line without question?

The organization equates loyalty to God with loyalty to the GB, and that commitment is valued over everything else.

If there's one unchangeable doctrine of the WTS it's that the GB speaks for God no matter what they say.

You are precisely right. This directly fulfills 2 Thessalonians about the "man of lawlessness" becoming a god in God's own house. Many don't understand that, indeed, the WTS used to be God's chosen temple or house, via the public anointed ones associated with this organization. Like it or not, you can't have the "evil slave" and the "man of lawlessness" without being part of Jehovah's recognized organization. But how the GB has made itself and continues to make itself a god in God's house is very apparent.

However, before the 2nd coming, the "man of lawlessness" has to be revealed first. So the 2nd coming occurred on December 25, 1992 but 45 days earlier a letter was written by one of the anointed to the GB and the Writing Committee essentially notifying them that they were being cast out and cast into spiritual darkness as they had become a god to the followers who were not paying attention to the Bible. So the GB has long ago been "disfellowshipped" by Jehovah. Those now continuing to follow them are not thinkers or lovers of truth. but lovers of a fantasy and convenience.

But, per the Bible, both the 666-beast coming out of the sea (which represaents Christendom) and the lamb-dragon beast, coming out of the earth, both are cast into the lake of fire "while still alive"; meaning they are still active religious organizations. Furthermore, they are active right to the very end since they are the ones who help set the stage for the confrontation between Christ and the kings of the earth, who at this time will be part of the U.N. The one thing Christendom and the WTS have in common is that they both are expecting Christ's return in some way.

Both the 666-beast and the WTS help to bring about that confrontation known as "Armageddon" before their demise:

REV, 16l13 And I saw three unclean inspired expressions [that looked] like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.

Now what does this mean? I don't know precisely, it hasn't been revealed to me. But what scenarios fit this? It seems that the "false prophet" which is the WTS and the 666-beast, which represents Christendom, are working together with the same message to cause this confrontation.

The only scenario I can think of that might fit this is that they will be claiming that Christ has arrived and that the millennium is about to begin. So I figure at some point, they will either have been convinced I'm the true Christ and I'm about to destroy them, or they will be encouraging the UN to battle with me and maintain their presumed right to self rule. At any rate, the confrontation is between the Christian god and the world governments under the UN. I don't see how this can be fulfilled unless I'm at this point believed to be or recobnized as the true Christ, by both the WTS and Christendom alike. I don't see that occurring unless some miracles begin to happen to convince them--after all, they sure are not following the Bible's indicators that would confirm me as the Christ.

The final confrontation between the nations and Jehovah have to be understood by them. That is, they at some point have to understand that God is about to take over world government and that it is his right to decide who will rule, even if it is the LOWLIEST of mankind:

DANIEL 4:17 By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.”

Now, I kind of make a little light of this reference here, claiming God sort of over did it this time in regards to the "lowliest" of mankind becoming his choice as the ruler of the world. That is, "lowliest" in the eyes of the world. God has chosen an ex-male prostitute and drag-queen to be the Christ! So that really puts strikes the nail on the head of "lowliest of mankind" being chosen as ruler. But the point remains that the nations like to think they can self rule and God's message is that he decides who will rule in the earth. That's the academic confrontation of Armageddon: the nations giving up self rule and recognizing God's choice. But it seems that the 666-Beast and the lamb-dragon beast (WTS) are making the nations understand that they are expected to relinquish self rule for God's rule under Christ, or else they will face destruction.

Now further context to not wanting to give up self rule is the reference in scripture that as soon as they claim "peace and security" then instant destruction will be upon them. So it would seem, after the UN takes over global government that at one point they will, indeed, attain some degree of true "peace and security" world wide. It is clear at this point because of the global economy that no nation, even the U.S. can exist on its own, especially now that the US is bankrupt. There has to be cooperation and world government in our time makes sense! So it will not be a time of war or severe circumstances where many will welcome a change, any change. They will have attained perhaps the ultimate world political goal of "peace and security" and will want to hold onto self rule.

God's message, MY message as his representative, is really acknowledging the advancement they've made, great. But the TIME IS UP! It's time for the 1000-year reign and their time of nearly 6000 years of man's rule under Satan has come to and end. I'm not necessarily condemning them, but just saying their time is up. When they balk against that, then, of course, God has the POWER to enforce his wishes and they will simply cease to exist. All God has to do to destroy the world's governments is kill the people off who give their allegiance to the political governments. Government is in the minds of the people. Without people, there is no government. Reflect on the time when God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians. They just dropped dead. Guns can't fight against angels.

Now, the inspired expressions look like "frogs." Frogs were one of the 10 plagues. So just as God represents himself as putting hooks into the jaws of the dragon to do what God wishes, then these frogs may represent a God-ordianed or God-imposed mandate or plague that forces this confrontation between Christ and the UN.

At any rate, it appears that Christ (whether me or not--dohhh) will be recognized in the Christian world, both by Christendom in general and the WTS and that they will recognize the setting is Armageddon, even if they are being forced to do so, as if God was casting a plague against them, forcing them to do this.

18

2014 means nothing

by konceptual99 in

i know there have been many comments over the recent past about 2014 being potentially a key point in time for the wts as it's 100 years since 1914 but my view is that it means absolutely nothing.. people are people and history shows the psychological hold that organisations like the wts has just carries on captivating people.

the org survived the 1975 debacle and they will potter on for years to come regardless of things like 100 years since 1914, especially since this is something the wts are simply not talking about.

it means nothing to anyone other than people looking for something to bash the wts with.. it's not mentioned in the literature and is unlikely to be anytime soon - why the heck would the wts want to remind people of the length of time?.

Larsinger58

Just for the record and the people here, 1914 is based on the concept that the 2nd coming would occur 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem, which the WTS dates erroneously date to 607 BCE. The true date for the fall of Jerusalem per critical secular reference and the Bible was 529 BCE which means the 2nd coming per the Bible should have happened in 1992 rather than 1914. The critical connection between 1992 and 1914 is that the "last generation" of 80 years was to begin with a world war (i.e. nation vs. nation and kingdom vs. kingdom). What the Bible prophesied that would happen before that generation ended in 1994 is the 2nd coming. So while the WTS does not understand this, the 2nd coming just based on the true date of Jerusalem's fall did fulfill that prophecy. 1992, of course, occurs before the end of that generation in 1994.

In the meantime, part of the misunderstanding of the signs of the last days is misunderstood. That misunderstanding has to do with the "great tribulation" which is often thought to be a reference to Armageddon. But that great tribulation is completely over before the 2nd coming: "Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... the sign of the son of man will appear in heaven." Thus the "great tribulation" reference in Matthew is actually a reference to the HOLOCAUST.

Now posters here are allegedly smarter than the sheeple serving the WTS. So think about it. The great tribulation mentioned in Matthew says that women with small children would have it a lot worse than women without children. How is that? It speaks of fleeing to the mountains when the "disgusting thing in a holy place" is seen. How could fleeding to the mountains save you from Armageddon if you're not supposed to? It makes no sense. Also the Bible says the days would be cut short for the sake of the holy ones. Well, does that mean God would get so carried away at Armageddon that he would accidentally wipe out all of the holy ones? Plus this clearly suggests that the majority of the "holy ones" would actually die during this "great tribulation." Well, when the "holy ones" are actually a reference to the natural Jews, then it explains it. The "disgusting thing in a holy place" was actually the Nazi army surrounding Warsaw, Poland, the city with the highest concentration of Jews in exile. But that also explains about how women without children would be better off. If you had no children, you could literally leave the city and flee to the mountains and survive as many did. But if you have small children, there is no way you could do that. You can't have noisy, hundry kids hiding out from the Nazis in the forrests.

So that is the critical point here. While people here are laughing at the WTS for their focus on 1914, it spills over to what the true fulfillment really is. Whether or not the Bible is true or not. Whem you have the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem, which was 529 BCE dating the 2nd coming in 1992, and when you understand 1914 simply begins a generation of 80 years that would see the 2nd coming before its end in 1994, then all is well. Thoses who have the correct understanding do not link Armageddon as part of the events of the last generation. It should not be.

So 2014, 100 years after 1914, might be a problem for false prophets and false understanding, but not for those of the elect who have the truth. 1914, indeed, is a good date for beginning the last generation which begins with a world war. It is NOT a good date for the 2nd coming since Jerusalem fell in 529 BCE and not 607 BCE. It is also NOT a good date for the "end of the gentile times" which ended on November 30, 1947 when the Jews officially came out of exile and had their own country again.

So everything the Bible prophesied was fulfilled within that generation, including the "great tribulation" which was the HOLOCAUST. Just because the WTS has it wrong, doesn't mean the Bible is not true. Everything in the Bible is happening on time.

The only other chronology clue we have in relation to when Armageddon will occur is that the UN will take over world government and the nations giving up their sovereignty to the UN will be allowed to rule for "a time and a season" which is a year and 3 months basically; not that those days would be cut short. However close you think about the UN being to taking over world government is how close you should expect Armageddon.

31

Jesus: The latest Myth in the history of Sun-God Myths

by VivaVegas in

i wanted to share with you all information that you may find helpful in your quest for real truth as it pertains to god and religion.

"jesus" is just the latest sun-god in mankind's long history of sun-gods.

a belief-system which in itself stems from mankinds first true religion, worship of the sun and stars.

Larsinger58

It's a little more complex than that.

You see, what is in the physical world reflects what is in the heavenly realm. Jesus was once married to Satan and so, indeed, the Sun in the Bible is identified with Christ and the Moon with Satan. Satan, christ's former wife, is being replaced by the "church" and so Christ's new Bride takes the place of Satan and thus is now repesented by the beautiful moon.

So paganism simply loosely reflects the spiritual or heavenly identities of Christ and Satan in heavne. So when you say Christ is the "sun god" because of the similarities, the Bible doesn't disagree with you. But the pagan concepts are not the origin of the Christian concepts, they are parallel and just have a common origin.

That Satan is female via some concepts shows up in Christian artwork but not Christian dogma:

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html

34

The Mark of The Wild Beast, How Does One Receive It? 666

by Este in

the first thing that needs to be determined is who or what is the wild beast ?......

estephan.

1and it stood still upon the sand of the sea.. and i saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and upon its horns ten diadems, but upon its heads blasphemous names.2now the wild beast that i saw was like a leopard, but its feet were as those of a bear, and its mouth was as a lion's mouth.

Larsinger58

The 666-beast that comes out of the SEA represents Christendom and its trinity doctrine. The beast that comes out of the "earth" is the WTS' apostate Governing Body.

The 666 beast's name reflects that it is a racist organization. The 666 converts to "KayKayKay." That means Christendom, which is considered the "white man's religion" would be known for its racist and white supremacist policies. Even now in America white Christians maintain separateness. So the "mark of the beast" in the hand means active practice of racism in regards to commerce. The mark in the forehead means believing racist policies, like "evolution" which represents the white man as the end of the evolutionary development, with claims that blacks and non-whites are closer to the ape than they are. There's a reason for "Affirmative Action." In the movie "Rising Sun" starring Sean Connery, Japanese industrialists claimed American politics was racist because though they had a policy against foreign ownership of television and radio, they allowed Canadians to purchase a network while forbidding Japanese to. So the mark of the beast has to do with the practice of racism in commerce, which favors white interests over non-white interests.

That's the actual fulfillment of that.

17

Some thoughts on Mark 13

by JWB in

some thoughts on mark 13. .

i decided to look again at the so-called 'signs of the times' from the perspective of mark's gospel.

chapter 13 sets the scene.

Larsinger58

Okay, I'm just going to be blunt here.

Luke confirms that the destruction of Jerusalem would occur "before" the signs of his presence and 2nd coming. I'll just quote part of that:

LUKE 21: 10 Then he went on to say to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; 11 and there will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another pestilences and food shortages; and there will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs.

12 “But before all these things people will lay their hands upon YOU and persecute YOU, delivering YOU up to the synagogues and prisons, YOU being haled before kings and governors for the sake of my name. 13 It will turn out to YOU for a witness. 14 Therefore settle it in YOUR hearts not to rehearse beforehand how to make YOUR defense, 15 for I will give YOU a mouth and wisdom, which all YOUR opposers together will not be able to resist or dispute. 16 Moreover, YOU will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of YOU to death; 17 and YOU will be objects of hatred by all people because of my name. 18 And yet not a hair of YOUR heads will by any means perish. 19 By endurance on YOUR part YOU will acquire YOUR souls.

20 “Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. "

So in reality, they were asking about Christ's presence as well as when the destruction of Jerusalem would take place. Jesus talks about a world war, "nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom" beginning the signs of the last generation before his coming. But then he says that BEFORE these things the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.

This is significant since otherwise it would confuscate the chronology that points to the specific year of Jesus' 2nd coming. That is, it would conflict with Daniel's "7 times" prophecy which as interpreted by the WTS and others, would represent 2520 years from the fall of Jersualem to the 2nd coming. This would date the 2nd coming in the 20th Century regardless of what date you think Jerusalem actually fell, 607 BCE, 587 BCE or 529 BCE.

So isolating Mark's reference and ignoring the chronology is the only way to try to claim Jesus was talking about things occurring in association with the destruction of Jerusalem rather than in our day.

But there is a parallel. The "disgusting thing causing desolation" was the Roman army that surrounded Jerusalem, literally in 70 BCE. The parallel that would happen during modern times is when the Nazi Army surrounded the largest settlement of Jews in exile, and thus anti-typical "Jerusalem," which was Warsaw Poland. Thus the one-time event of the "great tribulation" associated with the destruction and extermination of Jews in modern times is a reference to the Nazis who focussed on both Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you ignore chronology, then you try to date the signs and events to any convenient time you might like. If you include the chronology, though, then the 2nd coming can only happen during the 20th Century. The "7 times" prophecy is just one out of three that requires a specific-year fulfillment for the 2nd coming.

So Jesus spoke of things that would happen approaching his second coming but also things that would happen during his present generation connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But he clearly indicates this would happen before those events far into the future. Thus the "great tribulation" mentioned by Mark and Matthew is not Armageddon but the HOLOCAUST. Further, the 2nd coming is linked to the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians by 2520 years. The year for the 2nd coming is not a matter of flexibility in the Bible.

7

Thoughts on Matthew's Account - Slaughter of the Innocents

by Teeny Pyjamas in

hi guys,.

do any of you actually believe in the account in matthew where king herod orders the genocide of all the young boys?.

i'd like to hear your opinion on it.. here's ours http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/bible/slaughter-of-your-innocence/.

Larsinger58

TEENY: Your linked article also addresses the issue of the death of Herod and the census by Syrenius:

"

How this Contradicts Luke’s Account

First of all, Herod died in 4 BCE. So, for the account in Matthew to be true, Jesus would’ve had to have been born somewhere between 6 BCE and 4 BCE at the latest in order for Herod to have attempted to kill him (and estimate his age at two or under). But according to Luke [who claims to "have traced all things from the start with accuracy" (Luke 1:3)] , Jesus’ birth coincided with a census taken when Cyrenius (aka Quirinius) was governor of Syria . In fact, this census is the reason Luke gives for Mary and Joseph to have journeyed from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. (Luke 2:1-7) But history shows that this census took place in the second term of Cyrenius: between 6-9 CE — at least eight years too late to ever harmonize with Matthew’s account."

An alternative view is that since Jesus clearly was born on September 14/15, 2 BC if he was circumcised on the 8th day of his life to fulfill the 8th day of the Festival of Booths, then the chronology of the gospels contradicts the secular history of Herod. But since Josephus gives a double rulership for Herod, one 34 years from 37 BCE and one 34 years from 37 BCE, we automatically have to conclude that there was a revision and this double rulership is just covering for that revision; that is, that his rule was actually 37 years but from 37 BCE. If that's the case, then he would have died on Shebat 2, 1 A.D. If so, Jesus would have been over 1 year of age after September 15, 1 BC, which is when Herod tried to kill those babies 2 years and younger shortly before his death. Of note, there is no Roman zero year, so Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD is just a few months after Jesus became 2 years old after around September 15, 1 BC. So once Herod's true date of death is corrected, all those arguments trying to date his death in 4 BC are irrelevant.

Second, I find it fascinating that you actually refer to the "second term" of Cyrenius! Do you know when his first term was? It was from 4-1 BCE! Thus all Luke is confirming is that Cyrenius conducted a sensus during his first term as well. Now think of what you'e contradicting here. This is not just about Jesus. The account says that Herod was still ruling during the first term of Cyrenius. The common idea is that Herod died in 4 BC, which is not correct. When his true reign ends in 1 AD, though, you have an overlap of the governorship of Cyrenius and Herod.

So the question is, was the secular history of Herod revised so that he dies before the 1st governorship of Cyrenius? And if we correct that rulership based on available options, does one show an overlap of the governorship of Cyenrius and the reign of Herod? The answer is: YES! The 1st governorship of Cyrenius at which time he conducted a census was from 4-1 BC, and Herod's death was in 1 AD, so you have the overlap. Of course, the Bible requires Jesus to be born in the Fall of 2 BC, so this correction agrees with the Bible. We have Jesus 2 years of age just before Herod's death, we have a census during the first governorship of Cyrenius was which 4-1 BC. Complete harmony.

Here is a video that deals with the record of governors during this period and how we know Cyrenius ruled from 4-1 BC. It also deals with how Josephus intentionally included an eclipse that occurred 18 days before the death of Herod, which could only occur on December 29, 1 BC. Bottom line, many criticize the Bible for revisionism but seldom apply the same rules to the secular records. Since you asked for other opinions, my position is not to contradict you here or pursuade you to trust the Bible, but to show you how some who do trust the Bible also find continuity with available secular records. The fact that the gospels date Jesus' birth in 2 BC whereas the secular records claim Herod died in 4 BC immediately sets the premise that the secular records must have been revised. But once we look at them, the fact that Josephus gives two rulership timelines for Herod proves not only the revisionism, but requires us to date the death of Herod in 1 AD, which fits the gospel account. Furthermore, the eclipse Herod mentions confirms his death in 1 AD as well. Enjoy the video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TepIl6_CkTY

7

Thoughts on Matthew's Account - Slaughter of the Innocents

by Teeny Pyjamas in

hi guys,.

do any of you actually believe in the account in matthew where king herod orders the genocide of all the young boys?.

i'd like to hear your opinion on it.. here's ours http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/bible/slaughter-of-your-innocence/.

Larsinger58

TEENY: In the link you provided it says:

"But no secular historian mentions this atrocity either. There were writers at the time who hated Herod and wrote about every wicked deed he committed. Is it reasonable to conclude that they would write nothing at all about his murdering all of the baby boys in Bethlehem? There were plenty of historians around at the time who would’ve heard of this mass murder. It is inconceivable that they would’ve left out of their histories one of the most heinous acts in all of history! It’s obvious that this is one of the many incidents in the Bible that never happened."

While these are things to consider, I'm surprised you don't note whether Herod would be that type of person. I mean? What if Herod was fun-loving and preoccupied with women and booze and never killed any of his family members. I think that would suggest he would never do such a thing. But the man was paranoid and got worse very close to his death. As I noted, if Jesus was at least one year of age, this event would have happened within months of Herod's death. Further, the incident may have been very well known and the reference in Josephus that Herod wanted to kill one person out of every household near the time of his death, may actually be a reference to what he did in Bethlehem:

" Now any one may easily discover the temper of this man's mind, which not only took pleasure in doing what he had done formerly against his relations, out of the love of life, but by those commands of his which savored of no humanity; since he took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust,..." (Antiquities 17.6.6)

Now this sounds like what happened at Betlehem, where you have someone killed in nearly each household for nothing they did personally. So my opinion/criticism would be here that while you claim this should have been mentioned by some historians other than just one, that presumption that historians were pro-Jewish and not simply anti-Herod, that this is something out of the ordinary that is difficult to believe. But we have references that Herod was mentally ill and has a history of killing his own family members, so his killing children who threatened to potentially be the messiah other than himself is not outside his character. I note this because if we had no reference of his personality or character that he was violent or vicious, then it could be argued that this incident, in addition to not be mentioned by anyone else, is otherwise, outside his character. But that's definitely not the case. He did kill people whom he thought was a threat. Plus the above reference certainly "insinuates" what did happen. Thus we can't claim this was not well known, only that a decision was made not to make that reference specific, but to claim that near his death he wanted to kill someone in every household, meaning on a smaller scale he did very close to that at Bethlehem. So for me, that's more than enough not to doubt Matthew's account. Adding to this theory is the timing. This is something that occurred in connection with his insanity near the end of his death, which is when the incident at Bethlehem occurred.

'OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON" You also seem to note how this doesn't make sense. Well, maybe not to you who don't see this as a prophecy, but the Bible can reflect many things via interpretation. In this case, this is fulfilled THREE TIMES! First, of course, when the Israelites were called out of Egyptian bondage in ancient Egypt. Second, when Jesus of the 1st Century who fled down there was called out of Egypt. But thirdly, this is fulfilled by the 2nd coming because the messiah of the 2nd coming is born in the tride of Joseph via his younger son Ephraim, who was half Egyptian. So whether or not that you get it, those who consider themselves prophets can read a lot more into Scripture than the average person.