Posts by JCanon

50

"Nor men kept for unnatural purposes..."

by PopeOfEruke in

wtf is that about?.

pope.

JCanon

On: malakoi (lit. "soft ones").

I believe I did some research on this earlier and there was a conflict for this term where Plato or Aristotle was speaking of "soft ones" in a condemnatory manner. This is inconsistent with a reference to homosexuals or effeminates because in that culture we know that older men and younger men were like teacher and student. In fact, Socrates himself had a lover, Phaedo, who turns out to be a ghost personality substitute for Aristotle who was actually the boy-lover of Socrates until he died. So it doesn't follow this is a reference to an "effeminate" and thus an effeminate homosexual.

To the contrary, in the context in which Plato or Aristotle was using the term it was in reference to persons of "weak" or "soft" resolve as far as resisting wrongdoing. People who wantonly engaged in whatever their flesh allowed them to instead of having a "hard" or firm resolve against that. Thus a "soft person" is one with loose morals, generally, not a reference to a homosexual.

This means, indeed, the WTS, though following many translators, is not correct in translating malakoi as "men kept for unnatural purposes, a polite way of references young boys who were lovers to older men. In fact, I'm not so sure that was the common practice any more during this time; I suppose I can check it out.

WOW! Here's a reference that talks about this, but here's my reference:

Aristotle, 384-322 BC, in Nicomachean Ethics, used malakos to describe lack of restraint and excessive enjoyment of bodily pleasures.

Aristotle wrote: He “who pursues the excesses of things pleasant, and shuns those of things painful, of hunger and thirst and heat and cold and all the objects of touch and taste... that men are called 'soft' [malakos] with regard to these pleasures...
Now of appetites and pleasures... with reference to all objects whether of this or of the intermediate kind men are not blamed for being affected by them, for desiring and loving them, but for doing so in a certain way, i.e. for going to excess.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 7.4.4. )
Check out the entire discussion on the term here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html
Again, my position would be that malaka is a negative reference to moral weakness or moral softness in general and not specifically to anything related to homosexuality. In the verse at 1 Cor. 6:9, 10, therefore, it follows "adultery" and "idolary", general sins not specific to homosexuality. So "men kept for unnatural purposes" is a misguided interpretation for the actual use and meaning of the word.
Another reason why "effeminate" in terms of a homosexual euphemism is also inappropriate is because effeminate men were often "eunuchs" and these were considered born naturally that way from their mother's wombs and it was considered to be a "gift" for singleness. That is, without the usual attraction to beautiful women, here was less incentive to marry, and one could remain single and pursue a career or the ministry full-time without distraction.
In Jewish culture it is suggested that men who were eunuchs, often effeminate bonded with other men in a close but non-sexual relationship, such as Jesus and his cousin John. So that seems an awkward, out of the way reference.
In addition, there is nothing to suggest this is a reference to YOUTH. "Men kept for unnatural purposes" does suggest a youth though, and indeed, one questions whether there was responsibility or accountability of a youth in a relationship and culture such as this. Why is a youth being condemned along with adulters and idolators? Thus that poor translation draws attention to itself as being wrong from that aspect as well.
So all considered a "soft man" is likely the Aristotle definition of someone with a soft moral character who gives way to excesses including likely sexual ones, and not necessarily and effeminate man. This understanding is very much in line with all the other sins mentioned. In addition, being a eunuch or being "gay" was culturally accepted and two men in relationships was acceptable as well. Only the "abuse" of a gay companion sexually was condemned. Think of two eunuchs who fall in love with each other as agreeing to be "play brothers" or "cousins" or something. Soul mates, like Jonathan and David, who exchanged embraces and kisses (with David doing most of the kissing!), two men who had a love pact with each other. So in that culture there were no emotional or psychological bounds for a close relationship between two males. Just physical limitations when it came to overt sexual expression.
'SOFT MEN": Also I'm wondering if this reference would extend to someone with little resolve for anything. Jesus spoke of men who were "lukewarm", neither hot nor cold, and those he would vomit out of his mouth. Interestingly another Greek reference relates to over intellectualism, perhaps a person without a definitive moral compass? Intellectuals who perhaps believe that "anything goes"and it's "all natural" no matter what, maybe? It's easy to see a very "cultured" and educated person focussing on the excessives of the world in regards to the "soft life", perhaps. Maybe it reached a refined degree in that culture. Somehow this individual at some point became self-condemned by his lack of moral conviction or the intellectual excuses he came up with for those excesses. Thus the malakoi might have clearly referred to a very recognizable movement or sub-group in the society that those back there would understand the reference for.
Interesting discussion.
JCanon

50

"Nor men kept for unnatural purposes..."

by PopeOfEruke in

wtf is that about?.

pope.

JCanon

Narkissos:
As ever this topic is fraught with cultural misunderstandings.
The "catamite" is not necessarily a victim; the love/sex relationship is usually a social promotion to the younger partner; think of David (the beloved) accessing Saul's court on account of his beauty. In Greece the concept of education (paideia) is closely connected to the relationship: many Athenian boys dreamt of becoming Socrates' lover.

Thanks for the "paideia" reference. I can see the connection between education and a youth. Just for your consideration though, please note that the lover of Socrates, for the record was "Phaedo" who had a parallel life with Aristotle. When the Greek chronology is corrected by the eclipse of 402 replacing the eclipse of 431 BCE, then Socrates dies in 366 BC when Phaedo would have been 18 years of age. That is precisely the age of Aristotle that year. Thus since we know Socrates and Aristotle would have known each other in reality, but not in the revision, it becomes rather suspicious that the famous boy-lover of Socrates was, indeed, none other than Aristotle. But that's another topic.

Thanks for the reference. Here's mine:

http://aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/

http://img.tfd.com/authors/aristotle.jpg

Aristotle was born in 384 B.C.E. in Stagirus, Macedonia, Greece, the son of Nicomachus, a medical doctor, and Phaestis. Little is known about Aristotle's early years, though he was almost certainly meant to become a doctor like his father, who died when Aristotle was ten years old. As his mother had died some years earlier, Aristotle was brought up by Proxenus of Atarneus, possibly a family friend or uncle. Proxenus taught Aristotle poetry, Greek, and public speaking; Aristotle had already learned science as a part of his early medical training by his father. At seventeen, Proxenus sent Aristotle to Athens to continue his education under Plato.

PHAEDO

Phaedo, himself, is much younger than

Athens as a slave, he was eventually set free and became one of Athens on the Peloponnesian Peninsula. There he composed his own dialogues, focusing on the field of ethics.

According to one interpretation,

Athens , as well as other Greek cities, sex between adult men and young males who had reached puberty was culturally acceptable. It was often part of a mentoring program intended to educate the male youth by exposing them to the activities in which they were expected to participate. These activities included politics, economics, training for war, and sex. Thus, what would be sexual abuse by contemporary standards in Western culture, was an expected part of growing up for the affluent youth of ancient Greece. Such a "practicum" in same sex love-making would make national news today, especially in the supermarket tabloids!

The coincidence of both Phaedo and Aristotle being orphaned between ages 10 and 17 and then both becoming students of Plato is a bit coincidental. Too coincidental once we realize that Socrates and Plato would have known each other.

JCanon

45

Resurrection soon after armageddon or 1000 years after it?

by greendawn in

can anyone explain why the wts claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after armageddon when to the contrary the book of revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?

that is 1000 years after the saints begin ruling on earth which will occur at or shortly before armageddon.

let's remember that rightly or wrongly most dubs do not believe that they are in the class of the saints or anointed as they call them.

JCanon

2)- Those who physically survive the Great Tribulation & Armageddon (and those born to them during the thousand years.).
BrotherApostate,
Those that survive the Great Tribulation is nearly everyone that ever lived since Adam that qualifies. We also see them symbolized as the Nations. The tribulation started then and is not just the few years just prior to Armageddon as some teach. And there will be no marriage or children born as the WT teaches. No verses for this shown but it can be refuted easily..
Joseph

Brother Apostate and Joseph, I agree with Brother Apostate that those who survive Armageddon into the millennium will also have children. That's because of the scriptures that depict children during this idyllic time such as Isa. 11:

6 And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.

This is the ideal time of the millennium. When Christ will rule and everybody will have knowledge of Jehovah! Obviously there are children here. But after everyone gets eternal life, the population growth will be zero, because no one will die. If people keep having children then the poopulation would eventually get too large for the earth. No one is dying. Further, if DEATH IS NO MORE, then new children would not have been proven righteous yet, so death would still be a possibility, right? Also the Bible says that those who are resurrected in the general resurrection would not marry or be given into marriage! That suggests there will be no children either in connection with the second resurrection. So these points argue against children during the time of Judgment Day. But clearly they can be a part of the millennium. As it stands, one third of the population will likely be destroyed at Armageddon, Another third will survive to live out their life into old age. This might be many witnesses who are not paying attention and end up following the WTS, but are not bad people. They fall into the "Moses" class where Moses due to an indescretion, didn't get to cross over into the Promised Land, but only got a look. So some people are not hard-core bent on ruling this world, but should have been more responsive to what the Bible says, etc. They may have other issues, but are not violent or opposed to the kingdom. Those will likely get eternal life when they come back in the resurrection. Those will die out after their normal lifespan, thus like Moses, only getting a glimpse of the millennium and what it will be like. Then a special one-third of today's population, those ready to create a new way of life focussed on doing God's will and learning his purposes, those of noble heart, will be chosen to begin the righteous new world under the millennium. And some of those will bring forth children as well, thus the idyllic scene of a child playing with poisonous snakes and Lions will be fulfilled. The MILLENNIUM is an experiment! It is to see what happens under a righteous rulership and one religion and without the influence of Adamic sin. How will someone who knows God's laws completely will make a decision when Satan temps them with a chance at more than they have under that system under Christ. Turns out many will want more, but its different for them because they know God's laws and have no excuse. It's an absolute rebellion and refusal to acknowledge God's sovereignty, just as one-third of the angels did when they followed Satan. Definitely will be children. JCanon

45

Resurrection soon after armageddon or 1000 years after it?

by greendawn in

can anyone explain why the wts claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after armageddon when to the contrary the book of revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?

that is 1000 years after the saints begin ruling on earth which will occur at or shortly before armageddon.

let's remember that rightly or wrongly most dubs do not believe that they are in the class of the saints or anointed as they call them.

JCanon

Greendawn: Can anyone explain why the WTS claims that faithful dubs will be resurrected soon after Armageddon when to the contrary the book of Revelation plainly states that the resurrection of anyone other than the saints will occur after 1000 years?
Greendawn,
MALIK: Plainly for who? The book describes a series of visions that take place in parallel mostly during the 1000 years. And there were no punctuation marks or explanations to separate these visions.

Greendawn, you are amazing to see this. You are absolutely correct! NOBODY gets resurrected during the 1000 years. Nobody. And the 1st resurrection takes place before the 1000 years.

Joseph Malik claims there is no "punctuation marks or explanations to separate these visions" but we're talking about a sequence of events in one chapter in the Bible, and to the contrary there is definitive "punctuation" that separates the millennium and Satan's last stand from JUDGMENT DAY. The best way to deal with this is to show everybody by quoting the few verses involved.

REV 20: 1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.

4 And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.

7 Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Ma´gog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne and the one seated on it. From before him the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Ha´des gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and Ha´des were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Now you see the clear order of events here. Joseph would have us believe that because separate visions previously might be considered as occurring simultaneously or parallel that this goes for this single vision here found in 15 verses. But is that the case? No. And we know that because of the special language used to introduce the time of judging: "From before him the earth and the heaven fled away."

And what does this mean? Does the literal heaven and earth disappear? How is that possible? Thus this is an allegorical reference to something else. What? The harmony of the heavens and earth are synonymous with the "system of things", that is the current overall state of affairs. It is called "heaven and earth." It's a concept of the order of things, the rules and situations that are in place for a given time. Thus when the disciples were asking Jesus about the "end of the system of things" it was in reference to the time of the gentiles, the "appointed times of the nations." That is what they were focussed on, when they would be able to be restored to their homeland. Even the witnesses and others consider the "end of the system of things" to be this present system of things, that is a world ruled by man and Satan. Thus when the millennium begins a new system of things is thought to replace the old. It is as if the old system of things had fled away. That is what is being expressed here. The time when Satan tests mankind, the time when Satan is alive, is part of one system of things. Now that he is destroyed, it's a "whole new world"! There's a new "system of things" now in place, a new heavens and earth! "From before him the earth and heaven fled away" is thus a reference to the old heaven and earth ending, the old system of things with Satan present passing away.

But because this phrase is used after Satan is destroyed, clearly the beginning of a "new day" and new circumstance, it has to refer to whatever was mentioned just previously. So this statement thus clearly places everything before that statement as part of the old heavens and earth, and thus what comes after is being introduced as a brand new situation. That brand new "heavens and earth" situation is JUDGMENT DAY. The time when everybody comes back from the dead and gets judged.

Another point of contradiction for Malik and the witnesses here. They think these people will come back and have a chance to thoroughly know the "truth" and then have a second, now "informed choice" about whether to serve God or not. NADA! Revelation clearly shows that "books are opened" and they are judged from those books. Those books are what they did in their previous life, whether they knew the details of God or not. The righteous judges will be able to distinguish between those who say are trying to be good, following their own god-given conscience or whether they are deliberately opposed. That's why the Bible says that even those from Sodom and Gomorrah would do better than those in Jesus' day on JUDGMENT DAY, since there are extenuating circumstances for many in Sodom. Maybe some were influenced from the youth by this culture, peer pressure and all that. But those in Jesus' day knew what was going on, they knew Jesus was the messiah and still rejected him because they wanted their own rulership. Or we have the example of the Queen of the South who came to admire Solomon. She saw something great and admired it, yet she wasn't Jewish, etc. So based upon what people already have done during their lives will determine if they get life or not.

Further, please note that many are already written in the book of life! That is, those who did good during their lives and tried to live a good life were considered "righteous" and were already written in the book of life. Technically they've already been judged. Plus the Bible also says that some from Jesus' time who rejected them are already assigned to Gehenna, yet they will come back in the resurrection as well. Technically they have already been judged. But everyone is not in that already absolutely judged category. Thus some from Sodom will do better than some of Jesus' day since it might be that some of them, perhaps considered overly influenced by their culture may be considered righteous. Maybe they hated what was going on even though they were still destroyed, etc. It will be on an individual basis. So ALL of this argues against any need for anyone to be brought back during the millennium for any kind of a "second chance."

Now think how ridiculous that is! Right now, if a person dies before Armageddon per the witnesses, they automatically will be brought back to life to live in the New Order and will be taught the scriptures and THEN if they like it, they will get a chance at everlasting life. That means the only thing you need to do for a "second chance" is to die before Armageddon. Every axe murderer or criminal will thus be forgiven for all they have done. Likewise, what was the benefit of anybody being good during their lives if it would all be wiped out anyway? No. That's not how God does things. And the WTS hems and haws around the scriptures that say quite clearly those people who crossed that line during their lives are already condemned to Gehenna. One article I remember suggested that maybe because of their extensive sinning those bad habits would be impossible to break and they'd end up condemned in some way by that previous behavior. C'mon!

No. Instead, as the Bible clearly shows, when they are resurrected the books of their lives are opened up and they are judged out of those books that were already recorded. Those who are righteous will get life. Those who are proven to be unrighteous will get Gehenna, the "second death."

So, THANK YOU for actually reading the Bible and seeing quite clearly on this. The Bible outlines this period quite well, showing us what will happen when. There is a first and second resurrection and the second does not take place until after the 1000 years just as the Bible says. No fancy footwork to make this happen during the millennium.

Besides, there's another reason that view doesn't work. The period of those coming back from the dead results in their getting life, eternal life. Yet if that's the case, are we to presume some will get life before the final test by Satan? Does that make sense? NO. Instead, all those who are alive during the millennium, those who survive Armageddon and their children are the ones, who learn the truth thoroughly and know God's laws completely who will then be tested by Satan. Then after Satan is destroyed, those who are faithful, called the "great and the small" are first granted eternal life. That is, they receive their favorable judgment first. Then the second resurrection of the dead takes place and they are judged; everybody comes back, both the "righteous and the unrighteous" and that includes the "wicked." They are judged during this time. Likely a period of at least 80 years.

Finally note what happens after Judgment Day is over? A "new day" begins... The very next verse at Rev. 21:1 again introduces a new "era", a new system of things. Judgment Day is thus over...

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and theformer earth had passed away..

See that? See how many heavens and earths are passing away? It's not the literal heavens and earth, but just the change of venue and policy and the order of things. This verse simply notes a new era now begins and the former "world" that was set up as JUDGMENT DAY has now ended. There is no need now for judging any more. The court adjourns. This is the time when the judges who are on the earth, become spirit beings. Their judging is over and now they get to go to heaven to be with Christ, and now God can come to dwell with righteous mankind.

Thus the "former heaven and the former earth" that had passed away in this reference is the system of things of Judgment Day. See? This phrase not only separates these distinct periods, but also forces a strict chronological order. So Joseph Malik nor anyone else can compare these set of circumstnces to the various visions that might have parallel fulfillment, since this extra phrasing forces a strict chronological order and one which makes perfect sense. The WTS, however, who thinks the second resurrection actually takes place during the millennium, have to come up with one excuse after the other for all the scriptures that show us otherwise, and so does Joseph. So hold on to the obvious truth! You are definitely reading Revelation correctly: There is no resurrection at all during the millennium!

JCanon

15

Atheism As Of Now.

by Outaservice in

the week magazine (oct. 5th, 07 issue) in quoting the washington post makes this comment.............. only 6% of people older than 60 say they do not believe in god.........but among.

those ages 18 to 22, one in four (25%) say they are atheists.. i don't know but wonder about the figures of those from 22 to 60?

and, i also wonder about the question....does god believe in atheists?.

JCanon

I won't really jump into this, but just wanted to say, I understand atheism and/or the need for faith if you haven't had a more direct revelation of God than say through the indirect perception of nature.

But now the JIOR ("Jehovah Is Our Righteousness" group; those who are in the secret, private banquet-wedding feast when Christ arrives) can't deny there is no god because of direct experience. Because of what is going on now, holy spirit has to interact more directly with things that we are aware of. We're the true strict Biblical believers, not the pretenders. For instance, if the Bible says that John and Paul never would die over 1900 years, we believe that. That's hard to believe, but once we do, we get to see them in person. Stuff like that. Angels who have materialized who pretend to be humans we become aware of. Point being not whether this is real or not, but the Bible requires that level of belief. And some cases for the prophets, like myself, or the "anointed" (heard of them?) now we even get to Christ or have a personal interview with God himself as I have. So as I've poined out before, for the delusional, the drugged, the insane or those who say have experienced direct contact even demons say in a haunted house situation or whatnot, we're far thinking there's no god, because we can't. Our personal experience is beyond the Bible at this point, we have direct evidence. But at the same time, we understand those "out of the loop" cannot come where we go.

It aligns with what God has said though. For those who have much (faith), more will be given. For those with have none, what they have will be taken from them. That means, if you are already a hard-core fundamental Bible-thumper, then God just might throw in a modern-day miracle or two for you. But if you're an atheist, which means you have no faith, the Bible says even that will be taken from you. What is less than nothing? Less than zero is a -5, a negative number. Meaning, God doesn't simply let the atheists sit there in the dark. He leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus Christ comes up from behind and pushes them over the edge. It means that there is some counterintelligence on God's part going on that doesn't leave you in the middle but pushes you farther to one side or the other. So God gives the atheist even more of a reason not to believe than just his doubts that there is no god, while on the other side of the line, he provides miracles for those who really have the greatest faith.

But there's one exception, and I hate to bring it up, but per Bible prophecy there was supposed to be a "sign of the son of man" that appears so that even those who believed the Bible and their interpretation is correct, would have a direct sign from heaven that the messiah had arrived. This was much like John who while baptizing Jesus got that confirmation of that dove coming down out of heaven representing holy spirit and the Christ. Well... turns out the "sign" is not a vision, say like talking to God or seeing Christ in your mind. It was a physical manifestation in the clouds in the form of cloud imagery. That means it could be captured on film. So God arrnaged for me to have a photo of the "sign" (a different one than I had seen before and the third "cloud message" I'd seen) taken by a person who specialized in skyscape photography and sent it to me. So part of my personal experience of "god" includes this event, something I recognize from God or consider came from God, even if others wouldn't just on the basis of the cloud imagery. But it does add a dimension to the discussion since I have more than just my fantasies now as part of my belief system, I have an actual idendepent image and I can share that with the world so they can see it too. I truly think God figured that those who believe in God would always be considered "crazy" by those who don't; an easy dismissal. So he plays this little game with them by providing just a teensie weentsie glimpse of "magic" for them to see, that is not imaginary but real.

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/facenhand.gif

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg

When I saw the image, the face of a sleeping black child, which relates to the second coming, I of course recognized it in the subliminal art of the WTS' "Revelation" book. What this did for me subjectively, of course, is confirmed that not only had others seen it and that this was a confirmation of the "sign of the son of man," but that the WTS itself was aware of this phenomenon though doubted it. The imagery in the Revelation book came 10 years later! (the photo was taken in 1998, the Revelation book came out in 1988). Again, I'm not trying to convince the atheists or anyone to believe, but to look and understand the personal, subjective experience of someone who does believe. The above combination confirms specifics, that is, that the sign had been appearing prior to 1988, etc.

So here I am, all caught up in the details of the "sign", who it appeared to and when, etc. and then I come here I see so many smart people finding so many intellectual reasons not to believe there's a god, and all I can do is start to laugh uncontrollably because where does that leave me? Now granted, I'd have to consider I'm completely a nutcase and crazy. But what about the images? I'm not imaging that, am I? So I can't even hide out there either, since I can't explain the images away with just my overactive imagination.

On the other hand, if you know the Bible and knows how God does things, it is more than apparent he set this up. It's just like him to give the believers something to assure them their not imagining these things because at the same time he does a whole lot to make the non-believers not believe.

Acts 13:41 " 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’”

So I definitely believe in God, but then I have no choice because he has had a more direct and active part with me personally. But that's me. At the same time, for those without those advantages, it doesn't seem that God really cares that you don't believe in him, he might even glory in it because everyone will believe when Armageddon strikes, just as everyone was a believer when it started to rain. But there is also the potential that God might go out of his way to may the hardcore non-believers, believe even less.

So God is REAL, but he's hiding from those who are not looking for him. Those who look for him, find him..

So anyway, I'm glad I don't have to WONDER IF. I know from direct experience. And that's kind of nice to know for sure, absolutely. I feel badly for those who can't get to my place on this, but I'm delirious (oops, make that extremely rationally happy) that this is a topic, "atheism" that I can have a good laugh about. A really good laugh! All those people running around in the dark without a fkn clue.

Oh well, that's this god for you!

JCanon

26

abomination of desolation

by tula in

.

so what does this mean to you?.

and how would you apply this to the future as a revelation?.

JCanon

Hi Tula, I saw this reference that has a quote about the "1335 days" that I found interesting...

http://www.triumphpro.com/1260,1290,1335.htm

JCanon

7

Thoughts from our CBS today, Is Jesus not really involved in politics?

by dark angle in

i was wondering over this question when we came across a point that christians should not get involved with politics.

the account of john 6:14, 15 indicates that jesus refused the change to be made king of the jews.

therefore witnesses concluded that jesus don't want to get involved with political power or politics and so his followers should not get involve in politics.. but this conclucion seems very contradicting & quite suspecious, since jesus knows he will become king (a political figure) of not only to the jews but to the whole world in the future.

JCanon

Christ will have his own kingdom that will destroy all the present kingdoms, but exactly HOW that is done might have concerned you. As I noted before, Christ and his followers won't have to fight, the angels will destroy those who maintain a political fixation on today's governments. Those who can accept Christ and leave all that behind will survive into the millennium.

Lots of Christians have "end times" recognition for our day and are generally waiting for Christ to return but without assistive chronology. We have that chronology in place now and thus we know Armageddon would not have occurred before 1947 or before 1996. We are now 11-12 years since, so if Armageddon occurs say within the next year or two then that would be a relatively short time since the second coming event occurred in 1992.

NOT that I'm date setting, and not that there isn't a lot of flexibility, but if you presume Adam was 30 years of age when Eve was Created and thus around 30 years of age when the end of the Sixth Creative Day ended, and you also allow for Satan's last test of mankind after the millennium to be the standard test period of 40 years, and then allow for a generation of 80 years for Judgment Day, then the millennium would have to begin by 2011 AD. Again, there is flexibility as far as God is concerned, especially if he wishes to try and save as many people as possible, but that's a potential timeline parameter that we are watching to see if it will be fulfilled, keeping in mind that it might be sooner since some events occur leading up to the millennium, even though the great tribulation is only supposed to last 1 year and 3 months. It could be shorter. Plus we don't know how long Armageddon itself will be.

But it looks like the currently ruling political rulers today will be the ones who will deal with Jesus personally, even though they are just men in power ruling over these conceptual governments.

Christ's rule will be a great improvement over the people running the earth now.

JC

7

Thoughts from our CBS today, Is Jesus not really involved in politics?

by dark angle in

i was wondering over this question when we came across a point that christians should not get involved with politics.

the account of john 6:14, 15 indicates that jesus refused the change to be made king of the jews.

therefore witnesses concluded that jesus don't want to get involved with political power or politics and so his followers should not get involve in politics.. but this conclucion seems very contradicting & quite suspecious, since jesus knows he will become king (a political figure) of not only to the jews but to the whole world in the future.

JCanon

Yes, indeed, Jesus becomes a political figure during the last days. His kingdom conquers all the kingdoms of the earth, but that is done by executing those who maintain a political tie to a world that nees to convert to Christ's rule. The idea of "government" is in the minds of the people, kill the mind, you kill the government.

But as far as being involved with the current corrupt system ruling the world, Christ does not. He just waits patiently "ruling in the midst of his enemies" until they are killed off at Armageddon. Then he takes over.

Interestingly, while the world is so concerned about perhaps the first black President of the United States, turns out Jesus takes up the body of an "Ethiopian eunuch" (Acts 8:26-39) for the second coming appearance, even though he carries the "legal right" from his first coming being born through the royal line of King David. So Christ will be a black man for the 1000-year rule, not that I suppose he wouldn't appear to be a black man in his heavenly form, as both he and Jehovah are said to have "wooly hair" which is typical of Africans, somewhat uniquely. I suppose after all the centuries of blacks being second class citizens in the world he decided to give them a ruler they know won't ever look down on them and someone who sees the personal "humanity" in all rather than looking at skin colors. So it should be a happy time -- more emphasis on music and dancing than trying to figure out who the "master race" is like the world does today.

JC

26

abomination of desolation

by tula in

.

so what does this mean to you?.

and how would you apply this to the future as a revelation?.

JCanon

All three Gospel accounts contain nearly the same sentences. They are like other comments about the resurrection such as the ones in Paul's writings for example or others like them in Matthew chapter 25:31. Daniel described the facts differently but his message was also about the time of the resurrection.

Please note there is absolutely no mention of a "great tribulation" or "Daniel" in Luke. Luke clearly sets the events that would happen in 70 CE with the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the signs mentioned that would happen during the end times.

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.

That's right. BEFORE the food shortages and the signs of the last days is when the fall of Jerusalem would take place, and there is no mention of Daniel. So Luke's description of the fall of Jerusalem is not part of the signs of the last days, but occurs before that.

Now why is it that you miseed this, Joseph? You see so many other things, why not this?

Now Luke's version gives us background to help understand the "disgusting thing" tha causes desolation of the "holy ones", meaning the Jews at the time of the Holocaust. It was given as a parallel. Obviously the army surrounding the holy city. Thus the Germans did surround Warsaw, Poland, literally, just as the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem, and just as the armed mob surrounded Jesus in the garden. They are all parallel. This helps us to realize the "disgusting thing" is a pagan army.

The "abomination" is connected with The Mysteries of Babylon and that, in turn, is based on theories about the "master race" which is a disgusting thing in God's eyes, for what is lofty in man's eyes is something disgusting to God.

Luke 16:15 "....because what is lofty among men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

JC

26

Is Iran's President Announcing the Emergence of the Anti-Christ?

by Perry in

his speech to the un today was extremely religious.

he made repeated references to a savior who would soon bring peace.

did anyone else get the heebie-jeebies that listened to his speech?

JCanon

I consider this troubling and potentially significant, because a potential new threat to world peace or the US is emerging on another religious platform, much like gihad seems to energize the "terrorist" movement.

This is ominous because at some point, per the Bible, the UN will destroy the Illuminati and all religion along with it that are considered part of the Illuminati. That is, the world is much closer to banning ALL religion and public expression of religion. In that regard, the WTS is right in the middle of the controversy being claimed by some to be the current headquarters of the Illuminati.

But there seems to be a flip-flop that happens for the Illuminati. It is known they are pushing for a "one world order" by the UN, an organization they are influencing and controlling right now. But at some point the UN will tire of the Illuminati influence and confiscate all its money and ban all religion. It seems logical that if many pseudo-political movements hiding behind religion are really instigated by the Illuminati then there is good cause to ban the religions, not because of freedom of belief in god, but because one cannot distinguish a terrorist organization from a true religious group, since terrorism hides behind religion often. In the meantime, the Illuminati goal includes financing wars and conflicts where most of the big money is. Just today I heard announced that they are trying to approve a new budget for the war effort that went into the BILLIONS of dollars. That's big money for people in the "war industry." So it would be interesting if at some point the "intelligence" behind the war turns out to be the "illuminati". One former Illuminati member even has a video out that actually says that the they were behind "9/11"! So it's not a new idea.

At the very least, it rises anticipation that the "great tribulation" could be right around the corner now, only months away, finally!

JC