Download prophecy04.zip (~500 kb)

To download all the prophecy pages as a zip file, you can right click, using the right hand mouse button instead of the usual left button, and choose 'save link as' or 'save target as' from the pop up menu depending on your browser, and save the file to your disk drive. For the text of a suggested email on this subject, CLICK HERE

      Before I post the feedback, I thought I would say yet a few more words about Matthew's gospel since I have been so angry with that book and tossing out so many barbs. (see September 30th). I suggested previously that a good case could be made that the declaration of 'biblical inerrancy' found in the Sermon on the Mount was a later interpolation. After reflecting on this matter it seems to me that a good case could also be made that the virgin birth narrative was itself a later interpolation. A study of the Jewish Testment reveals a dualistic presentation of King David (both for and against David) for the simple reason that David was a 'half breed' Moabite. (For examples of propaganda employed against David, see the passages describing David as a traitor, or anti Davidic propaganda included in Deuteronomy, or the editing of the story of Balaam among other pages discussing this issue on this site. Now interpolations are usually recognizable in that they introduce bizarre inconsistencies into the manuscript. Someone was offended by a doctrine or a dogma and wanted to somehow nullify the doctrine, and yet sources were always kept intact. Such contradictory inclusions therefore stand out in stark contrast.

      Most people are probably unaware that the Bible is both anti-David and pro-David, this old controversy having died out long ago (and most people are probably unaware that David, and Christ as well, were not 'pure wool Jews', but rather came from mixed Jewish-Moabite ancestors.) Now we see the conflict concerning David frozen in time in the Jewish Testament, and it could very well be the case that the Gospel of Matthew evolved over a period of time in the hands of a certain Jewish community of believers, and is found to contain the same conflicts as the earlier Jewish Testament as a result. For example we are told that Joshua Messiah was the son of David and at the same time in the Matthew manuscript we are told that Joshua was not the son of David. This dualism could be explained if we understand that the introduction of the virgin birth story, intimately connnected with the doctrine that Joshua was not the son of David, could have been a later interpolation and represents either the point of view of those Jewish people who remained who were still against the Davidic monarchy, or was written as an attempt at a polemical response to those who were insisting that Joshua could not be the Messiah because he was 'son of David' and thus under the eternal Moabite curse found in the Torah. This theory would explain the dualistic presentation of Joshua as both son of David and not son of David found in Matthew's gospel. (Originally the virgin birth story was not part of the manuscript and Joshua was simply the son of David. The virgin birth story was created and added later, along with the anti-Davidic polemical material, in response to controversies that developed later. As the result of these later interpolations the manuscript now contains notable inconsistencies and contradictions.)

      As an example of what I mean by noteable contradictions, you can consider Matthew's Gentile Dog parable (Christ refuses to even acknowledge the existence of a Gentile dog, and then once he does finally answer her, he calls her a dog), and then you can consider how in chapter ten he sends out the disciples with instructions to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans. And then there is a verse right at the beginning of chapter 11 where he sets out to preach in towns in Galilee. My position on this matter has always been that the verse in chapter 11 was edited into the manuscript by the church fathers (just as Matthew's Gentile dog parable was edited into Mark's gospel). But this would only be the case if we assume that the anti-Gentile verses were not in fact added later by factions in some Jewish Christian congregation. (This is a complicated manuscript). So what's it going to be. When the verse refers to Christ teaching in a synagogue in Galilee, I assume that this was original Matthew, following Mark, but making the gospel 'for the Jews only' by introducing this concept of Joshua touring Jewish synagogues in Gentile territory. In Mark's Gospel, 'the whole town (of Gentiles) came out to meet him' and in Matthew's gospel, he always heads straight for the synagogues ('to the Jews only'). For example chapter 4, verse 23 reads, "And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness among the people."

      So who was Matthew? Actually I am feeling a little repentant these days that I called Matthew a 'two faced, double minded hypocritical bigot' (but that Gentile dog parable is truly an atrociously disgusting thing, as well as the lack of acknowledgement of Joshua's Moabite roots - to the Jews only, now, really? No Moabites allowed, right?) It seems more likely to me that the book is heavily edited and composed of sources which in every other case accounts for such inconsistencies. So who was Matthew, and what was original to Matthew, and what was an interpolation. One puzzling inconsistency in the manuscript is that Matthew follows Mark in his attack on the clean-unclean and food laws (although the food laws are downplayed in Matthew's edited version). This makes me wonder if Matthew's gospel, in its original form, did not follow Mark more closely than it does now, and that the 'stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans' and 'Gentile dogs' could in fact be the later interpolations by certain factions in a Jewish community. In any case, the manuscript contains inconsistencies, and a person also has to always consider the third and fourth century harmonizing pens of those church fathers, making the analysis of this particular gospel even more complex than it might otherwise be.

      This site received the following feedback.

An Obsolete Doctrine

In the concluding passage to the book of Revelation, three times (Rev 22:7, 12, 20) Jesus promises that he will come "soon" to the seven churches (Rev 22:16). It is obvious that this promise to the now extinct churches was not fulfilled, thereby rendering the doctrine of the Second Coming obsolete.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael

      My position on the Book of Revelations is not settled at this time (normally I see it as a general prophecy of describing a certain aspect of reality - the tyrannical state. But then certain experiences I had correspond to things in the book (it was wrapped in a cloud at Jasper, and then reappeared surrounded by a rainbow, a clear allusion to Revelations chapter 10, and this right after I was praying, so there was my answer. Then there is that '666' which showed up soon after, convincing me that, yes, Virginia, there must be a devil up there as well.) I don't claim to be a prophet of the future, or some kind of fortune teller, but I do know what I experienced then, and since then, and I do know whom I have trusted. As for the rest of this, well I just do my job as I see it, and personally, I am not the most 'apocalyptic' person you are ever likely to meet, because frankly I don't care to get myself tied up knots wondering what happens next, and so on. As for whether or not these allusions to Revelations were simply that, allusions, I don't know the answer to that question either. Having seen how the early church kept getting themselves tied up in knots over the soon coming end of the world, it goes without saying that I am shying away from that sort of prognosticating myself. As for your assertion that 'the second coming is obsolete' which implies that nothing is up there, and that God does not exist and that surely Joshua is dead, well all I can say is that to me, personally, my faith is not based on the Bible, but rather on these personal experiences I relate to people, so the matter is of no consequence to me. The entire book of Revelations could get tossed straight into the dumpster and that won't change the nature of reality as I have come to know it, so to me it is a non-issue. As for the Book of Revelations, I haven't even begun to study the manuscript, being far to busy at this time with other books (it is a big Bible, after all) so I don't have much intelligent to say at this time.

      I received a number of responses including links, which I will also be posting on my links page shortly.

Fascinating.

G'day from Kday

http://www.delphi.com/makanakai/start/


You were added to...

http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/bible-1.html
Bruce


Thank you for visiting my site. I've added the following to Josh's Sanctum:

Title: A Witness to Yahweh
URL: http://www.awitness.org/
Category: Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality

Josh's Sanctum


Thanks for posting your site. I read some of it so far & some is very much the same as mine and my sisters testamony and experiences. It is good to connect with others who have the same kind of experiences. Also: Have you had the chance to go to my web site? There is also a link in it to my sisters site.

http://members.spree.com/technology/ufolight


Someone wrote:

I just want to know if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour. You see, to me, there is safety in the Word of God. I don't fully understand what you are trying to say in your website. Glory should always go to God in anything we do and say. Why are you shouting to be heard about things that are really rather unclear? I am not trying to be harsh or judgemental. I just don't understand what you are saying, yet, you are using God's name. Are you claiming to be a wittness for Him.

      I think that if my message is unclear it is probably because it is unfamiliar. People have become so accustomed to hearing certain things, and only certain things, that nothing else seems to make sense to them. Now as for safety in the Bible, all I can suggest is that there is safety in faith and trust. As for the Bible I can only direct the (courageous) reader to the pages on my site. (Some of that stuff is not safe.)

      This morning I happened to turn on the TV and found out that one of our former Prime Ministers, Pierre Elliot Trudeau had died. Just as I turned on the TV the current Prime Minister of Canada was delivering the eulogy, and I was really moved to hear that he was reading the following passage from the book of Corinthians.

"Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:12