Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 08, 1999 at 22:51:05 {Nq8EnQ8RVAMRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: *****? FOR FAITHFULJW posted by Amazing on November 08, 1999 at 16:25:02:
Hello Amazing,
Thanks for your thoughts. But Jesus can do everything you said in the imperfect flesh and just because he is in the imperfect flesh doesn't mean he isn't installed gloriously in the heavens, in a symbolic sense.
But you make my point. You must treat the parable of the "prodigal son" as NON-PROPHETIC in order to reduce it to just a simple parable. That is an exegetical judgment, but no different than presuming it is prophetic in which case it is clear who the prodigal son is in the parable.
But that's okay because it was meant to be subtle and to work as a general moralistic parable. Because during the 45 years to fulfill the time from the 1290 days to 1335 days after the "great tribulation" Matthew says there would be a darkening of the sun and moon. Thus understanding the nature of the Messiah's return is something few would understand, in fact, only the "eagles" would be gathered around the "corpse" of the Messiah.
But then you have to do the same thing with the parable of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" whom I also could apply to Jesus Christ. Lazarus ends up in the bossom position of Abraham after having been outside the gate of the Rich Man for most of his life.
When this is applied to Jesus' imperfect second coming, Jesus is Lazarus out the gate of Jehovah's organization. In this case, the Rich Man is the Governing Body who is in charge of dispensing spiritual food. Lazarus clearly is spiritually sick and destitute. But even so, he loves spiritual food.
But then there is a drastic change of events. Suddenly Lazarus is in the bossom position of Abraham, a position ascribed to Jesus Christ himself. Clearly Abraham represents Jehovah. John calls Jesus the "only-begotten god in the bossom position with the Father." So no problem connecting this reference to Jesus. But it is hard to imagine him in a spiritually destitute state during his first coming or his glorious second coming, except post Lazarus' and the Rich Man's death. At which time we see Lazarus is enjoying being in the bossom position of the Father.
It's hard not to see this parable as prophetic. But who would Lazarus be? His sores are also licked by dogs. What does that mean?
And, of course, you have to do the same thing with Zechariah 3 which speaks of Joshua's befouled garments. The befouled garments have to be dismissed as symbolic of Jesus Christ in any way since he is sinless.
So my main point was that even though you can supress scripture after scripture, if you include the entire application or make all the parables prophetic, they are very accommodating to the imperfect Messiah's second coming.
Now here is the clencher. "Interpretation belongs to God..." and you have every right not to make the prodigal son parable or the Lazarus parable prophetic of Jesus, nor consider the befouled garments as specifically representative of Jesus' sins. But... the "eagle" class anointed ones did interpret it that way. They did understand the parable of the prodigal son to be prophetic as well as other scriptures.
They also understood they needed to dismiss secular history from the Persian Period and date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE to fulfill the "70 weeks" prophecy. This was done by Anstey in the early 1900s. So they would have expected the Messiah to arrive in the flesh and as an imperfect man around 1992. They would have been waiting for this manifestation. They would have been looking for the fulfillment of this. And since they were correct, when the Messiah was manifested, they saw the "sign of the Son of Man" in the heavens to confirm the choosing of the Messiah. So their faith and correct interpretation were rewarded.
So as I said, it is a bit moot AFTER-THE-FACT at this point.
But at least you admit you must make the prodigal son parable NON-PROPHETIC in order to deny Jesus as coming in the imperfect flesh. That's because there is no other alternative if this parable or the Lazarus parable are understood to be specifically prophetic of the Messiah.
Thanks for considering the arguments and the verses. And I understand why you might find it difficult to accept this view. But be comforted in knowing that Jehovah always knew this and thus he knew some could not accept this rather avant guard truth. This truth was like a new patch on an old garment or new wine put into old wineskins. Thus the new truth he reserved for brand new wineskins. And the advanced truth was reserved for those within the banquet. But the older brother class "refused to go in" and thus could not attain to the new truths. Yet were not rejected.
So some people will be able to accept this and some will simply not be able to. They will "refuse to go in". But they will not be rejected. Thus the Messiah and those gathered unto him are not worried about convincing anyone not "called" to the banquet. They understand how disturbing this is for many, especially those expecting a more "glorious" or more heavenly arrival. But the reality will be revealed to all in time.
Also of note, in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Rich Man requests Lazarus to appear to this five brothers, but Lazarus is not allowed to, nor to give a single drop of water to cool the tongue of the Rich Man now in torment. In fact a chasm separates the two groups. So, again, because of the difficulty of this understanding, no extenuating effort is put forth to prove anything or to convince anybody beyond the basic "Moses and the prophets", that is, God's Word. As Abraham said: "If they don't accept Moses and the Prophets, neither will be believe someone from the dead."
Take care,
Cheers,
Bibleman