Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?

[Tonyg]

A minority view[who?] identifies Theophilus as a later high priest: Mattathias ben Theophilus who served from 65 to 66. Note that Luke refers to high priest Joseph ben Caiaphas simply as "Caiaphas".[10] Thus, the reasoning goes, Luke used this pattern when addressing Theophilus.

Either Theophilus could have been addressed by luke. If it were the earlier Theophilus then we would assume that he continued to live well beyond his office as high priest was over. If it was the later Theophilus we would have to assume that Luke knew him well before his appointment to office and that the Gospel of Luke in book of Acts for compiled partly possibly under his request but also due to a possible friendship with luke; which friendship could apply to either Theophilus.

 

[Tonyg]

Mark is considered by many to have been an eyewitness, though he was not an Apostle (Mark 14:51)

If this is the only evidence for Mark not being an apostle and if this is supposed to be a reference to mark, it is a pretty weak argument. John talks of himself in the third person so it would not be impossible or even peculiar that others would do the same. Perhaps it was a manner of speaking about oneself without throwing attention to oneself. But it would still not be a proving evidence.

We have detracted quite far away from the opening post but it is a good discussion. I started a thread on redactive criticism in section called other topics.

 

[RCM]

If this is supposed to be a reference to mark, it is a pretty weak argument. John talks of himself in the third person so it would not be impossible or even peculiar that others would do the same. Perhaps it was a manner of speaking about oneself without throwing attention to oneself. But it would still not be a proving evidence.

Tonyg,



Mark 14:51-52 "A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they *seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked."

Many Scholars have often speculated that Mark 14:51-52, is documentation that Mark was indeed a first hand eyewitness to some of what he
wrote of Peter's account.



RCM

 

[Tonyg]

In keeping with the original focus of this thread that HillsboroMom started and the questions that were asked?


That generation has most certainly passed away. (Yes and No, double fulfillment of prophecy)

I'm not in agreement with dual fulfillment idea of the olivette. In the old testament in such places as Isaiah 13 which had a near fulfillment of the medes conquest of Babylon, Jesus uses those words to analogize the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and Israel. But I don't find any scriptural support for a dual fulfillment of Christ words. He was explaining how all those things would occur within that generation. These ideas are supported by Peter and such places as Acts 3 where he says that all prophets from Samuel onwards have spoken of these days. And in Hebrews 9:26 I think it is says that Jesus has appeared once at the end of the world. I personally don't think there's anything future beyond 70 or 135 ad that is implied by Jesus words in the olivet. I just include the 135 ad as a coverall but I don't see anything that Jesus spoke there that would extend to that time period.

Although I staunchly and rigorously affirm the trustworthiness,, truthfulness and accuracy of the Gospels and view jesus's words as God breathed (Hebrews1:1-4) and of the Epistles and revelation; I don't ascribe to the fundamentalist doctrine of verbal primary inspiration. Most if not all times where the scriptures are referred to in the Epistles, and in the gospels obviously, they are speaking of the old testament writings and prophecies such as in second Timothy 3: 16. In the previous verse Paul says that Timothy had the scriptures from a child. Even if Timothy was only 20 and Paul was writing this in 60 AD there may have been perhaps one gospel or collection of Jesus is sayings Ford Timothy to have. But the old testament prophecies testified of Jesus and about him and about the New covenant including its elements so that one who studies them can get a general idea that along with a minimal knowledge of jesus's claims would or could come to faith in Christ and become a Christian

Likewise in first Peter the appeal is again to the old testament scriptures not to the news testament writings. In 2nd Peter chapter 1 there is an appeal to the more sure word of prophecy. In that particular instance Peter is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 18 verses 15 through 19 and he is confirming that they themselves were among the persons to hear the voice from heaven that was prophesied in Deuteronomy 18 when they were on the Mount of transfiguration. So again he is referring to the old testament as scriptures and as God breathed.

The attempt to include the Epistles and the gospels as God breathed and this prophetic utterances that are only semi-understood by the utterer is taken from a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:16. In that section some theologians and persons claim that Peter is equating the scriptures and the Epistles therefore giving prophetic genre to the Epistles as they compare 2nd Peter 3 with 1st Peter 1 and 2nd Timothy 3. But breaking down 2nd Peter 3 and being objective about the question, one can understand that Peter is equating the manner in which unstable and unlearned men twist and misinterpret both the old testament prophecies and Paul's Epistles. If Peter's intent was to equate all the Epistles with old testament scriptures, holy writings, he would have worded it differently ... Such as in the same manner as they do Paul's "graphs".

So I personally and I know of others who hold the gospels and the Epistles in highest regard of authenticity, accuracy and reliability ((especially if speaking) but do not ascribe the same level of inspiration to them as what is ascribed and described of the old testament prophets and writings. To refer to the Epistles as God breathed in the same way that the old testament prophecies and writings were takes the Epistles out of the genre of letters of explanation and puts them in the genre of prophecy.

 

[Tonyg]

Tonyg,



Mark 14:51-52 "A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they *seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked."

Many Scholars have often speculated that Mark 14:51-52, is documentation that Mark was indeed a first hand eyewitness to some of what he
wrote of Peter's account.
RCM

Yes I agree and I can see the speculation and the contemplation and even hypothesis that this man who was following Jesus and being an eyewitness could have been mark, the author of The Gospel of mark.. But as you noted it's a speculation and not a proof. That doesn't mean I disregard marks gospel as having high authority. But I base that more on the reasonable faith that a God that has enabled us with the capacity to have written word and written communication would also secure writings about himself during his incarnation and visitation. I guess my evidenece could be considered weaker than the scholarly speculation. LOL

 

[RCM]

You objected to this statement that I made: "biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous that there is a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke." That assertion was and remains an accurate one... and of course direct literary relationship means some sort of literary dependence of one or more of the aforementioned gospels on one or more of the others. The precise configuration is a matter of debate, not that there is one.

En Hakkore,

I still object to your assertion here,

Let me explain using the analogy of the 1982 NFC Championship football game between the 49'ers and the cowboys and Dwight Clark's
catch at the end of the game to win it.

Everyone talked about that 'Catch' for months across the country, and the pictures and replays were never ending for quite some time.

Dwight Clark's account of the event was not dependent upon anyone else because he was a first hand eyewitness and a participant

Joe Montana's account of the event was not dependent upon anyone else because he was a first hand eyewitness and a participant

A sports reporter would have interviewed both Joe and Dwight and written an account of the event

Several accounts all literary similar, yet only one has any dependence upon someone else's account

Many years later, because 'The Catch' was still a subject of much discussion, a documentary was made which showed that several of
the cowboy players disputed the idea that Bill Walsh had called for the play, rather they implied that Joe Montana was really just
throwing the ball away, and Dwight Clark just happened to make a lucky catch.

The cowboys implied that it was just an accidental event that grew into a legend



The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not require any literary dependence because they were first hand eyewitnesses and participants

Luke states his account is dependent upon other's accounts



What is blatantly obvious, is that many liberal scholars cannot deal with the supernatural workings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the
inspired origin of the Gospels, so they have to fabricate a theory (with no evidence) that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all dependent upon
some unknown literary document or documents in order to discredit the Inspired Authority of the Biblical Gospels.



RCM

 

[RCM]

I'm not in agreement with dual fulfillment idea of the olivette. In the old testament in such places as Isaiah 13 which had a near fulfillment of the medes conquest of Babylon, Jesus uses those words to analogize the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and Israel. But I don't find any scriptural support for a dual fulfillment of Christ words. He was explaining how all those things would occur within that generation.

Tonyg,

Near and far fulfillment of prophecy is common in the Old Testament

Several examples of double fulfillment can be analyzed in Matthew, where Matthew quotes and OT prophecy that was fulfilled in the OT but
was again fulfilled in Jesus Christ, (Matthew 2:15 referred first to Israel and second to Jesus Christ)

An example of OT prophecy that has been fulfilled first and is yet to be fulfilled for the second reference is in Daniel 11, regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, and most probably the second fulfillment will be the Antichrist.

So, in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, some of that was fulfilled in 70 A.D. but a lot hasn't been fulfilled yet, for example, Mark 13:24-27 has yet to be fulfilled

Mark 13:24-27 "But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN will be darkened AND THE MOON will not give its light, AND THE STARS will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. "Then they will see THE SON of MAN COMING in clouds with great power and glory (Acts 1:9-11). "And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven."

Then Jesus said, Mark 13:28-31 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."


So, you are left with a choice, either Mark (Peter) and Jesus were wrong, or you have prophetic events yet to be fulfilled

Many people look at the budding of the 'Fig Tree' as the rebirth of Israel in 1947-1948 which is a fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8 and Ezekiel 37



RCM

 

[RCM]

Although I staunchly and rigorously affirm the trustworthiness,, truthfulness and accuracy of the Gospels and view jesus's words as God breathed (Hebrews1:1-4) and of the Epistles and revelation; I don't ascribe to the fundamentalist doctrine of verbal primary inspiration. Most if not all times where the scriptures are referred to in the Epistles, and in the gospels obviously, they are speaking of the old testament writings and prophecies such as in second Timothy 3: 16. In the previous verse Paul says that Timothy had the scriptures from a child. Even if Timothy was only 20 and Paul was writing this in 60 AD there may have been perhaps one gospel or collection of Jesus is sayings Ford Timothy to have. But the old testament prophecies testified of Jesus and about him and about the New covenant including its elements so that one who studies them can get a general idea that along with a minimal knowledge of jesus's claims would or could come to faith in Christ and become a Christian

Tonyg,

I am not sure what you are saying in the rest of your post, which I only quoted a portion of here,

Are you saying the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures are God's inspired truth without error, or not?


RCM

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Jesus predicted the end times.

He describes great tribulation. Nation divided against nation. Wars, natural disasters, famine. He predicted that his followers would be persecuted, and that false messiahs would arise.

And then he says, and I quote:

Mark 13:30, if you want to look it up.

That was about 2,000 years ago.

That generation has most certainly passed away.

So, was Jesus wrong?

Or are we?

Did Jesus make a mistake? A miscalculation error?

Or did Mark just get the quote wrong?

Or perhaps Jesus DID come back, and we missed it?

He was speaking of the generation that would see all of the signs having been fulfilled that he mention, and that would include some of them as recorded in history like Jerusalem and the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 and then others at the end of the age.

One of the signs was "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to all nations and then shall the end come" and that hadn't happen back then and we are getting close now nevertheless.

So it was the generation that would see all of the signs having come to pass and actually Matthew I believe says this right before Jesus made that statement also.

Here is the passage from Matthew 24.

Matthew 24:33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Do you see it now? For he said when you see all of these things, you know that it is near, right at the door and only after this he says that the generation that sees that it has all happened through history and up unto the end of the age will not pass away until what he says in verses 29-31 takes place.

 

[Tonyg]

Tonyg,

Near and far fulfillment of prophecy is common in the Old Testament

Several examples of double fulfillment can be analyzed in Matthew, where Matthew quotes and OT prophecy that was fulfilled in the OT but
was again fulfilled in Jesus Christ, (Matthew 2:15 referred first to Israel and second to Jesus Christ)

An example of OT prophecy that has been fulfilled first and is yet to be fulfilled for the second reference is in Daniel 11, regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, and most probably the second fulfillment will be the Antichrist.

So, in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, some of that was fulfilled in 70 A.D. but a lot hasn't been fulfilled yet, for example, Mark 13:24-27 has yet to be fulfilled

Mark 13:24-27 "But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN will be darkened AND THE MOON will not give its light, AND THE STARS will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. "Then they will see THE SON of MAN COMING in clouds with great power and glory (Acts 1:9-11). "And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven."

Then Jesus said, Mark 13:28-31 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."


So, you are left with a choice, either Mark (Peter) and Jesus were wrong, or you have prophetic events yet to be fulfilled

Many people look at the budding of the 'Fig Tree' as the rebirth of Israel in 1947-1948 which is a fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8 and Ezekiel 37



RCM

No I don't have the choice. you have the choice of deciding whether all those things including the signs and the sun moon and stars or fulfilled in the first century or not. That's the point of the opening passage. To say that something isn't fulfilled just because you don't understand how it might have been fulfilled isn't taking Jesus at his word saying that all these things would occur in that generation.

And yes some people do appoint the fig tree as representation of The rebirth of Israel. but Jesus was simply using that as an example to say that when you see a tree pushing its leaves then you know that summer is near so when they saw those signs they knew that Jerusalem's desolation was near.

No I don't hold to dual fulfillment.

There are other ways to satisfy the requirements of the statements by Jesus and understand their fulfillment in the first century.

 

[Tonyg]

One of the signs was "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to all nations and then shall the end come" and that hadn't happen back then and w

Yes it was fulfilled. Paul and I think Peter also declared a few times about how the gospel had gone into the ends of the world. I believe it's Romans 9 or 10 he asked did they not know and the answer is yes the gospel has gone to the ends of the oikomane. Same word that Jesus used when he said this gospel shall be preached to all the world all the oycoming and then the end shall come.

 

[Tonyg]

Tonyg,

I am not sure what you are saying in the rest of your post, which I only quoted a portion of here,

Are you saying the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures are God's inspired truth without error, or not?


RCM

You may try to prove to me how the New testament is God breathed. All I'm saying is that the foundation for the doctrine that we refer to as verbal plenary inspiration is wrong.

I don't know what was so difficult to follow in the previous post. I thought I explained it out pretty well. again I'm not saying that the New testament is unreliable or wasn't overseen by God to be written. In fact I favor and believe that it was overseeing and directed by God to be written and recorded.

But Peter and 1st Peter 1:20 and 21 and Hall in 2nd Timothy 3:16 are referring to old testament prophecies. They are saying that the old testament prophets did not understand what they were prophesying, but the holy Spirit was directing them and breathing/speaking through them.

and although I believe that the holy Spirit guided and illumined the minds of the apostolic authors they are not God breathe in the same manner that the old testament prophets were.

Paul knew and understood precisely and exactly what he was writing as he explained OT prophecies and their first century application to his readers.

And again the very important part of this is that if the New testament crystals are not prophetic genre then they are of the literary genre of epistole and are explanatory to their first century audiences, not prophecies to a future audience.

Very simply, you can study the crucial and pivotal part of the problem. when reading second Peter chapter 3 special versus 15 through 17 ask yourself what Peter is saying. What is his intent, what is his purpose and what is he saying? Is it his intent too equate Paul's letters equal to old testament graphe or scriptures?

Or is Peters intent in including pauls letters with other scriptures to equate how the unstable and unlearned men twist the parts of Paul letters which talk about ther coming destruction in the same way they twist and misunderstand the old testament prophecies which spoke of the same thing.?

The comparison is how the men twisted and misunderstood both of those parts of literature.

I try not to fall into Spanish Inquisition type of questions. Such as just posed above.

I had tried to link an article into the last response, to better explain the false foundation of the doctrine of VPI and it's effects on hermeneutics. I will try again but the software might remove points to google drive articles. If the form doesn't accept it maybe I can PM you with it thanks

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Yes it was fulfilled. Paul and I think Peter also declared a few times about how the gospel had gone into the ends of the world. I believe it's Romans 9 or 10 he asked did they not know and the answer is yes the gospel has gone to the ends of the oikomane. Same word that Jesus used when he said this gospel shall be preached to all the world all the oycoming and then the end shall come.

I know all about those passages but all that was meant by this is that the gospel had gone out into all the world that they had knowledge of at that time and it is not what Jesus is saying in Matthew 24 at all.

For what would the gospel have to be preached to all the Gentile world for if only Jerusalem and the Temple was to be punished and not the Gentile nations also?

It is obvious that Jesus is speaking of the world that he knew of and not what the disciples only knew about and that is because the reason why it was important for the gospel to be preached to all nations, was because God is not willing that any should perish without them first hearing the gospel message and making a decision to either believe it or reject it first.

Therefore it had nothing to do with Jerusalem and the Temple being destroyed in AD 70 because that was Jewish and the nations were Gentiles, so Jesus is speaking of the judgment at the end of the age in this passage and not only the immediate judgment on that generation of Jews who rejected him like you are being falsely led to believe about it.

 

[Tonyg]

the reason why it was important for the gospel to be preached to all nations, was because God is not willing that any should perish without them first hearing the gospel message and making a decision to either believe it or reject it first.

In order to satisfy that understanding, the gospel would have had to go out into all the world as Jesus knew it meaning the entire globe in that generation before any of those would have died. No the reason that the gospel was to go out to all the world was so that it was a testimony for or against them.. When they would see the desolation of Jerusalem it would help verify that Jesus was who he said he was and that the way of the mosaic covt and the sacrifice had ended.

Paul mentioned in Romans 1 how the barbarians and so forth are without excuse because the creation testifies about the Creator and about Grace, God's love in his creation and for his creation. It testifies about the life cycles. So they are without excuse. In fact he says some without the law did the law by nature no in other words they satisfied the spirit of the law of faith in the creator.

The gospel that needs to go out to the world today is good news not bad news of being sinners and an end of the world.

 

[Tonyg]

RCM, over in the preterist section several sections down below this eschatology form {comma} I put a link to an article titled the faulty foundations of the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and its effects on hermeneutics.

I guess I'll try to put it here too but for some reason it was either removed or I was too late at editing it the time that I linked to it here before.

The Faulty.txt

drive.google.com

 

[Tonyg]

Deleted

 

[Yahweh will increase]

In order to satisfy that understanding, the gospel would have had to go out into all the world as Jesus knew it meaning the entire globe in that generation before any of those would have died. No the reason that the gospel was to go out to all the world was so that it was a testimony for or against them.. When they would see the desolation of Jerusalem it would help verify that Jesus was who he said he was and that the way of the mosaic covt and the sacrifice had ended.

Paul mentioned in Romans 1 how the barbarians and so forth are without excuse because the creation testifies about the Creator and about Grace, God's love in his creation and for his creation. It testifies about the life cycles. So they are without excuse. In fact he says some without the law did the law by nature no in other words they satisfied the spirit of the law of faith in the creator.

The gospel that needs to go out to the world today is good news not bad news of being sinners and an end of the world.

No it wouldn't have, for Jesus said "when you shall see all of these things, you know it is near even at the door, and then he said, "this generation shall not pass away until all of these are fulfilled", so he was speaking of the generation that saw all of these things having happened and right up until the end of the age.

This is also the only interpretation that makes sense with the gospel message needing to be preached not to the Jews but to all nations, for the reason would have to be so that they at least heard the truth and had a choice to receive it or reject it before the end of the age and his judgment would come.

The gospel message is the good new, and that good news is that God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosever believed in him would not perish in the soon coming judgments of God but have everlasting life instead.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

In order to satisfy that understanding, the gospel would have had to go out into all the world as Jesus knew it meaning the entire globe in that generation before any of those would have died. No the reason that the gospel was to go out to all the world was so that it was a testimony for or against them.. When they would see the desolation of Jerusalem it would help verify that Jesus was who he said he was and that the way of the mosaic covt and the sacrifice had ended.

Paul mentioned in Romans 1 how the barbarians and so forth are without excuse because the creation testifies about the Creator and about Grace, God's love in his creation and for his creation. It testifies about the life cycles. So they are without excuse. In fact he says some without the law did the law by nature no in other words they satisfied the spirit of the law of faith in the creator.

The gospel that needs to go out to the world today is good news not bad news of being sinners and an end of the world.

The creation however doesn't testify about Jesus and the gospel message and Jesus said that this gospel of the kingdom would be preached to all nations and then shall the end come but you believe what you want, for it make no difference to me one way or another, just as long as I know what the truth is myself.

 

[Tonyg]

The creation however doesn't testify about Jesus and the gospel message and Jesus said that this gospel of the kingdom would be preached to all nations and then shall the end come but you believe what you want, for it make no difference to me one way or another, just as long as I know what the truth is myself.

The creation testifies of it's goodness.
The individual human testifies of the image of the creator. The human or other bodies work. They do what they're intended. There is a goodness and an obvious design about them.
It's a natural response when considering life and it's goodness too ask about how we might best glorify and emulate the life maker.

A fear of death and a resistance against death is a natural instinct of humans and animals. Who knows maybe plants to cry out? This fact and fear of death is a impetus to ask why and about a continuation of life.

It is primarily the institutional Christianity and other religions doctrine of original sin leading unto biological death which instills a fear of God even from the garden. Is it it is a rational and reasonable expectation that a god of love would enter into his creation to remedy that fear of himself which he himself allowed by the situation of the law of sin and death in the garden.


But a unendoctrinated natural man can also theorize that a Creator who testifies of his goodness would be constant in that testimony and would recognize that the fears and suspicions and questions about life are part of that life which he instilled his image within. It's quite a logical and reasonable deduction to expect or to consider that the creator of the Divine Glory which is humanity would enter into that creation to verify that divinity and answers questions about it.

That hypothesis will lead the inquiring person to jesus.

That is one reason why Wiseman and others were drawn to persons like Abraham and the testimony of the miracles performed through the prophets and among the people. It drew them to the hope of the proto evangelion, Shiloh, Messiah, Emmanuel etc

 

[Yahweh will increase]

The creation testifies of it's goodness.
The individual human testifies of the image of the creator. The human or other bodies work. They do what they're intended. There is a goodness and an obvious design about them.
It's a natural response when considering life and it's goodness too ask about how we might best glorify and emulate the life maker.

A fear of death and a resistance against death is a natural instinct of humans and animals. Who knows maybe plants to cry out? This fact and fear of death is a impetus to ask why and about a continuation of life.

It is primarily the institutional Christianity and other religions doctrine of original sin leading unto biological death which instills a fear of God even from the garden. Is it it is a rational and reasonable expectation that a god of love would enter into his creation to remedy that fear of himself which he himself allowed by the situation of the law of sin and death in the garden.


But a unendoctrinated natural man can also theorize that a Creator who testifies of his goodness would be constant in that testimony and would recognize that the fears and suspicions and questions about life are part of that life which he instilled his image within. It's quite a logical and reasonable deduction to expect or to consider that the creator of the Divine Glory which is humanity would enter into that creation to verify that divinity and answers questions about it.

That hypothesis will lead the inquiring person to jesus.

That is one reason why Wiseman and others were drawn to persons like Abraham and the testimony of the miracles performed through the prophets and among the people. It drew them to the hope of the proto evangelion, Shiloh, Messiah, Emmanuel etc

It sounds to me that you are going to do exactly what everyone does when they approach the scriptures for the truth, you are going to let your own human reasoning and carnal intellect discern what they are saying rather than the Holy Spirit.

I believe it will be for this very purpose that the hardness of men's hearts will become so great, that they will no longer be able to respond to the truth by the discernment of the Holy Spirit and just like Jesus was giving prophecy of when he said the below words.

"I must work while it is yet day, for the night is coming when no man will be able to work".

He was obviously speaking of the day when the many different tongues of false doctrines coming from the false clergy of Mystery Babylon the Harlot church that it would be so prevalent on the earth by human reasoning, that the darkness of confusion because of it would cause that those who really know the truth will not be able to minister it to anyone because they will no longer listen.

This is what is going to bring the judgment of God upon the world and the evidence of this is when the churches go out in great numbers to vote for an arrogant sociopath autocratic dictator type like Donald J. Trump, to me this was a big sign that we are closer than ever to the judgment of God.