When I first read, in "No Longer Children", some of your backwards interpretations of MO Letters, I was blown away to see what was right under our noses all the time.

I agree with your assessment of what was in the disciples' mind when they were asking about the end. No interpretation I've found really takes account all of the possible twists of near future (to them) and distant future.

You're right that the Old Covenant ended with Jesus on the cross, not in 70 A.D. I believe that Jesus' dying prayer, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do", was the reason God extended a 40 period of mercy and allowed the Jewish system to remain somewhat intact, until it was time to do away with all vestiges of it as a viable, true form of worship. By that time, thousands of Jews had become Christians, and were saved from the destruction that came under Titus.

(Woodie did a study on Kaballah a few months ago, so we're somewhat informed as to what that is all about. It could be the ultimate "how-to" for cult leadership!).

> The way I look at the 'backwards/coded"
> message in the Mo letters is mostly in the
> negative.It t reveals how anti-christ the
> Family is.I don't see anything positive
> about it other than if Family members see
> it, it may freak them out enough to leave.I
> started teaching some of this stuff to
> Family members in the Philippines and was
> really opening their eyes. Along with basic
> Bible classes Ed and I finally got everyone
> to start renouncing many false beliefs of
> the Family and we were working towards
> getting them to renounce the ol boy himself
> when the Family had us arrested.The Family
> is not for Revolution.-Ha!

> I think the apostles question can be brokien
> down into 3- parts, even though they may not
> have meant it that way. They asked
> questions,kind of like Caipahas the High
> Priest made the statement about 'it is good
> that one man should die for the nation' As
> John said "This spake he/they not of
> themselves"

> 1.-"When shall all THESE THINGS
> be"
> 2.-"What shall be the sign of thy
> COMING"
> 3.-"And (The sign) of THE END of the
> WORLD/AGE"

> 1.'THESE THINGS" is easy, It refers to
> the DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE in 70A.D.
> 2."THY COMING" This is more
> difficult. OK, First off,the disciples
> didn't even know Jesus was going to
> die!"They knew not about his rising
> from the dead"(Jn 20:9) They thought
> the Kingdom would "IMMEDIATELY
> APPEAR"!(See Lk 19:11)
> They thought "It had been he which
> should have redeemed Israel"(Lk 24:11)

> What they wanted from Jesus was a signal or
> sign from him so they could know when to
> rise up and throw off the yoke of Gentile
> domination. They were asking about his
> "COMING" OR "parousia".
> This is simply a term used to describe a
> persons"ARRIVAL" on the scene.
> They wre not thinking about his 2nd coming
> and anti-christ armies and white horses and
> atomic bombs. All they were thinking about
> was; when would Jesus show all these
> scribess and pharisees and Romans who was
> really boss and END this "AGE of
> Gentile WORLD domination"

> These Apostles hardly had any clue as to
> even what they were asking Jesus. I think
> his answer probably just dumbfounded them
> and confused them even further.The Apostles
> weren't thinking about the "2nd
> Coming" when they aked the question.

> "Thy Coming" just means to
> "personally show up". Its used of
> Stephanas 'coming' in one place and Titus
> 'coming' in another. It has no special
> significance as a term in itself. They were
> saying something like "We know you're
> who you are Jesus, but when are you gonna
> really reveal all your power to these
> bastards so we can take over and run things
> right?"

> But we needed the question so Jesus could
> answer it so we could know when "His
> Coming" and "the end of the
> World/Age" would be. I don't see the
> 'age of the Gentiles" or the "Old
> Testament Dispensation" ending in 70
> A.D.

> I believe when Jesus said "It is
> finished" on the cross, that refers to
> the New Covenant which he was sealing with
> his own blood on the cross. That also
> fulfilled the Old Covenant and for
> Christians it is done away with. That's why
> the veil of the temple was rent. It
> signified Jesus entering the true 'Holy of
> Holies" as High Priest with his own
> blood. As far as God was concerned all the
> O.T. rigamarole of little flannelgraph,
> object lesson, types n' shadows was over.If
> Jesus had stayed dead we would have had
> forgiveness of sins by his substitutionary
> death but that's all. He was raised from the
> dead as our substitue also to give us new
> life. That's why "It is finished"
> was also a declaration of faith--faith that
> he would be raised from the dead.
> "Declaring those things which be not as
> though they were"

> I don't think there was any
> "overlap" in the mind of God
> between the end of the old Covenant and the
> beginning of the New. There was an overlap
> in the mind of James and 'Thousands of Jews
> which believe who are all zealous of the
> Law" but not in God's mind or Pauls
> either, except he compromised.

> That's why God had to finally get rid of all
> the object lessons in 70 A.D. But he didn't
> get rid of the Pharisees! They're still here
> and they are over in Isral right now. They
> are busy about their Father the Devils
> business, and are tying to usher in their
> Anti-Christ messiah, Jesus told the
> Pharisees "if another will come in his
> own name, him ye will receive"

> In "The Pharisees--The Sociological
> Background of
> Their Faith," Rabbi Louis Finkelstein
> describes present day Judaism and its
> origins:

> "PHARISAIISM became Talmudism,
> Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and
> Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism.
> But throughout these changes in name...the
> spirit of the ancient
> PHARISEE survives UNALTERED. When the Jew
> studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating
> the arguments used in the Palestinian
> academies..." "...rabbinic
> JUDAISM, the first-born CHILD OF PHARISAISM,
> remains a unit until this day."
> (p.XXI of Forward to 1st Edition,"The
> Pharisees," Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The
> Jewish Publication Society of America,1938
> & Vol. 2, p. 622)

> So when you think of Israel think of Matthew
> 23 and Jesus' rage and rebuke against the
> Pharisees.
> .
> The Talmud is a product of the Jews long
> sojourn in Babylon and is, in fact, called
> :"The Babylonian Talmud"--I have
> read large portions of it. I believe it is
> described in Zechariah chpt 5. He calls it
> 'a roll" or book which will be
> "the curse that goeth forth over the
> face of the whole earth"5:3 It is
> manifested in the opressive "balances
> of deceit"or their religious rules that
> they took and "built a house for in the
> land of Shinar"or Babylon.vs11 That was
> where the Talmud and the Kaballa were
> codified and written down. They are vile
> occultic books. The people who go by those
> books are the same people that control all
> the fiat money in the world. They are the
> same ones that started communism and Zionism
> and are leading the World into another World
> War so they can finally achieve their
> "New World Order" They are the
> "robbers of my people who exalt
> themselves to fulfill the vision" In my
> opinion.