comes the foreshadowing as ‘the triumphal entry’: our Date [+birthright/appointed time !] [restored buildup and text] [version ; 2023-03mar.31] |
[second attempt of first , restored context : 100%
reduced to 10% text
hoping it’s readable now ,
the [sic] will show you the main points
the ‘triumphal entry’ right after ‘Lazarus’
… in this case , the only right thing to do is spare you and start with the conclusion instead ;
before you read please remember two things —
that Esau fanatically cut & pasted the themes , and that his present corrupted text in KJV is
a form of Sorcery [-to the mind] : so please look with us cautiously to every word and theme
Lazarus (or ‘the valley of bones’)
we did that (see index) so there is no reason to repeat that here , right ,
important is that now it shows that this immediately preceded the Entry and because
we always need the context of events , the Entry therefore *must* foreshadow His return ;
just Esau remóved every context , turning both Lazarus and the Entry into events ‘an Sich’
the Entry
okay – please forget any romantic idea about “some royal entry into Jerusalem”
because there never was any ‘donkey’ ,
the picture that ‘the population of Jerusalem cheered their new king’ is not true ,
those are all based upon Esau’s presentation — creating a false image in the mind :
but don’t worry : the real event is much more impressive , and you’ll appreciate it
[concerning the four gospels :]
… if you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphal_entry_into_Jerusalem
you will see the text overview of all four gospels side-by-side : but in reálity the mess
that we face is even larger which will become clear in the next conclusion section ,
where we will use the latter to restore the entire text by ;
having said that , we’ll keep calling it “the entry” for now as not to complicate things ,
but please remember that in fact it was “a double event”
restored buildup (-of the double event)
a) Lazarus :
symbology
… the point is that He showed his disciples “the sons Ishral” being revived in the time of the end ,
but “they would still have to do their job” so to speak , just Like Lazarus was still ‘in the flesh’ ;
important to remember is that He always explained his disciples about the future – so they KNEW ,
and were not the somewhat ignorant farmers as Esau has portrayed them ,
location :
likely in ‘Bethany’ , a settlement upon the rather large “hill of olives” which stretched out beyond
the walls of Jerusalem , so that in fact Bethany was what we now call ‘a suburb’ ,
and this will help you better interlink both events
b) the Entry :
symbology
… Christ departs from Bethany and starts to descend the olive hill , together with his disciples ,
starting to explain to them what will happen next — when they will reach Jerusalem ,
saying ‘how the sons (you + we) will question whý the people received Him like that’ :
because they will have understood the scroll [-by then] and KNOW about “the three years”
but “the 144 will fail to understand why He did not return” , [sic]
and that thérefore they will investigate “what was going on with that entry” —
you see how He already knew that we would do that ….
no donkey
… immediately Esau’s corruption of the above becomes clear : it was never about
“the disciples + will find + a tied + donkey” , but
“the sons + discovered + the corrupted + scroll” !!
continuing ,
“the man + ask + why + loose him” , was ofcourse
“the sons + ask + why + we still wait” : etcetera — it all only shows Esau’s fanatical hate
the prophecy
… whenever NT refers to ‘prophets’ it is always a huge Red Flag to us ofcourse :
and indeed this so-called prophetic “entrance upon a donkey” is utter Nonsense in itself :
yet all the gullible concordances also ‘spiritualize’ this by equating this purported donkey with
the “the heifer of 3 years old that had not been yoked (used for work)” of the old-Tabernacle ,
completely missing the point who then was the real Heifer ;
then the mentioned prophecy herself ,
the Zech.9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,
thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass,
and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” is so incredibly corrupt that the eyes hurt reading it —
the only trúe section of that KJV line is “rejoice , daughter of tsiun” [=Eden] ,
while Esau copied that exact entire line into Zephaniah 3:14 :
but we know that all of Zephaniah is about “the birth right being restored to Eden” which’ loss
has been the first and greatest disaster to her , resulting in the gigantic Mess ever since
prophecy (-restoration) [sic]
it’s true , we haven’t got to that line yet – we can only do so much at a time , right –
because after ‘the four horses’ Zechariah became so corrupted it was hopeless
(and at that time we did not know that the 6th seal would open by birthright ) :
however , first part of that line can only be ‘birth-right’ (-bKre) and not ‘king’ (-mlK) ,
reading “rejoice , daughter of tsiun (‘eden’) [……..]
because your king=birthright (mlK=bKre) will come to you […….]
colt=brought by the foal=sons (ben=ben , same !) of ass=Ishral (athnuth=ishral)“ —
see where Esau got the ‘donkey theme’ from in regard to us ?
and in this Entry text :
… now all starts coming together : the sons (‘144’) ask + birthright prophecy + the entry , [sic]
where the entry “into the city” represents “this world” just as it does everywhere in prophets :
and this is the absolute core we can work with now
b #1) further supportive aspects IN this text :
Pharisees
… this is similar Red flag for us as ‘prophecies’
since we saw that the Pharisees were but concerned with 1 thing : how to stop His return ;
we have not figured out exactly ‘what’ they said – due to corruption – but interesting is :
the appointed time
… in the Luke version Christ “weeps about Jerusalem” , saying something like ,
“but if you only had known the appointed time” (as ‘time of visitation’) :
we’re not 100% sure yet whether this section indeed belonged to the Entry but there is a high
chance that it DID because of context : because the Entry IS ‘the appointed time’ ! [sic]
ofcourse it is not about “the Roman army destroying the city” because in all prophets the
phrase ‘appointed time’ is only about His return — and evenmore so if it was said as ANSWER
to (whatever-) the Pharisees objected to … you see ?
‘no one knows that day’ VS ‘if you only knew that day’ : so — which one is it ?
… therefore we have an interesting question here :
IF He [supposedly !-] said “no one knows that day but my Father” , then how can he say the
exact opposite here by “if you had only known that day”…. ? – obviously they could have !
that said , it is difficult to restore what réason He gave :
(Lk.19:42) “Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong]
unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” — now suppose that ‘peace’ was original ,
this would match prophets where Jacob will say “peace ! : but there will-be-no peace” ,
read : they expect to get rescued before the Tribulation but will not ;
hence 42 can have read “if you only had known the scroll you would not have said : peace !”
the waiting people
… also this appears genuine , (Jn.12:17) “The people therefore that was with him when he called
Lazarus out of his grave and raised him from the dead, bare record.” ,
and the whole point is that they had understóod what it was about : they was not some ignorant
population which later cried “crucify him” as Esau tried to project unto us (as he did with the disciples) ,
but they (Lk.19:37b) “…began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that
they=He had=would seen=do” : again : “… they praised the mighty works that He would do ” :
per unavoidable context , this (smaller-) group of people represented the full 144 ! [sic]
b #2) other aspects IN this text :
palm-branches and garments ?
… though ofcourse it is possible that palm-branches and ‘garments’ were used in greeting Him ,
the main question we must always ask is : did that make Sénse considering the context —
or can it be another deflection by Esau ?
after endless pondering , the clue was in “… and they brought the donkey to Jesus” (Mk.11:7) :
go away with that ‘donkey’ ! there was never one ! …. so what “was brought” … ?
and the answer can only be : ‘their children’ ! they “brought their children to Him” ! [sic]
the ENTIRE theme so far is about “sons .. first-born … firstborn-right … the future promise” :
Esau’s cut-up sections appear in Mt.19:3-5 , Lk.18:15-17 and Mk.10:13-16 , context-less there ,
but totally fitting here !
“Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray”
(followed by a corruption but in the same section is) “the kingdom of heaven” — if not : ‘Eden’ ,
and now we need to see how the Original text has phrased this ;
again – ofcourse Christ loved all the little ones (-of Jacob) but that is not the point here
then ,
blessed he that cometh in the name of the Lord : present or future-tense ?
… not even wanting to address the ‘hosanna’ : it’s Esau’s silliness and can even be a curse , who knows —
but apart from that : what does “the one in name of the Lord” even mean ?
then you see that Esau hid a proper subject with his ‘hosanna’ ,
and the line will read : “blessed are the children (when-) the Lord will come for name=them” :
this makes absolute Sense – since they just bróught their children to Him !
NO ‘kingdom of David’ here
per the same context line 10 is ofcourse about “the kingdom of heaven” , and the affirmation
reads : “that will blessed=begin [..] [=when] the Lord will come for name= them” ! [sic]
they knew !
so how much is the chance that they did not know about Eden ? — zero
sub :
… the question is whether it just wrote ‘children’ , or the more specific ‘sons’ or even ‘firstborns’ :
both latter would greatly magnify the Clue of this whole event (-for us) , right ,
but we always must be careful to not overdo things
closing :
… the only 1 thing that was nót deductible from the text is “the exact date when He returns” ,
but you can agree that it did contain a crucial aspect fór the return : by pointing to ‘the birthright’
(as an aspect we neither considered until the start of this year …)
and that – arguably – the window has narrowed down immensely to a realistic ‘next 40 days’
***************************************************
PART II
restored text
(may take a while until she will be fully posted)
[for you Sir.]
