by serein 76 Replies latest jw friends
I think, according to most of his writings, that he mostly thought Christ would return in his lifetime. - Tec
Which had always been the understanding of Jesus' disciples because that is what he taught them, and that is why he thought it ok to ask men to walk out on their families.
Which had always been the understanding of Jesus' disciples because that is what he taught them, and that is why he thought it ok to ask men to walk out on their families.
Cofty, I get that this is your understanding. I must disagree, for all the reasons I have stated.
Peace,
tammy
What part do you disagree with, that Jesus asked men to walk out on their families or that he taught that the end would come within the lifetime of his generation?
It seems that both these points are beyond dispute - unless he personally told you something to the contrary that is.
I disagree with:
That he asked men to walk out on their families. This is in dispute because:
- He said to come and follow Him.
- Anyone else could have followed with them. We even know that some did. Some might have been led into the truth because of them, and their faith and courage to follow at once. Because of their e x ample.
- Some loved ones might have given approval
- nothing states that any of them did not ever see their loved ones during that 1-3 years (or that it would have been by their choice, if not)
- some might have been ostracised because they chose to follow Him... so leaving could be almost identical to leaving the WTS
- men leave their families for long stretches of time for war or other work that causes their absence to provide for their families. This is very similar - but the "wage" is life. By following Christ and receiving Truth and Life, they can also lead their loved ones to Christ, God, truth and life.
I also disagree that he asked men to walk out on their families BECAUSE the end was nigh.
These are two entirely different points that you have simply connected... but based on what?
Peace,
tammy
tec
why dont you just claim the verse in q is a later insertion? we have had discussions in the past where you openly state that troublesome or embarassing scriptures are fraudulent.
Do you have a particular point, mP?
I have no problem with troublesome or 'embarassing' verses. Only with those that directly contradict the Truth of Christ and his teachings.
Before you continue with your misquoted absolutist idea of mine above, please recall that I have also stated that I could misunderstand these verses, or we could all be misinterpreting them because we misunderstand the times and culture and conte x t in which they were written, or that it could be genuine beliefs of those who wrote them (be they the actual prophet/authors or the scribes), but THEY misunderstood something. Or, as you stated above, it could be a deliberate twisting of words by scribes - due to misunderstanding, or due to an agenda (which agenda might also include an attempt to scare off enemies - present and future enemies); or even due to complete incompetence.
This is why I simply look to Christ to understand, rather than comparing back and forth.
Peace,
tammy
Have a look at this, Hitchins argues the points of what we were just discussing so well. Absolutely spot on, I hope you like it.
