Matthew 24 Verse By Verse

by Nate Merit 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AuldSoul


    I replied to him:


    I found your verse-by-verse discussion of Matthew 24 delightfully entertaining.

    Interestingly, Mark's account (Mark 13) limits the group doing the asking to only four: "Peter and James and John and Andrew." Are we to understand that they were the ones whose lifetimes were being referred to?

    Why do you use as authorities reference works that you disregard in other respects? I am not taking offense or being argumentative. I am just curious. Thayer's comments extensively on most of the Greek wording of Matthew 24, but you chose to use only Thayer's comment regarding the Greek word "houtos" and used a definition as an absolute which Thayer's does not so constrain.

    You used definition 1. a., but Thayer's offers definitions I(1)a - I(1)f and I(2)a - I(2)f; as well as IIa - IId. Why did you choose to allow for only one understanding of "this" in "this generation," when Thayer's clearly allows for an understanding of, "the generation just described?" The word "houtos" is often used in that way in the NT.

    I believe if you are going to state claims regarding what Thayer's limits the meaning to, those claims should match what Thayer's says. You can get a complete look at the complete passage from Thayer's on from the following address:

    Please feel free to respond, if you would like to discuss some other issues that I uncovered.



    Do you think he will respond?


  • Shining One
    Shining One

    his is in accord with the views in Psalms of Solomon 17:26-30, Testament of Asher 7:3-7, Testament of Benjamin 9:2, and 4 Ezra 13:29-41, 46-49.

    Again, I don't agree that citing apocryphal texts adds any great insight to the issue. In fact, by their very nature they bring confusion to the issue. As I said before, these writings were left out for valid reasons. Just because they mimic inspired scripture (have you noticed how 'His Nibs' uses this very thing consistently?) is not a valid reason to use them in scriptural exegesis or textual criticism. Let me give you an example: take a valid historical account and then surround it with false accounts that are somewhat similar but each has a special twist to it. You would get exactly the confusion necessary to cast doubt on the valid historical account.
    I believe that the core of the problem with your reasoning is that you probably do not believe that scripture is inspired and therefore it is okay to use any sources that are available in your analysis of things.
    You are also making too much literal application to the apocalyptic language used and you also did not address the point about 'nor will occur again'. All of the metaphors used are typical of temporal judgements. They exaggerate the scope of the judgement in order to highlight the event.
    >As for the reference to "all the tribes of the earth" in Matthew 24:30, this is identical to the language in Revelation 1:7 which similarly has a scope beyond that of Israel....referring to everyone seeing Jesus returning and lamenting
    Let me propose this: the Revelation of Jesus by John the apostle is his version of Matthew 24! As you know, he did not include the Olivet Discourse in his gospel. The reason why he didn't was because he was writing the Revelation after he had concluded his gospel. In the Revelation we see references to Rome and Nero as well as the judgement of the Jewish nation. Preterists have the view of an earlier date for the gospel and the Revelation: before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.! Christians had to write in language that they could understand and the Romans couldn't. The Revelation was mean't to encourage the churches in the face of Roman persecution. Christians were called 'atheists' because the denied the poltheistic deities of secular society.
    Have you ever noticed that none of the New Testament books mention what should have been the most horrific event outside of the crucifixion?

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    Get off of your 'high horse', Nate. Passion fuels the debate. You are just as guilty of what you accuse her of as anyone else here....

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    Hi Michelle,
    I appreciated you bringing the Word to this discussion. Nate is a blasphemer and if he is not lying, a true apostate, not a JW defined one.

Share this