The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness,

  You asked a question and then ignored my followup. No, the discussion regarding the meaning of the 7 times is not finished.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118775/2092345/post.ashx#2092345

  You pretended to answer this one, but your answer was a lie. If John meant 2,520 days that does not equal 3.5 years. If he had said 3.5 years, he would have been lying. So, he specified that 3.5 times equals less than 3.5 years. By John's explanation of "times" we should expect that 7 times would likewise be less than 7 years. We would certainly have NO reason to assume that 7 times would mean more than 7 years by a consideration of Revelation 12. Please answer the question I asked, since I have agreed that "times" does not equal years.

  Does the use of "times" instead of "years" mean more than years or less than years?

  C'mon, it is a simple question. I know why you don't answer it directly, but your ego is getting in the way of truth. I hope saki2fifty is following your lack of direct response. You said earlier that is "must mean something beyond" years. But we have an example in Revelation 12 that proves your assumption is not correct. In that case, it means something less than years.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118775/2092658/post.ashx#2092658

  There is another unanswered question in this thread. If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?

  Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

  John identifies Jesus to seven 1st Century congregations in three different ways, one of which is identifying himself as having sovereignty OVER the kings of the earth. According to the angel that brought John this message from Jesus himself, Jesus was under the impression he was ruling over the earth in the 1st Century AD. Was John mistaken or are you and your leaders in Brooklyn mistaken?

  I encourage saki2fifty and any other lurkers to note carefully whether the response to this post is candid, or stealthy, or nonexistent.

  AuldSoul
• 

  stevenyc

  thirdwitness, I think you've just validated AlanF.
  
  :W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival.
  
  
  steve
• 

  stevenyc

  2 thes 2:9 NKJV: The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.
  
  thirdwitness, as everyone keeps telling you, its ALL in the context.
  
  steve
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  I am sure that you must have missed my earlier post about Vine.

  The WTS repeatedly invokes the definition of W.E.Vine to bolster their arguments regarding a long-term presence of Jesus being spoken of at Matthew 24:3, cleverly avoiding informing the readers that Vine was actually an adventist with an agenda himself. Were you aware for example that W.H. Vine, years before Rutherford plaigerized his work, interpreted the League of nations as being pictured by one of the 'beasts' in the Book Of Revelation?

  No modern scholar agrees with the WT, right?

  How about this one.
  W.E. Vine, M.A., was known in his day (1873-1949) as a classical scholar, a skilled expositor, and an acute theologian. Recognized as one of the world's foremost Greek scholars, his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, first published in 1939, now available in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field.
  
  W.E. Vine says: parousia does not signify merely a coming, it includes or suggests the presence which follows the arrival
  
  Of course, AlanF will probably say Vine is not a 'modern' scholar. Or simply call him a moron.

  W.E.Vine is the only scholar who agrees with the WTS interpretation of parousia at Matt 24:3, which is the issue at hand. He was an adventist with an agenda. Please find others who support the WTS view outside of an adventist agenda and name them.

  Have you read any of Vine's theological works ThirdWitness? They would be quite a surprise to you. I have them all, icluding the harder to get items like 'The Church And The Tribulation'. He was a very astute man, intellectually crippled by his personal belief system.

  Do some research on him, as I do not believe that you have as yet.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  Another example of parousia used in the scriptures about the man of lawlessness:
  

  2 Thess 2: 9 But the lawless one’s parousia is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents

  Question: Should this be translated coming? No. The man of lawlessness presence covers a period of time. He must establish himself with every lying sign and portent. As verse 4 tells us, he must "lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god". His presence is felt because of what he does over a period of time in establishing himself as the man of lawlessness.

  Just what does this have to do with the issue at hand? All you are doing is state the bleeding obvious, and that is that CONTEXT determines the use of this koine greek word. That was made clear numerous posts ago and IS NOT in dispute.

  We are here discussing the parousia as noted in Matthew 24, and have determined, as have ALL modern scholars excepting the adventist influenced scholar W. E. Vine, that in THIS context parousia applies NOT to to Jesus invisble arrival in 1914CE, but his arrival at the final judgment. Please stop muddying the issue and stick to the point of issue. Please supply us with the names and research of any scholars who agree with the WTS use of parousia in Matt 24. Thank you - HS
• 

  barry

  Thirdwitness, how would you interpret this passage?

  1 Thessalonians v13 on

  Brothers ,we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We beleive that Jesus died and rose again and so we beleive that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the lords own word , we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the comming of the lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.For the Lord himself will come down from heaven,with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that , we who are still alive and are left will be cought up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we willl be with the Lord forever.Therefore encourage each other with these words.

  Is this the event that occured in 1914?

  Note the passage says the people who have died in christ will be cought up together with those who are alive on the earth.
  How does this fit with 1914 and JW theology?
• 

  smellsgood

  Nobody is 'picking' on Saki, and this is not Junior School, I am sure that he can take care of himself without your help. I merely asked if he had anything of value to add to the thread apart from once again criticizing AlanF for his posting techniques. He has insinuiated that he ;does not, so perhaps ;his repeated claims to be a neutral observer have been found wanting once again.
  smellsgood: I think adults can behave like children sometimes. Anyways, I wasn't saying anything about your points being of an unreasonable nature, I just believe the tone tends to have an unintentional 'superior' feel to it. I will always comment if I sense someone is being treated unfairly whether they can stand alone or not. I think its always important to remember that he is just looking into this. How "neutral" would you have been at first?
  There are other ways of learning and taking in information from this board without peppering them with little insults design to try and rattle the cage of other posters. One of them is to read and learn and if there is something of value to add, to do that. It is not rocket science.
  smellsgood: That's true. I try not to post to much where I have no idea either way. If he is trying to be provocative, perhaps ignoring those posts would be good. Understanding that he is probably torn in wanting to believe what thirdwitness is professing, and perhaps believes that 3w actually is explaining things sufficiently (uuuurgh!!! no!)
  Anyways, I always want people to remember where they were, and not get too claws out with those who are newly searching, that is what I am really reacting to. I'm not now commenting on you in this thread, but I have seen it oftentimes, a rather startling lambasting reaction to those who post who aren't out of the grips of the watchtower. I think its important to treat them with kindness, especially if perhaps if one is so designated "apostate" as this is precisely what they WOULDN'T expect. :)
  
  back to 3W inanity....and proceed.
  
  
  smellsgood
• 

  Flash

  Since there are 2 Threads covering this subject, if no one minds, I'll repeat part of what I said on the other Thread. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118745/2093054/post.ashx#2093054
  
  

  The empirical evidence about 1914 with WW1 and all the new weaponry that was used in it is proof enough for me that the 607 / 1914 formula is correct. An undenyably major change took place on earth at that time. Prior to the 20th century weapons for thousands of years were very primitive. I consider the very rapid change in that area proof that Satan was cast down then. I believe he is no fool and saw his expulsion coming and prepared for it. So right after he was kicked out of heaven he was all set to wreck havok on the earth.

  . At one time, the basic teachings of the Witnesses all made sense to us. But the abuses we all suffered from the WTS drove us away from them. That doesn't mean they were or are wrong about everything. They will have to answer for their sins, as will we. Ultimately we are all going to stand before God's Son and we are going to have to be able to say to Him more than, "The organization you gave us made us leave you."
  
• 

  hillary_step

  Flash,

  The empirical evidence about 1914 with WW1 and all the new weaponry that was used in it is proof enough for me that the 607 / 1914 formula is correct. An undenyably major change took place on earth at that time. Prior to the 20th century weapons for thousands of years were very primitive. I consider the very rapid change in that area proof that Satan was cast down then. I believe he is no fool and saw his expulsion coming and prepared for it. So right after he was kicked out of heaven he was all set to wreck havok on the earth.

  Now, this is a very interesting post.

  A few years ago I was in a position to question a member of the GB about the 607BCE debacle. We had quite a long discussion, in which he eventually, after much wriggling admitted that it was not a doctrine that could be written in stone, given that the weight of evidence on all counts rests against the WTS interpretation.

  His parting comment however, was the interesting one. He suggested that 'anyway, dates are not as important as the sign. Jesus gave us a sign to look for which dates are not neccessary'.

  Imho eventually, despite the fact that Scholar accused one of his masters as 'lacking faith' when we discussed this a couple of years ago, this is the way that the WTS will eventually nip the 607BCE embarrasment from WTS theology.

  HS
• 

  Arthur

  The empirical evidence about 1914 with WW1 and all the new weaponry that was used in it is proof enough for me that the 607 / 1914 formula is correct.

  Well stated. And the empirical evidence regarding UFOs with all of the eye witness testimony, crop circles, and photographs is proof enough for me that aliens intend to colonize earth.

  All of the empirical evidence regarding Big Foot with all of the sightings, discovered footprints, sound recordings, and recovered hair samples is proof enough for me that a half-man, half-ape is living in the mountains of Washington state.