Post 666: Revelation--Its Grand Climax in 70 AD

by Londo111 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sabastious

  Also, IF there are various books of the Bible that speak of the end times (both OT and NT), and IF you believe that the entire Bible is inspired, then I don't see that it is a doctrinal theory to take the parts of all books that speak of the end times and put together a comprehensive picture of what they are saying what would happen during the end times.

  You have to explain why you are connecting books that do not directly reference each other. Revelation does directly reference by name the Serpent, Egypt and Sodom from the Torah and therefore you can connect those books to Revelation within reason. The harlot is mentioned in Isaiah so you can include that book too. However connecting any of the 4 Gospels requires some sort of proof that such an action is merrited. Using the alleged inspiration of the Bible cannon is not sufficient because you then have to give credence to ALL catholic traditions and doctrine because they were the ones that closed the Bible cannon. Surely you don't want to do that. A better approach is to ONLY use texts that directly reference each other, imo. The writings of "Paul" and "John" don't seem to be aware of the four Gospels located in the Bible Cannon.

  Take John's reverence to the anti-christ for instance:

  3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

  People have always questioned the authenticity of the epic of Jesus and his death and today is no different. Most people did not see anything and therefore had to be convinced by some means. No where in John or Paul's writings do you see reference to the miracles performed by the Jesus of the Gospels. Paul's Jesus is different than the Gospel Jesus which is fishy. You would think that John and company would identify Christian's who acknowledged not only Jesus existence, but also the miracles that he performed that no one else could. Convincing people in that day to follow Christ would have been difficult and all methods would have been used. Did anyone else walk on water? Did anyone else turn water into wine? Despite this content what they taught was simply to "acknowledge" Jesus which would mean that you believed he came and died and was the Son of God. So anyone, or any spirit, who DOESN'T acknowledge what Jesus came and did is not from God and anyone NOT from God is part of an "antichrist" class. This is not an organized group of people with a named leader, but merely an overtly rational way of thinking. "I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen" type of thing.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious
• 

  sabastious

  I am not saying that Christ did not will the Good News to be preached in China…this is the New Jerusalem fulfillment of Revelation 21 and 22. But I am saying that in terms of the Olivet discourse, the preaching was done in the Roman habitation first, which indeed occurred by 70.

  What if one of Jesus disciples asked about China, what would he have said? Surely one generation was not enough time to penetrate a foreign civilization with the good news of the kingdom. Would this have occured to the people he was speaking to? Or would they already understand that he was only talking about the Mediterranean?

  -Sab
• 

  Londo111

  For the audience of the book of Matthew, there worldview would have been quite different than our modern worldview. They were more myopic in knowledge and mindset. Their concern and questions revolved around the End of the Jewish Age. China was known to Rome at this time, but for the end of the Temple Age to come, the good news did not need to go to China.

  After 70 AD, New Jerusalem comes. The ethnicities (including those in China) walk in its light. They can partake of the river that pours from it. They can apply the leaves of the trees along the riverbank that give fruit in all seasons. After 70 AD, the good news spreads well beyond the Roman worldstage.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I recently read "Are we Living in the End Time" or something similar by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the authors behind the Left Behind series. What struck me is that, how apart from some doctrinal issues like the Trinity or blood, they use very similiar reasoning as the JW's, give themselves all the same outs, pick and choose facts, make mountains out of a singular comment by one person, take things out of context, use failed prediction as evidence of the truth of future prediction, etc., to generate a narrative designed to get people to believe them and get back to church (and donating). It was also interesting how critical they are of other churches and of any interpretation but their own.

  As George Carlin said (paraphrasing), as a outside observer, I find it interesting how people claim that your stuff is shit and their shit is stuff.
• 

  Christ Alone

  Paul's Jesus is different than the Gospel Jesus which is fishy.

  Examples? How is Paul's Jesus different? He DOES in fact quote what Jesus said during the last supper that takes place in the gospels, so he does in fact know about the gospels. (1Cor 11:23-25)

  Also, Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was alive. So him quoting more of Jesus would have been redundant. When examining Paul, and I know I am the minority on this, I don't see any difference to what Jesus preached. Paul expounded on things that Jesus alluded to. Jesus himself said that there were many more things to teach them, but they were not yet ready. He also said that the Holy Spirit would come to teach them many more things.

  Some fault Paul's speaking of things like staying away from unrepentant sinners, and when they read it they think of the JW act of disfellowshiping, which Paul was not speaking about at all. Paul was referring to those that were unrepentant and were in the church trying to convince others that the practices were ok. He was saying that it would be better to stay away from a person like that if you didn't want to follow after their conduct. John said much of the same. I don't see the problem here, personally. It was not a rule that was put into place where disfellowshiping ever happened. It was a personal decision to stay away from a person that was trying to get another to sin. I don't see how this is different from Jesus. Some Christians just emphasize all the nice things about Jesus. But He was a radical guy. He insulted the Pharisees and other religious leaders. He did not cower to the authority of Rome when brought before them. He used ropes to whip the people that were insulting his Fathers house by selling animals. He wasn't all about sugar and roses.

  If you examine the context of WHY Paul was writing what he was, and not just the surface, it is far different than what religions teach today. Usually there were specific events that Paul was addressing, and they were not meant as overall rules about every situation.

  Also, consider this. If, as has been pointed out, Jesus is actually the God of the OT (Jehovah), then He's a pretty serious guy and isn't just a nice, sweet guy.
• 

  sabastious

  For the audience of the book of Matthew, there worldview would have been quite different than our modern worldview. They were more myopic in knowledge and mindset. Their concern and questions revolved around the End of the Jewish Age. China was known to Rome at this time, but for the end of the Temple Age to come, the good news did not need to go to China.
  
  After 70 AD, New Jerusalem comes. The ethnicities (including those in China) walk in its light. They can partake of the river that pours from it. They can apply the leaves of the trees along the riverbank that give fruit in all seasons. After 70 AD, the good news spreads well beyond the Roman worldstage.

  Verse 3 of Chapter 24 states that the whole chapter is about the "coming of Christ." Wouldn't this refer to Christ's second coming? I have always figured that the first time Christ came was when he was born through the virgin mary and the second time would be "in the clouds" bringing about the advent of his kingdom. With your framework are you not creating three "comings?" First as a birth, second in 70 AD and a third in sometime in our future?

  -Sab
• 

  Christ Alone

  they use very similiar reasoning as the JW's, give themselves all the same outs, pick and choose facts, make mountains out of a singular comment by

  one person, take things out of context, use failed prediction as evidence of the truth of future prediction, etc., to generate a narrative designed to get

  people to believe them and get back to church (and donating).

  Any specific examples?This all seems very general and there are no specific examples. Sounds like a way to write off what a person says to others, without any ground to stand on. I'm not saying that you don't have any ground, especially since I haven't read it myself. But it seemed like a very Watchtower-esque way to write off something without examining it.
• 

  Londo111

  Welcome back, 20571pnt428571!

  Of course, since 607 BC is shown to be dead wrong, anything that involves 1914 crumbles underneath it no matter how many color codes a person uses.
• 

  sabastious

  Also, Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was alive. So him quoting more of Jesus would have been redundant. When examining Paul, and I know I am the minority on this, I don't see any difference to what Jesus preached. Paul expounded on things that Jesus alluded to. Jesus himself said that there were many more things to teach them, but they were not yet ready. He also said that the Holy Spirit would come to teach them many more things.

  I would say the Gospels are an expounded Christ than the Jesus that Paul preached about. Paul is unaware of all the "Christ lore" so to speak, which casts doubt on the historical authenticity of the Gospels, imo. Paul's Christ seems more real and less myth. I have been giving strong thought of late to consider the stories of the Gospels allegory instead of eye witness accounts. The real story of Jesus may be lost in time, which would make sense why his message is so simple. "Love your neighbor."

  Also, consider this. If, as has been pointed out, Jesus is actually the God of the OT (Jehovah), then He's a pretty serious guy and isn't just a nice, sweet guy.

  God is love. Christ brought that to the world, so he's pretty nice.

  -Sab