Sign of the times?

by BugEye 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • BugEye

    Here is one for you.

    In Matt 24:9 it says **then** you will be persecuted

    In Luke 21:12 it says **before** this you will be persecuted

    I have my own explaination, but it is quite radical and so
    I will listen to you more experienced ones before I pop my
    foot in.


  • Francois

    I assure you that your opinions on this matter are just as valid at that of the oldest head here. Would like to know yours.


  • BugEye

    Ok Here goes

    These Scriptures make unison "if" we exclude Matt 24: 7,8 and its
    counterpart in Luke from the sign of the end.

    For example in verse 6 it says dont be worried if you here of wars or
    reports of wars but the end is not yet. What if in vs 9 and 10 he
    is actually continuing this saying 'there is always going to be
    nations rising against nations and famines and earthquakes, and
    these things are painful'

    and after that he talks about the sign.

    People have always considered wars and earthquakes and droughts as
    signs from God of impending doom, and maybe Jesus was saying this time
    that that it not the case and that the end is NOT signaled by wars and
    famines and earthquakes, but the first sign is serious persecution.


  • BugEye

    Please point out the errors in my argument.


  • SixofNine

    Do you have any compelling evidence that a person named Jesus actually said those things? And if so, do you have any compelling evidence that he was, many years later, quoted acurately?

    I'm curious.

  • BugEye

    G'Day Six of Nine of unimatrix ...

    Personally I think Seven is cuter, but anywho

    I have no hard evidence that Julius ceasar existed except for a
    couple of written words.

    I think that Nero was the emporer when Rome was destroyed by fire,
    but the evidence is shakey.

    According to Quantum mechanics theory, the atom at the end of my
    finger could at this moment be in Cygnus X-1.

    But somewhere along the line, I tend to accept things that make
    at least a semblence of sense.

    Did Jesus exist or say these things? I never spoke to him personally,
    neither did anyone that I know, so anything before about 200 years ago
    is by its very nature conjecture based upon supposition.

    Personally, I find the Schrodinger wave equation to be innacurate, and
    while Quantum theory seems to work in many situations, since one
    wavefunction cannot be applied to another atom or molecule other than
    the one it was derived from, I would not be disturbed to hear that it
    was all a load of hoohah.

    The general evidence seems to show that there did exist a charismatic
    leader of a new religion stemming from Judaism around 30 A.D.

    That less than 80 years later, not only were the versions of his life
    generally agreed upon, but quite an immense following was ensuing,
    seems to indicate that there was something to the story.

    As a start, I suggest you read some of the translated volumes of the
    anti-nicene fathers which are freely available on the net.

    As for accuracy of the bible in general, translate the passages that
    interest you yourself, it is not as difficult as it may appear.
    Generally Greek is much easier to start with. Also, once you have
    done that, compare the text with different manuscripts.

    I do not claim to have the answers, but I investigate much of
    what I believe myself. I find that evidence is often based upon
    belief and so very little "truth" is available.

    Just some thoughts


  • kes152

    Hello Dave,

    you said:

    "Please point out the errors in my argument."


    Matt. 24:9

    "And shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations for my name's sake."

    Luke 21:12

    "But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake. It shall turn out unto you for a testimony."

    Actually, dear Dave, the "sign" is NOT persecution, it was a 'warning.' To let them know they were first.

    The 'sign' is clearly described in Matt. 24:30

    "and then shall appear the SIGN of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

    the answer to their question. THAT is the sign.

  • BugEye

    Hi Aaron, thanks for that. I understand that, but that does not explain the contradiction then.


  • Drue


    Thanks for an interesting post. I too had a similar idea concerning Jesus’ words from Mt 24. It seems to me Jesus was warning his apostles against seeking any signs of his parousia. I am generally in agreement with the points you make and do not think your explanation is ‘radical’, but instead, contextually supported.

    People have always considered wars and earthquakes and droughts as
    signs from God of impending doom, and maybe Jesus was saying this time
    that that it not the case and that the end is NOT signaled by wars and
    famines and earthquakes

    I agree with what you seem to say that evidently Jesus said, in essence: do not follow false prophets who may even indicate that I am actually present and point at presumable signs of my presence – do not believe them (Mt 24:23-25). His coming would be unknown. Various ‘physical facts’ (wars, epidemics etc) would be there, but ‘nobody knows the day or hour’ – hence, don’t be mislead.

    In other portions of the scriptures Jesus also said it is not your business to know times or seasons – it’s my Father’s prerogative.

    As for the possible contradiction I don’t see if there is any. If I understood you correctly you seem to infer that ‘then’ in Mt refers to future whereas ‘before this’ in Lk refers to the past. I think the word ‘then’ does not always mean ‘after that’ but may just as well mean ‘at that time’ (or it may not have a temporal meaning at all but mean ‘this being so, in that case’). Strong’s Greek lexicon speaks of the word used by Matthew in Mt 24:9 ‘at the time that ( of the past or future, also in consecution): — that time, then.

    the end is NOT signaled by wars… the first sign is serious persecution.

    What is serious persecution? Have not Christians been seriously persecuted throughout centuries? (Acts 16:23, 24).

    My understanding is that Christians do not have to consider wars, epidemics etc as a sign. Even persecutions would be usual – ‘before’ his coming and likely up till the time of his coming. If somebody suffers today we could say one suffered ‘after’ the major wars (WWII). But if there are more major wars in the future, then his sufferings would be before those. Please find mistakes in my reasoning :)


  • IslandWoman


    I think you might find a thread started by Friend on the subject of
    Matthew 24 and Luke 21 to be helpful.

    It is located on page 4 of Bible Research. "Great Tribulation" is the title of the thread.


Share this