The bible clearly says a generation is 40 years (exodus and job) the 1st half of the last century saw wars, famines, pestilence. If 1914 was the correct starting date the end should have came by the mid 1950's ( which the witnesses believed at the time) this fact alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. Jesus was only speaking of the events of the 1st century.
Mt: 24/luke 21 does not have a 2nd fulfillment!
Definitely up to and including verse 35 of Matthew 24 all applies to the first century...and is not repeatable.
The H8ful8 in Warwick dictate that Matthew 24 has a "greater fulfilment" - and it's coming soon!
Jesus said this at Matthew 24:21 - “....for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.”
Which part of "nor will occur again" does the self-appointed "slave" (and JW's) not understand?
How can something which Jesus said would not occur again, have a "greater fulfilment?
Good points Guys ? And when Jesus made that prophecy about Jerusalem being destroyed it occurred within that 40 year period namely about 38 years .
That a scriptural generation is less than 50 years can also be affirmed from 3 scriptural references such as :
All of which attest to a Biblical generation being no longer than 50 years or thereabouts.and certainly not an overlapping generation .
And definitely no suggestion anywhere in scripture of a secondary fulfillment to Jesus prophecy.
There are so many scriptures pointing to a 1 century fulfillment it’s crazy. The writers which wrote about it after the fact we’re talking about about the 1st century , I’m confident in that.
This post compares Mt 24:15-30 with Rev 16:16-21 (in parallel columns) to show where they are both similar and dissimilar. There are interesting similarities. But the differences make it clear that they (Mt 24:15-30 & Rev 16:16-21) are describing two different things.
They are similar enough that they appear to represent an intentional similarity in pattern. It is in the details where they differ from each other.
Matthew references the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation is an apocalyptic text. It stands to reason that they are about different things. But neither of those things have any kind of greater fulfillment. Arguably Revelation has no real fulfillment at all.
The second fulfillment doctrine of wt is also wrong here:
The end of old Jerusalem has it's equivalent in Armageddon. The generation of faithful (who have fled) or enslaved defenders, would survive, not pass away when that end occurs.
wt doctrine now has it, that the generation of the anointed does not survive, dies, gets raptured at the first sign of trouble, the beginning, not after the culmination of the great tribulation. Armageddon.
wt tries a double stretch to make 1914 and the second fulfillment fit.
a) wt makes it an overlapping generation of anointed centenarians
b) have them pass away way before the end.
who could stomach second helpings of spiritual food like that?
Every century has seen wars, famines, pestilence, and kids acting up.
It was easy to believe this crap when the only information you got was from the WT and the Platform.
CULT CULT CULT