Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast 540 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  There was no parousia involving the whole earth on 70 and a Millennium that followed.

  That’s because their religious superstitions were simply wrong.

  Also, Jesus returns invisible riding a war horse before the great tribulation.

  Nope. No such statement appears in the Bible. The rider of the white horse in Revelation chapter 6 isn’t named, it (and the other 3 horses in the chapter) is symbolic rather than ‘invisible’, it isn’t the Lamb who opens the seal that introduces the horse, and Jesus didn’t ‘invisibly conquer’ anything before the tribulation. The horses in Revelation chapter 6 all have a negative impact, and the white horse in Revelation 6:2 more reasonably refers to Roman oppression. The horse in chapter 19, whose rider is more reasonably identified as Jesus alludes to events that were supposed to happen after the tribulation had already ended.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  writing after the destruction of Jerusalem but framing it as before to give the appearance of ‘prophecy’,

  This discussion assumes the authenticity of the Bible. Whether or not that is true is a different subject matter.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The rider of the horse in Revelation chapter 6 isn’t named,

  Rev19:11,14:14,Psalms:45:44 describes the rider. —The literary device and poetic language of the Bible is for believers. I see you reject the Bible so this discussion is not for you since you cannot even think in terms of assuming the Bible is true.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  This discussion assumes the authenticity of the Bible. Whether or not that is true is a different subject matter.

  Nope. I see no reason to play along with a ‘begging the question’ fallacy.
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  The literary device and poetic language of the Bible is for believers.

  Complete nonsense.

  I see you reject the Bible so this discussion is not for you since you cannot even think in terms of assuming the Bible is true.

  Ad hominem fallacy. Even if it is assumed to be true, the events of chapter 19 would be after the ‘tribulation’, and there is no justification for conflating the horses in chapters 6 and 19.
• 

  Fisherman

  Nope. I see no reason to play along with a ‘begging the question’ fallacy.

  Your logic is based on the premise that the Bible is false but the premise in this discussion is that the Bible is true so your conclusions are based on a false premise relating to this discussion. You need to take a logic course.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Complete nonsense.

  It is not
  

  Ad hominem fallacy. Even if it is assumed to be true, the events of chapter 19 would be after the ‘tribulation’, and there is no justification for conflating the horses in chapters 6 and 19.

  Wrong
  

  Anyway, believe what you like and have fun doing it.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  It is not

  Wrong

  That’s some ‘scholar’ level ‘refutation’ there 🤦‍♂️
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Your logic is based on the premise that the Bible is false but the premise in this discussion is that the Bible is true so your conclusions are based on a false premise relating to this discussion. You need to take a logic course.

  Nope. I already also explained how you’re wrong in the context of assuming it is true.
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Rev19:11,14:14,Psalms:45:44 describes the rider.

  Those verses (though you probably mean Psalm 45:4) say nothing about the rider of the horse at Revelation 6:2, and the rider of the horse in that verse is described differently to the one described in chapter 19, with different weapons and headwear and quite different purposes. (There also is not universal agreement among Christians that the rider of the horse at Revelation 6:2 is Jesus.)

  The literary device and poetic language of the Bible is for believers.

  Claiming that only 'believers' may interpret 'literary devices and poetry' in the Bible is plainly irrational. 'Believers' do not all agree on the meaning of the content, and many - including yourself - are completely willing to distort or ignore the plain reading of Bible passages to make it seem more consistent with events that 'just haven't happened yet', apparently unconcerned with the original authors' actual intent.
  

  I see you reject the Bible so this discussion is not for you since you cannot even think in terms of assuming the Bible is true.

  That is an especially asinine argument. Firstly, it is a false dichotomy to suggest that someone rejects 'the Bible', as if to say that everything in 'the Bible' is true or everything in 'the Bible' is false, whereas in reality the Bible contains a mixture of myth, superstition, poetry and history presented in a theological context. Secondly, different groups of Christians don't even agree on which books should be included in 'the Bible' or how to interpret them.