Jesus' Answer for a Sign

by Friend 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Frenchy

  Friend:
  Thank you for taking the time to reply. I did not mean to imply that you were 'stealing' someone else's material I was just wondering if this was something of your own origination or something you had accepted or heard from someone else. I believe that you answered that.
  You have made some reasonable assumptions I believe but there is so much to be considered when dealing with prophecies....
  Look at all the prophecies attributed to pointing to and identifying the messiah. Yet...look at how difficult it was to convince the Jews! Prophecy has a way of twisting and turning so that it is not recognized until it is fulfilled.
  That's my take on it and why I don't go out on a limb with this stuff anymore.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  Friend

  Frenchy

  I believe but there is so much to be considered when dealing with prophecies.... Prophecy has a way of twisting and turning so that it is not recognized until it is fulfilled.

  Indeed, that is the case! That is also precisely one reason why it is more important that Christians remain spiritually alert to themselves more so than any sign. If Jesus intended that his disciples would realize a sign then individuals must first concentrate on being a disciple of the master, Jesus. The nice part is that being a genuine disciple is enough regardless of whether a sign is realized or not. Therefore, though Jesus indeed may have answered the question for a sign of his parousia and the end of the age, in reality identifying that sign is not the paramount thing.

  Friend
• 

  Maxee

  1. Have Jesus' words found fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?

  No
  What about dark ages lets look at average populations at time

  2. If so, according to Jesus' depiction, who would or could recognize that fulfillment?

  The apostles especially John ie the apostacy spoken about was written and fulfilled in Revelation?

  3. Finally, according to Jesus answer, is recognition of any sign of Jesus' parousia or "the end" necessary for salvation??

  Dunno will research

  The Pecher Technique for reading Hebraic and Aramaic texts acknowledges that symbolic language was regularly use particularly in situations where there was a need to disguise the detailed meaning.
  Heaven was the Essene Community (actually the walled area in which it was housed outside Jerusalem).

  The head priest was "God" or "the Father" or "the Lord" (the translation is actually a bit blurry because Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are languages with very few words compare to English (eg: "day" means any period of time..it could mean a day or it could translate even as "era").
  "Son of God" means second in charge so can mean priest of god or second ranking priest.
  I can't recall the detail of this..

  Edited by - maxee on 15 August 2000 23:36:15

  Edited by - maxee on 16 August 2000 0:31:49
• 

  Friend

  Maxee

  1. Have Jesus' words found fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?

  No

  What about dark ages lets look at average populations at time

  No? How can you be so sure? What does the dark ages or average population during the dark ages have to do with any fulfillment of Jesus answer for a sign?

  If it is true that Jesus’ words were intended to have worldwide application then one of two things must happen. Either 1) each event described must occur globally and concurrently or 2) each must be occurring concurrently and be observable via global communication, which communications must provide for the effects Jesus indicated (i.e., potential fear).

  Do you suppose the gospel of the Bible was being dispensed in what we call today North America during the dark ages?

  Friend
• 

  Zep

  BX's interpretation of Mat24

  [url] http://www.hourglass2.org/wwwboard/messages/268477.html[/url]

  Edited by - Zep on 17 August 2000 1:45:27
• 

  Zep

  What did Jesus mean by these words?

  I tell you this: there are some standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the son of man coming in his Kingdom(Mat16:28, MK9:1, Lk 9:27)

  I tell you this: before you have gone through all the towns of Israel the son of man will have come(Mat 10:23)

  Either Jesus was lying or he was being very Cryptic about the whole thing...in which case WHY?.How would the apostles have understood these words?.
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  What did Jesus mean by…

  I tell you this: there are some standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the son of man coming in his Kingdom (Mat16:28, MK9:1, Lk 9:27)

  His transfiguration.

  “And [Jesus] said to them, `Verily I say to you, That there are certain of those standing here, who may not taste of death till they see the reign of God having come in power.' And after six days doth Jesus take Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up to a high mount by themselves, alone, and he was transfigured before them…”—Mark 9:1,2 (Young)

  What did Jesus mean by…

  I tell you this: before you have gone through all the towns of Israel the son of man will have come (Mat 10:23)

  That all of Israel would not be reached by his disciples’ preaching work prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, which death and resurrection would be the ultimate identifier of the Son of man, the role for which he had to come.

  “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”—Matthew 16:21 (RSV)

  “…the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”—Matthew 20:28 (RSV)

  I see no lying or cryptic language in those expressions attributed to Jesus.

  As for how Jesus’ disciples understood his words, 2 Peter 1:16-18 very nicely confirms what I have said about Jesus transfiguration.

  Re: biblexaminer’s article

  It is an interesting read, but it makes a few leaps in logic that leaves me uncomfortable.

  The introduction discusses “feelings” of Jesus’ disciples but fails to discuss a documented preoccupation of theirs, that is, their desire to rule with Jesus. That desire figures prominently into the question asked but it is left out entirely.

  Also, since a global application is made, a key element is missing unless the argument can demonstrate some global application. Expressions used in that article to make global application can be refuted easily because those same expressions definitely can have a regional meaning. Unless you can demonstrate that those expressions can also have a global meaning then a meaning is simply being read into the text, which makes it easy to refute and, ultimately, impossible to argue.

  Friend
• 

  Zep

  Friend, you gave some reasonable replies to my above question...but i'm not sure.I guess i'll have to do some more reading!.

  Personnally, i dont agree with BX's interpretation.

  Heres my big problems with MAT24 etc:

  Jesus tells the apostles that the temple will be destroyed.Then you have the problem of what was the question asked my the apostles because its different in each gospel!.

  LUKE:When will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion!(MARK is similar)

  ....This seems to be 2 questions about about 1 event!.The destruction of Jerusalem!

  MAT:Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming/presence and the conclusion of the system of things.

  Now theres 2 questions about 2 separate events.The only way i can reconcile the questions asked in MAT/MARK/LUKE is to think the apostles asked the question in MARK/LUKE.MATThew is just expressing the implication of the apostles question in MK & LUKE, that they thought Jesus was referring to his 2nd coming when he said the temple would be destroyed....something like that!?

  MAT 24:14-the gospel being preached to the whole world- may be talking about some distant future event yet to happen as you say?

  The problems i have, is when i get to MAT 24:21-22..where it talks about a Tribulation that has not occurred NOR WILL OCCUR AGAIN and if the days hadn't been cut short no flesh would be saved.This is directly linked to the part were he talks about the destruction of the temple....

  Then you Go to verse 29...where it says IMMEDIATLEY after the Tribulation of those days...the sun will be darkened and moon will fail to give light and then you'll see the son of man coming etc.IMMEDIATLEY means IMMEDIATLEY to me.So there you have it, Jesus is saying the destruction of the temple and the end of the world go hand in hand?.The only way i see out of this is if you say that the sun and the moon was darkened after the tribulation(destruction of Jerusalem) for near 2000 yrs plus...disconnecting from "AND then the Sign of the son of man will appear in heaven" in verses 30-31 to allow time.This seems a bit dodgy to me, but then again?????.I think anyone who read matthews account in the days of the destruction of Jerusalem would have expected the end right then.
  Anyway you the go to LUKE...who i think wrote his account after the destruction of Jerusalem, or it was modified after because he translates "the disgusting thing' into armies around Jerusalem...like he had witnessed the event, i dont think they were the original words or Jesus!.He also clarifies again using the term "the gentile times"(which i think is another post temple destruction addittion) and saying that Jerusalem will be trampled...this allows a bit more breathing space between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world....you could probably draw a comparison between Jerusalem being trampled on and verse 29 of MAT...The sun will be darkened and moon fail to give its light etc.....maybe???? reaching a little here?!

  Then you have to bite the bullet on "this generation"...what does that mean.JW's answer doesn't really sit with me....double meanings are just too much to take sometimes.

  I always connected 'this generation' to (Mat16:28, MK9:1, Lk 9:27) BTW

  Edited by - Zep on 17 August 2000 21:0:9
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  Now theres 2 questions about 2 separate events.The only way i can reconcile the questions asked in MAT/MARK/LUKE is to think the apostles asked the question in MARK/LUKE.MATThew is just expressing the implication of the apostles question in MK & LUKE, that they thought Jesus was referring to his 2nd coming when he said the temple would be destroyed....something like that!?

  Yes, that is a legitimate concern and one I have not have not yet had time to put my thought into writing in regards to. There are several possibilities aside from discounting Matthew’s account.

  The problems i have, is when i get to MAT 24:21-22..where it talks about a Tribulation that has not occurred NOR WILL OCCUR AGAIN and if the days hadn't been cut short no flesh would be saved.This is directly linked to the part were he talks about the destruction of the temple....

  Then you Go to verse 29...where it says IMMEDIATLEY after the Tribulation of those days...the sun will be darkened and moon will fail to give light and then you'll see the son of man coming etc.IMMEDIATLEY means IMMEDIATLEY to me.

  Yes, what you indicate is a logical problem, and one where the Society makes a leap of logic in its interpretation. Have you considered my article titled [url= http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=808&site=3]Great Tribulation[/url] on this forum? That article was written primarily for those like yourself who realize that problem of "immediately after" as applied by the Society to Matthew 24:21. I would argue that the text of Matthew 24:21 and 24:29 are unrelated in terms of being the same event. Though I have posted the article about Great Tribulation on this forum, you may find more to ponder on that subject by considering the same article where I recently posted it on another forum. On that forum I have more defended the argument. [url= http://discussion.witnesses.net/Forum2/HTML/000619.html]Here is a link[/url]. If you have any questions relative to that argument then please feel free to share them. At this point no one has yet asked the hard questions related to my assertions on the subject. maybe you will be that person. We will see.

  As for double meanings, I think you will find my article about "great tribulation" interesting.

  Friend
• 

  Zep

  The leap in logic I am indicating is that of holding that the tribulation of verse 21 is the same tribulation referenced in verse 29.

  From your witnet post!

  This is my problem, I dont think it as much of a leap in logic.I think its a very natural reading to conclude they are the same,,, vrse 21 and 29.I find it much easier to conclude they are the same than that they are different...thats my problem, i cant get my head around it.Basically i find it all confusing, i'm going to re-read my bible over the coming year.....see what happens?

  Connecting Mat 24:21 to the the Great tribulation in Revelation...maybe?.But what about the corresponding verse in Luke21:23...to me, its impossible to make the connection from Lukes account to Revelation....but you can make the connection from LUKE to MAT vs 21 and then to vs 29 and then the end of the world in Revelation?.

  The problem is that i'm viewing things like this.MAT is written before the destruction of the temple where they were expecting the end to come when they see 'the disgusting thing standing where it out not'....the languange in MAT seems so strong in this respect that the end would near then( by connecting vs 21 & 29).So, The romans destroy Jerusalem...and LUKE translates 'the disgusting thing' to mean 'armies'...but the end hasn't come? so then in pops 'the gentile times' to allow more time...which is not even hinted of in MAT for whatever reason? (or is it?) .
  I'm looking it at this way, MAT was written before, and LUKE after the temple is destroyed....IS LUKE a reasonable explaination and clarification of MAT therefore?, or is it just a convenient post Temple addittion to explain why the world hasn't ended?.Then you still have the problem of 'this generation' in each account....what does that mean!
  I'm not sure about any of it....i hope theres an answer...my faith in the bible has been eroded a little more than i would have liked.Reading MAT 24 etc is one of the reasons why...i just dont have answers to questions i'd probably rather not have asked in the first place!.I just hope i'm dead wrong and i'm missing something?!

  Edited by - Zep on 18 August 2000 2:9:56