Hi, Alan.
JanH was not attempting to use this to disprove any Christian's contention that "the end is near", but to show why Christians cannot use 2 Peter to prove such a contention.
That may have been his intent, but I do not believe a casual or critical reader would conclude it for sure. This is why I pointed out what I did. The paragraph does not present scoffing as one of the reasons for Christians concluding “the last days,” as you have. But it may have intended to.
As for JanH's illustration of a 14th-century Christian's claiming that the century he had just witnessed contained all of the "signs" mentioned by Jesus and that therefore he must be living in the last days, the point was that the Christian would have been incorrect no matter whether he 'correctly' applied Jesus' words or not. In other words, if Jesus meant that earthquakes had to be observed worldwide as a "sign", and the 14th-century Christian was by some means actually able to observe them worldwide, he would have been wrong to claim these as a sign. And if he only observed one or more local quakes and then 'incorrectly' applied Jesus' words, he certainly would have been wrong about them as a sign.
JanH’s article goes so far as saying that certain named events transpired in the 14th century, not that those events transpired as the sign would have them. You talk about worldwide observance of events. This is different from events happening worldwide, or events happening in different localities but at the same time.
Simultaneous events happening worldwide would be observable by all Christians as one sign. But this is not what JanH’s article describes. His article describes various events, with some happening in different locales. The event of earthquakes is an example. If the so-called sign of “the last days” provides for worldwide observation then events in the 14th century would not qualify unless they were each happening in each locale over roughly the same period. Were they?
Another option is the one posed by Friend. He proposes that worldwide observation has occur uniquely in our time by means of each event transpiring in different locales, with observation coming by means of modern communication, the same means by which saturation of the good news is taking place. He sees this as a key in understanding what the Bible records on the subject.
The point here is that (as JanH stated, even assuming that Jesus meant to give signs of the end to watch for) even if a 14th-century Christian 'correctly' applied Jesus' words to each 'sign', events proved him wrong about the imminence of "the end". Therefore, such 'signs' are valueless for all time periods after the 14th century.
I would agree with this statement, if the correctness of application could be proved. That is why I raised the questions I did. If 14th century Christians incorrectly concluded a sign then that act proves no more than it was a mistake. If true that worldwide observation is a key component of the so-called sign, then 14th century events were not correctly identified. Assuming Christianity is soundly based and that the so-called sign is genuine, then 14th century Christians who may have incorrectly identified it were not less Christian for doing so. They were only doing what Jesus said, staying awake and telling people to watch out. But doing that is not evidence the so-called sign is an invention or that it never existed.
Logic tells us the same thing: earthquakes, war, famine and pestilence are as common in human history as grass, blue sky and sexual desire. Invoking them as 'signs' gives one no more information about the nearness of "the end" than saying, "Look! The grass is green! The sky is blue! Young men are lusting after young women! Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching!"
I agree they are all common. But through the ages Christians have not commonly observe them worldwide. This is, I think, the point Friend has made. He has argued that, scripturally, the extent of observation is as important as events themselves, that extent of observation is part of the sign. If this is true then our time is unique in terms of events and observation by Christians.
These facts really point out what JanH mentioned as a major caveat: Jesus actually said nothing at all about quakes and so forth being signs of imminence of "the end". In fact he said the opposite: quakes and so forth were not to be interpreted as signs of "the end".
I am familiar with the line of reasoning ending at “there is no sign.” I am not convinced by it. One thing I am convinced of is the WTS is wrong in its reasoning on the texts in question. As I said before, there is no basis upon which to conclude that earthquakes have been more prevalent or intense over the past 100 years than previous eras.
I wonder if you could see your way to making Friend's polished draft, or at least the points made in it, available. I'm sure he wouldn't object to making it available privately.
Are you kidding me? You know how tight he is about his person, including his written work. I am forbidden from releasing anything he wrote as his. Like most writers, he is picky about unfinished work. One day, when I know it doesn’t matter, it will be different. I could post the work as someone else’s. But that is not right either, for many reasons.
