Matthew 24:14 and Preaching in the First Century

by Leolaia 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete

    and god bless leolaia.

    and btw I liked the thread and agree (except I'd add 2Thess and Colossians and Hebrews to the post Pauline letters of course)

  • bebu


    Sorry that your regular buddies haven't been here!

    But thanks for sharing your writings with the rest of the motley crew. I am enjoying it.


  • justhuman

    Indeed Mat.24:14 it is reffering only to the first century. And that generation lastet 32 years!!! On the contrary WT's it seems that there is no end to it. If we start from 1878 the SECOND teachning that Christ was supposed to come invisibly(there is also the first date 1799 that in the begining Russel used to believe, but we won't mention that) we have 131 years of failed expectations regarding the generation and the preaching work.

    Besides there are places in the world that people DONT have a clue about JW's the American cult.Just to mention few countries that indeed the Good News(of the WT) haven't been preached like the way is done in western countries or not preached at all.

    China: Population

    India: Population 900.000.000

    Other countries like Pakistan, Indonisia, Irak, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Maroko, Syria, Bagladesh, Thayland, Libya,Turkey, basically this countries are more than 4 billions, and in the Muslem places WT cannot preach.

    So the good news have not reached yet to the entire world. Besides did Apostle Paul preached at that time to the American natives or to the Inkas and Mayias, or in China or India?

  • Jeffro

    Not sure how relevant it is (if at all), but it seems suspicious that the gospel of John provides no parallel account of those found in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Also the gospel of John only mentions the kingdom (in the context of the heavenly kindgom) a total of 7 times, limited to two conversations (with Nicodemus and with Pilate) compared with 86 times in Matthew, 29 times in Mark and 71 times in Luke. It appears that by the time the gospel of John was written, interest/belief in the heavenly kingdom had significantly waned.

  • kilroy2

    why argue over a book of myth? god is only pretend, and the bible only an old compilation of Jewish ideas of how the world came about, made up by old Jews who did not understand the world and the way it works, so came up with this, Indians said the world rested on the back of elephants, which in turn stood on tortoises, We look at that as silly, but when it comes to the bible and its myths, many still believe in the stupid crap as real, some point to the fact that the bible talks about places and people that existed, well so did homer, but because troy may have existed and Greece may have warred with it, I do not believe it is proper to jump the canyon and say that Ulysses was stopped from going home by Posiden. God is a nice safety net, in that people that believe are saying, things can not get to far out of hand, god will make it right, well, it is a net that does not exist.

    If some can walk the tight wire with out getting nervous because of this false belief fine, but at the same time it also makes people do stupid things that they do not need to do, like walking the tight wire in the first place. common sense the most uncommon of the senses.

  • Terry
    You of all people should know that where they do disagree, it is usually pretty insignificant and doesn't affect doctrine and most of the changess over the ages were small, usually adding "Christ" after "Jesus" (the Comma Ioanneum is the largest addition I can think of, although there are the disputed parts of Mark).

    Doctrines parse WORDS. Which words are the theoretical ACTUAL WORDS of God?

    Nobody knows.

    Get it?


  • Rod P
    Rod P


    Excellent write-up on Matthew 24.

    Just a quick comment. I think you would make a great apologist for the Preterists. They teach that the "end" occurred with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem 70 AD, and that none of the prophecies about the "end of the world" have anything to do with some kind of prediction for the 20th or 21st centuries. But then, I'm sure you know all that.

    I'm curious what you think of the Preterists and also "Partial Preterism".

    Rod P.

  • Midget-Sasquatch

    I'm actually part of someone's memory of the good old days? I don't know what to say.

    Thats why I've been so quiet lately on some of the threads you've been on. I haven't had any useful input. But I've enjoyed many of your recent threads Leolaia (like the time periods in Dan 12). I miss Narkissos too.

  • Leolaia

    Jeffro....The gospel of John for the most part has a realized eschatology. That is to say...the promise of eternal life is already something that is realized, instead of a future coming of the Son of Man there is the coming of the Spirit of Truth (the Paraclete) which has already occurred, the overthrow of Satan has already occurred, etc. In the second and third centuries, orthodoxy began to take John's lead and abandon apocalyptic eschatology in favor of a realized eschatology (instead of a future resurrection, one goes to heaven at death) and view the "kingdom" as the already realized Church. Revelation was interpreted in an allegorical fashion. Eschatological movements like Montanism however still broke out from time to time, and there continued to be pre-millenialist expectations by some...

    kilroy2....Why examine what texts may have originally meant? Because these texts still have an impact on people today (unlike the old belief of the world supported by elephants in the exploits of Ulysses). Believe it or not, many JWs find it credible that Matthew 24:14 refers specifically to the Watchtower Society in our own day. This is because only in recent times have people been able to get the "truth" (i.e. not Christendom's version of the gospel) to all or most of the nations of the earth. Certainly not in ancient times, when the New World wasn't even known to Christians. But yet, when we look at the NT, it repeatedly refers to an already achieved preaching "throughout all creation" in the first century. Call it hyperbole or an ignorance of geography, but these texts show that Matthew 24:14 refers to a preaching that had already been accomplished in the first century -- not a brand new preaching in the distant future (which goes against the expectations of an imminent end anyway in Matthew). This illustrates the danger of interpreting a text according to what it means today (with knowledge derived from today's world unknown in the first century) rather than what it meant at the time it was written.

    Midget.....Nice to see ya! :) What I liked were some of the informed conversations between you, Narkissos, euripedes, etc. that I find personally very valuable and stimulating because the criticisms are very good criticisms, and help me a lot too in my thinking...

    Rod P....I can see how saying Matthew 24:14 was "fulfilled" in the first century can be construed as a preterist position, but I do not see Matthew 24-25 overall as supporting preterism as having any sort of existential reality. The point of view in Matthew is that the siege of Jerusalem of AD 66-70 is in the past but the conclusion of the age is still in the future but imminent; the preterist view pretty much brings everything to a head in AD 70 (or am I wrong?). Moreover, I find the preterist explanations of an "invisible" resurrection of the dead and Judgment Day in AD 70 to be quite alien to the conception in Matthew, Revelation, and the general Jewish-Christian scenario at the time. Finally, the weight placed on AD 70 seems misplaced considering the much more extensive and total destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in the 130s under Emperor Hadrian.

  • Pistoff

    Thanks Leo; I always read your posts. I learn a lot.


Share this