The scriptures do tell you that his presence would be invisible but you have to look diligently into the Bible. It doesn't give it to you on a silver platter. 1 Timothy 6:16 tells us about the ressurected Jesus in heaven: " whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting." So right away we can illiminate the thought that every eye will literally see Jesus. The Bible clearly says no one can now literally see Jesus just as no one can literally look upon Jehovah without dying. Daniel 7 explain just what it means to come on a cloud. Daniel 7:13 says, “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.
If he came invisably in 1914, how is it every eye saw him? They didn't. Because Revelation 1:7 is not about 1914. Its about the time of Armageddon. Revelation 1:7 corresponds to Matthew 24: 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Revelation 1:7 says, Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Now notice that his coming the clouds of heaven in this case where every eye sees him results in all the earth beating themselves in lamentation. Why? Because it means their destruction. They will indeed then see close up and know that Jesus Christ is bringing destruction upon him because they opposed his people and thus opposed him. But of course they cannot literally see Jesus because since his ressurection no one has seen or can see him. They will see him by seeing the destruction he brings upon wicked mankind for rejecting him as King and rejecting his brothers. This is not the same as when he was enthroned as king in 1914. You will note that Revelation also said that those who pierced him would see him. How? They're already dead. Well, remember Jesus said if you do it to my brothers you do it to me. So those who persecute Christ's brothers are doing the same as persecuting Jesus. And they will see and know that they are being destroyed for opposing Jesus and his people. This also explains why Jesus said to his apostles: A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live. --John 14:19. The world would never again literally behold or see Jesus. Only those who are called to heaven would see him again because they would be immortal spirit beings just as he is now.
thirdwitness
JoinedPosts by thirdwitness
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
plmkrzy: 23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' He got here in 1914 invisibly! do not believe it.
26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Actually what Jesus said supports the teachings of JWs that the presence of the Son of man would be invisible. The scripture says:
23 “Then if anyone says to YOU , ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU . 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU , ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
False Christs will visibly come on the scene but you are not to believe them because Christ is not coming back visibly. If someone says he is in the wilderness or he's here or he's there don't believe it because he is not coming back visibly. His presence will be like lightning that covers the whole sky so that everyone will be able to see it if they look. Jesus' whole point was that he is not coming back visibly. The result is that no one can claim he is the Christ because of that fact. Coming on the clouds denotes invisibility. Also the Bible says that since Jesus' ressurection to heaven that no man can see him. He also told his disciples in John 14:19 that the world would behold him no more.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
Yes, sorry, 10 righteous men. I was going from memory. I was wrong. Its not like whether it was 5 or 10 has any bearing on the subject at hand. But thanks for pointing that out.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
Steve: The letter I posted was written by the man who Runs the DPI. If there is anyone one the planet who would know whether all organizations holding NGO status would have to comply with the rules of the United Nations, it would be him. Not an apostate and not a cult representative.
No one has said that the WTS did not comply with the rules. The rules changed. And Paul Hoeffel tells the rules in his letter after the change was made.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
To the statement: About as many people have died in earthquakes since 1914 as all the years previous to 1914.
AlanF said: False. According to the incomplete list you posted, and using the larger of the two figures given, there were about:
2.0 million deaths pre-1914.
1.5 million deaths post-1914.If you use the highest total for the 1976 China earthquakes of 655,000 then both figures are around 2 million. And even if you don't it is still true that deaths from earthquakes since 1914 are about equal to deaths from earthquakes in the centuries before 1914. And it has only been 92 years since 1914. The total will continue to rise. But the total before 1914 will get no higher.
However, according to the list I extracted from the National Geophyscial Data Center, which has a much bigger and generally more complete database, the figures are about:
6.4 million deaths pre-1914.
1.6 million deaths post-1914.The National Geophysical Date Center must include suspect or unproven earthquakes with total deaths guessed at. I say this because of their inclusion of the 1737 disaster in Calcutta India killing 300,000 which the USGS does not include siting it as being more likely a typhoon. But even using your figures you provide here it is still a major increase. From the 1st century until 1914 we have an average of 3300 to 3400 deaths per year. From 1914 onward we have an average of over 17,000 deaths per year.
I was thinking of going thru the list of earthquakes by the National Geophyical Data Center and seeing how many are substantiated but in view of these facts, whats the use?
On the statement: More people have died in wars since 1914 than all the years from the 1st century until 1914.
AlanF said: False. Depending on what figures you believe, post-1914 there have been on the order of 80-100 million killed. In my long post on earthquakes and "the composite sign" -- which you ignored -- on the order of 80-90 million were killed just in the wars I listed, and this list was far from complete. A complete list would show a hell of a lot more.
You listed the major wars that occured prior to 1914. And You just proved my point. Using your figures 80-100 million since 1914 is about the same as 80-90 million prior to 1914. If you want to add some of the wars you left out prior to 1914 the increase will not be that great. But for argument sake lets double your figure for wars before 1914 and make it 200 million. And lets use the 100 million figure for deaths after 1914 by war. What do we find?
Wars before 1914 killed an average of around 100,000 per year.
Wars after 1914 killed an average of over 1 million per year.
What more needs to be said except that Jesus words that there will be earthquakes in one place after another and nation will rise against nation has clearly happened on an unprecedented scale since 1914.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
After searching thru the irrelevant parts of AlanF's last charade I think I may have found the 'meat' of his argument if you want to call it that. AlanF's words in italics.
So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot.
Correct.
In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come.
Not totally correct. If 5 good people could be found, the city would not be destroyed. Lot tried to find them but couldn't. If there had been other righteous ones in the city God would have gotten them out just as he did Lot.
At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning.
No one has ever said that Noah covered the entire world with his preaching. The Bible does call him a 'preacher of righteousness' and I do believe that and I do believe that he told all that he could and did not try to keep it hush hush. I also believe that what he was doing spread abroad to many people during the many years he was carrying out his assignment, even ones he might not have known. I also believe that anyone who was righteous like Noah, Jehovah would have seen to it that he knew of what Noah was doing. But there apparently were no other righteous ones who cared enough for God to do his will. They were all too busy with their daily lives to take note of God.
So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.
Incorrect. The days of Noah are compared to the days of the Son of man. You twist the scripture. The days of the Son of man are not compared just to the time that the flood came. You add the word 'before' in there to try to make what you are saying seem correct. The scripture does not say the days of Noah are like the days before the Son of man. Luke 17:26 says, "just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man:" Sorry there is no before in there.
Maybe you are getting this mixed up with Matt 24: 38 : For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence (days) of the Son of man will be. Ah there is that word 'before'. It is used in connection with the flood not with the days of the Son of man. What does that mean? It means just the opposite of what you are saying. It means that the days before the flood are the same as the days or presence or parousis of the Son of man. It does not mean the days before the Son of man is like when the flood suddenly came.
but you've ignored that 'the days of Lot' = 'the days of the Son of man'.
I am not ignoring that at all. It was just not relevant to the fact. But if you want to use that, that is fine. The days of Lot did not just include the day that fire and sulfur came out of heaven. The days of Lot included all the days before the destruction when men were carrying on degradation and taking no note of God. So yes, thanks for bringing that up. The days of lot do indeed equal the days or presence of the Son of man. And just as they were in the days of Lot or before the destruction of Sodom eating and drinking and taking no note so it will be also in the days of the Son of man.
You've also neglected the obvious fact that the whole point of these passages is not to equate these periods, but to show the unexpectedness and suddenness of the events that came at the end of these periods.
There is no doubt that it shows the unexpected suddeness of Armageddon coming upon mankind. I did not neglect that fact. The whole point of these passages is to equate these periods. That is exactly what Jesus is teaching. That during the days of Lot and Noah, before the flood and fire, people took no note until their destruction so likewise during the days of the Son of man (which is now) people will be taking no note and suddenly unexpectedly sudden destruction at Armageddon. Case in point: AlanF and friends taking no note and saying, 'Where is this promised presence of his. Why all things are continuing as before.'
All of these passages are completely understandable in the normal Christian way when the complete passages and context are considered, as I've shown above.
You like rhetoric rather than truth, don't you? You tried to twist the context by adding the word 'before' where it is not and taking it away from where it really is. By normal Christian way do you mean Christendom's way?
: The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'.Not quite. Your claim is incomplete.
My claim is nothing more than what Jesus said. He is the one that used presence of the Son of man in Matthew 24 and days of the Son of man in Luke 17. So what you really must be saying is Jesus' claim is incomplete.
Which is why the translation "presence" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
Translating parousia as 'coming' makes the reader think that Jesus used the same words throughout Matthew translated 'coming' by some Bibles and he didn't. He used the noun parousia for a reason and that was to distinguish it from the verb used for coming. Which is why the translation "coming" buggers one's understanding of Matthew, Mark, Luke and a host of other passages.
Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't disprove your silly claims before, they can now.
You like rhetoric don't you? I think it will mean more when I say it: Readers who might not have tackled your seemingly "definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence" can now see why such a declaration on your part is insane. If they couldn't see thru your silly claims before, they can now.
By the way, your teeth are laying on the floor.
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
True or False
About as many people have died in earthquakes since 1914 as all the years previous to 1914.
More people have died in wars since 1914 than all the years from the 1st century until 1914.
And no one ever really answered:
Do you agree with this list from USGS?
Earthquakes with 50,000 or More Deaths
Listed in order of greatest number of deaths
Date UTC Location Deaths Magnitude Comments 1556 01 23 China, Shansi 830000 ~8 2004 12 26 Sumatra 283106 9.1 Deaths from earthquake and tsunami. 1976 07 27 China, Tangshan 255000
(official)7.5 Estimated death toll as high as 655,000. 1138 08 09 Syria, Aleppo 230000 856 12 22 Iran, Damghan 200000 1927 05 22 China, Tsinghai 200000 7.9 Large fractures. 1920 12 16 China, Gansu 200000 7.8 Major fractures, landslides. 893 03 23 Iran, Ardabil 150000 1923 09 01 Japan, Kanto
(Kwanto)143000 7.9 Great Tokyo fire. 1948 10 05 USSR
(Turkmenistan, Ashgabat)110000 7.3 1908 12 28 Italy, Messina 70000 to 100000
(estimated)7.2 Deaths from earthquake and tsunami. 1290 09 China, Chihli 100000 2005 10 08 Pakistan 80361 7.6 1667 11 Caucasia, Shemakha 80000 1727 11 18 Iran, Tabriz 77000 1932 12 25 China, Gansu 70000 7.6 1755 11 01 Portugal, Lisbon 70000 8.7 Great tsunami. 1970 05 31 Peru 66000 7.9 $530,000,000 damage, great rock slide, floods. 1935 05 30 Pakistan, Quetta 30000 to 60000 7.5 Quetta almost completely destroyed. 1693 01 11 Italy, Sicily 60000 1268 Asia Minor, Silicia 60000 1990 06 20 Western Iran 40000 to 50000 7.7 Landslides. 1783 02 04 Italy, Calabria 50000 -
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
Steve, Paul Hoeffels letter is covered in the NGO article if you want to read it. If not, then you can remain in the misled state that you are currently in, tossed hither and thither by apostate propaganda.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/
Paul Hoeffel letter examined:
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/hailtothechief.html
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
AlanF said: I should note that much of the above statistical information on war, famine and pestilence is taken from Carl Jonsson's book The Sign of the Last Days: When?
I notice that he quotes a lot from Carl Jonnson and his book. Who is this god Carl Jonnson that I should recognize his voice? If you are allowed to quote Carl Jonnson as if he only speaks truth, Can I likewise quote the WT as support for what I say and everyone accept it?
-
1380
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness inthink about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.
why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?
as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.
-
-
thirdwitness
AlanF said: This is where the double lying comes in. The Society actually teaches that its use of "presence" focuses exclusively on the "subsequent presence" part of this meaning, so its 1996 Watchtower article was lying about the Society's historical usage of the term. That's why they use "presence" exclusively in the NWT. I've gone over this many times now, and the fact that you keep ignoring it proves you're a liar.
Perhaps it would be good to learn the teachings of JWs before criticizing them. Maybe thats why you became such an enemy of Jehovah and His people, because you never understood our teachings. This is why the Bible and JWs emphasize diligent study. So that you can understand the deeper things and not just go by what you think you know. Let me enlighten AlanF as to what JWs teach about parousia.
8-15-96 WT: Hence, it is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.
Insight book: While Jesus’ presence of necessity implies his arrival at the place where he is present, the translation of pa·rou·si´a by “coming” places all the emphasis on the arrival and obscures the subsequent presence that follows the arrival.
7-1-74: A “visit” includes more than an “arrival.” It includes a “presence.”
6-15-79 WT This official presence begins with his second coming.
7-1-79 Tied in with God’s resurrecting Jesus is an event of the greatest importance to all Christians. That is Christ’s return, or second coming. Jesus kept this vital subject before his followers, and they eagerly awaited this return. Shortly before his death, they implored: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [Greek, parousia]
Who really is the one trying to deceive? Who really is the liar?