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.
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
thirdwitness
-
thirdwitness
auldsoul said: Just as he has misrepresented the situation with Sodom; Sodom was NOT given any warning. The people did not KNOW what was about to happen, just as in the days of Noah and the days of the Son of Man.
What are you trying to say? That Jesus was wrong when he said that part of the sign of his presence was that this good news of the kingdom will be preached and then the end would come?
I did not misrepresent the situation. Lot did try to find righteous ones. He went to his sons-in-laws to be and tried to tell them. Who knows who else he talked to? The Bible doesn't give every detail. But even that doesn't matter. If there were righteous ones there Jehovah would have warned them just as he did Lot. And Jehovah is warning people today by means of the preaching of the good news.
And in the scriptures we are discussing in Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26 Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them. His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.
You believe that by saying that the people of Sodom didn't receive a warning and Lot didn't preach somehow disproves the point Jesus was making that the days of Noah and Lot when people were taking no note would be like the days or parousia of the Son of man. You point makes no sense whatsoever.
-
jayhawk1
Lot and Abraham was not in comunication at that point. They had gone their seperate ways. It was Abraham who pleaded with Jehovah, not Lot. Lot likely had no idea of Jehovah's conversation with Abraham. It's not like the two men got back together after Sodom was destroyed. So other than going to his soon to be sons, who else did Lot speak to? What I can't understand is why a righteous man would put himself in that situation in the first place.
Come to think of it I can't understand why the Watchtower would put itself in the U.N. either. If there is a parallel, it is that.
-
thirdwitness
Jayhawk: What I can't understand is why a righteous man would put himself in that situation in the first place. Come to think of it I can't understand why the Watchtower would put itself in the U.N. either. If there is a parallel, it is that.
Excellent parallel. Lot was saved thru Sodom's destruction despite what some people may have thought about him. JWs will be saved thru this world's destruction despite what some people may think of them. I like your parallel.
-
jayhawk1
Just like Lot treated the women in his life like property, so does the Watchtower Society.
Great parallel isn't it?
-
jayhawk1
Maybe some religion, like the Catholics will bail out the Jehovah's Witnesses just like Abraham had to do for Lot. Because it does seem like Abraham had to remind Jehovah there was one family that worshipped him. I am looking forward to more parallels in the future.
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: And in the scriptures we are discussing in Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26 Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them. His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.
You are SO CLOSE to getting the point. Keep in mind what you wrote here. THEN consider that other Bibles translate those verses differently than "they took no note", other Bibles say "they did not know." "They took no note" implies there was something of which they could have taken note. In the case of Sodom, clearly they could NOT take note, because there was no message for them to notice. They wouldn't know in the case of Sodom, would they? No one preached a message of impending destruction, so how could they know? Right, thirdwitness? It wasn't that "they took no note" it was that "they did not know". Just like the day and the hour, in point of fact. They do not know.
You just said so yourself, these verses have nothing to do with preaching, therefore they also have nothing to do with people ignoring preaching. The people didn't know until the fire came, the people didn't know until the rain fell, the people will not know, until the Son of Man arrives.
Just because you didn't understand my point doesn't mean that my point doesn't make sense. Your lack of comprehension is not a reflection on the degree of sensibility in my points, it is a reflection of how clouded your mind is by JW thinking.
Good news is not a warning of impending doom. I think you have messages confused.
AuldSoul
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: I did not misrepresent the situation. Lot did try to find righteous ones. He went to his sons-in-laws to be and tried to tell them. Who knows who else he talked to? The Bible doesn't give every detail.
Um...you did not sound so uncertain of his efforts before. You don't know that he talked to anyone else, so implying that he did do so, when the Bible doesn't say that, is deceptive. Lot did not think his son-in-laws to be were righteous any more than he thought the people of Zoar were righteous. Lot didn't go out to find his promised son-in-laws until the angel told him to do so. He wasn't going out to find righteous ones, as you continue to suggest (even though I suspect you read the account anew by now, and that you know better). The Bible only mentions him warning those two men, and they were clearly not righteous.
AuldSoul
-
jayhawk1
I might as well ask this question here as too...
If Lot was such a preacher of righteousness, why did the two nations, Moab and Ammon, who came from him not worship Jehovah? Why did he fail to pass along his faith in Jehovah?
Lot didn't bother to cultivate righteous people in his family, what makes you think he did anything for the men of Sodom?
-
thirdwitness
Finally to AlanF's long and burdensome post.
As usual most of it is the usual nonsense about the definition of the word parousia and a repeat of his last 20 posts. Note to AlanF: Just because you might say it over and over don't mean it will ever be true. Parousia means presence and involves an arrival and subsequent stay. That is what the scholars say. That is what the Bible says. That is even what you have said. Why don't you start a thread about parousia and argue with yourself?
Ive got a great idea. Maybe Leave the part about parousia's definition out next time and that way we will have time to read the rest of your post and it will be easier to find any relevant points if any exist.
After wading thru the usual rhetoric and parousia stuff here is what I found.
Alan F quoted me: No one has ever said that Noah covered the entire world with his preaching.And then said: Obviously, you don't know what your own cult teaches. Note:
Then he proceeded to quote several WT articles that do not prove his point at all. None of them said that Noah covered the entire world. You can go back and look at his quotes if you want to take the time.
Then he sums the WT publication up by saying: The Watchtower Society directly states that Noah preached to the entire "wicked generation" of Noah's day.
The WT didn't use the word 'entire'. I believe that was AlanF's word. There is no doubt Noah preached because the Bible said he was a preacher of righteousness. He no doubt preached to many people. And what he was doing probably spread so that he may well have been known far and wide. To what extent he preached and to what extent his work became known who can say? But I am confident that if there were any other righteous ones around Jehovah would have pointed them to Noah.
Alan F quotes me quoting and answering him:: 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.
And then comments: Your claim is based on only one thing: your circular argument that Christ's "invisible presence" began in 1914 and that this Watchtower doctrine requires that JWs have been given a warning since then. Sorry, circular arguments don't cut it.
No. My claim is based on what Jesus said in comparing the days of Lot and Noah to the days/parousia of the Son of man.
As I told Auldsoul, the scriptures we are discussing in Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26 Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them. His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.
You believe that by saying that the people of Sodom didn't receive a warning and Lot didn't preach somehow disproves the point Jesus was making that the days of Noah and Lot when people were taking no note would be like the days or parousia of the Son of man. You point makes no sense whatsoever. You only hope to confuse the issue but you have failed because we can see thru your absurd reasonings.
AlanF said: It's astonishing how severely you distort what the scriptures say. Let's look at the passage again:Matthew 24:36-39: 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 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 coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be."Now let's analyze the individual verses. Verse 36 makes a statement that no one knows the day or the hour. Why do they not know? Verse 37 answers, beginning with the key word "for". "For" in this position introduces material that explains the preceding material. It's like "because". The sentence "I grow hungry, for I have not eaten" is equivalent to "I grow hungry because I have not eaten." Verse 37, therefore, states the reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because the coming of the Son of man would be like the days of Noah. Obviously, the days of Noah were before the flood. Verse 38 states an additional reason that no one would know the day or the hour: because just as in the days before the flood, people were living life normally as if nothing were about to happen.So, far from being disconnected from the preceding verses, verse 38 is an integral part of them because we have the logical sequence: 36 statement. 37 for this reason . . . 38 for this other reason.
Wow, What did you just say? Do you even know yourself?I have highlighted in red one thing you said among all this mumbo jumbo because it is totally ridiculous. The reason no one knows the day or hour has nothing to do with whether a person is taking note of God. Even servants of God would not know the day or hour of Armageddon, even Jesus himself didn't know.
Then AlanF quotes scholars that might agree with him and dismisses all scholars who might disagree with him as being dispensationalists and various Bible students. So what? How many scholars can you quote that believe God is a Trinity. Bible proof overrides 'scholars'.
Alan F then quotes Luke 17:30 as if he understands it and dazzles us with some Greek to show us that he must be right since he knows some Greek words: Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days [hemera] of the Son of man. . . The same way it will be on that day [hemera] when the Son of man is to be revealed [apokalupsis].
In these passages, Matthew employs phrases like parousia tou huiou tou anthrwpou (coming of-the Son of-the man), while Luke uses phrases like hemera tou huiou tou anthrwpou (day of-the Son of-the man). It is clear that these passages equate coming [parousia] and revealing [apokalupsis].No that is not clear and that is totally incorrect and a misreading of scripture. Here is what the scripture says in Luke 17:29,30: But on the day that Lot came out of Sod´om it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.
What do we see from this. The very day that Sodom was destroyed is not compared to the entire days or parousia of the Son of man. But only to the day when the Son of man is to be revealed. When does this revealing take place for all to see without a doubt? It takes place at the conclusion of the parousia of Christ. Revelation 1:7 tells us at what point he will be revealed so that every eye will see him: 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.
And as I noted a few posts up this coincides perfectly with Matt 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 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.
That is when the flood sweeps them all away, the fire falls on Sodom, and the Son of man is revealed for every eye to see.
Perhaps AlanF can explain secular chronicles which he puts above the Bible but his Bible explanations fall miserably flat on their face and ignore reason, logic, and other inspired scriptures as shown once again.