The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  
  In his post # 351 on page 55 of this thread, thirdwitness wrote:

  : 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?

  AuldSoul cleared this up in his post # 4317 on page 55 of this thread, and you, in your usual fashion, had not the grace to answer, but completely ignored what he said.

  Let me say it another way: Since there was no preaching work done by Lot toward the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was nothing for them to "take note" of or to know about a coming destruction. But because the Bible compares the days of Lot with the days of Noah and the days of the Son of man, and the Watchtower Society claims that these periods were identical in terms of the significant events to take place in them -- in particular, in terms of a "preaching work" and an ignoring of such preaching work on the part of everyone else in the world -- it follows that the Society is comparing all of these days to one another in all of these significant respects.

  As AuldSoul said, "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."

  : I did not misrepresent the situation.

  Yes, you most certainly did. As in the following:

  : Lot did try to find righteous ones. He went to his sons-in-laws to be and tried to tell them.

  That's not preaching to the populace. That's trying to protect potential sons-in-law.

  : Who knows who else he talked to?

  Pure speculation.

  : The Bible doesn't give every detail.

  Based on that, one could speculate that Noah had seven heads.

  : But even that doesn't matter. If there were righteous ones there Jehovah would have warned them just as he did Lot.

  By what means? Inspiration? Not bloody likely. The fact is that the account tells of angels -- messengers of God -- coming to Lot and warning him of a coming destruction. The fact that these messengers of God gave no messages to anyone besides Lot unarguably shows that God had already judged these people as worthy of destruction, and therefore no preaching was necessary.

  : And Jehovah is warning people today by means of the preaching of the good news.

  Yeah right. 99% of people who know anything about JWs know that they're a braindead cult and pay no attention to them. They class them along with Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Moonies, and similar groups who are viewed by virtually all non-members as cults.

  : 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're so incredibly dense that you don't even realize that what you're saying is almost identical to what I posted in my long post #4718 on page 53 of this thread. Discussing Luke 17:20-35, I stated:

  So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot. 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. 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. So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

  Now, since it's pretty obvious that your reading comprehension is limited to skimming and the simpler of sound-bytes, let me help you see the agreement between what the two of us said.

  AlanF: In the days of Lot, there was no preaching . . . The same with the days of Noah. . . 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.

  Thirdwitness: Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. . . His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.

  AlanF: In the days of Lot . . . everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come. At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. . . in the days before the Flood . . . people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning.

  Thirdwitness: 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.

  Since we agree so closely on these points, just as AuldSoul pointed out, logically we ought to agree on the inevitable conclusion:

  AlanF: So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

  But of course, you do not agree with this conclusion. Why not?

  : 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.

  I can do no better than repeat AuldSoul's rejoinder -- which you completely ignored:

  "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." Oh, by the way, how are you coming along in dealing with that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs? Doesn't it just totally remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  I agree with you, Fisherman. In the world of Christianity, God is just by definition.

  But this raises all sorts of problems.

  For example, if God is just by definition, then his personal opinions are what define morality. Therefore, morality is not an absolute, but is merely "whatever God says". This sticks in the craw of thinking people, because if God suddenly said that it was of utmost importance and the height of morality to eat your children, your wife and your grandmother as soon as your belly was empty of the ones preceding, you would almost certainly reject this as the insane rantings of a mad god. I am reminded of the 1970-ish movie Bananas by Woody Allen, where the recently empowered dictator of a Spanish-speaking country in Central or South America decides that the language of San Marcos would hencforth be Swedish, and that to protect the public health, everyone should wear their underpants on the outside, "so we can check".

  I'm sure you get my point.

  AlanF
• 

  jayhawk1

  : The Bible doesn't give every detail.

  Based on that, one could speculate that Noah had seven heads.

  Taken from the Alan's first post on this page... That settles it! I have it all figured out now. Thirdwitness has been telling us all of Daniel's prophecies relate to Jesus. Daniel has a seven headed beast. Revelation has a seven headed dragon. And Jesus said his coming (Armageddon) would be the same as in the days of Noah. That proves Noah had seven heads! Boy I'm glad it only took 61 pages to clear that up.
• 

  OUTLAW

  130% increase in "JW Gross Immorality??.....6 Million JW`s dancing around Bethel naked,Worshiping the WatchTower!!.."Bring me More Wine and another Wench!"..LOL!!...OUTLAW
• 

  AlanF

  In his post # 350 on page 55 thirdwitness wrote:

  : The scriptures do tell you that his presence would be invisible

  Wrong.

  Readers will note once again the circularity of thirdwitness' arguments: "Since the presence is invisible, no one can see it. No one actually saw this presence beginning in 1914. Therefore, the parousia is invisible".

  : but you have to look diligently into the Bible.

  Translation: You have to blind yourself to the Bible and look at what the Watchtower Society claims about the Bible.

  : It doesn't give it to you on a silver platter.

  Translation: When you look at the Bible through Watchtower-colored glasses, you willingly become blinded to bullpucky, but it takes a lot of work to blind yourself that far.

  : 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

  You certainly have a problem with spelling. I think that you ought to run your posts by some of your more astute colleagues, such as the one who described my "website" as "retarted". LOL!

  : the thought that every eye will literally see Jesus.

  A strawman claim. No one is claiming that "every eye will literally see Jesus". What posters such as I and AuldSoul are saying is nothing more or less than what the Bible itself says: Jesus' coming would be extremely visible in whatever unspecified manner the Bible writers meant -- if they consciously meant anything at all. If the Bible writers intended that "visible" meant literally, then so be it. If they intended that "visible" meant "in the sense that everyone would understand that Jesus had appeared in no uncertain terms to begin direct rule of the world", then so be it.

  Since you've again raised a strawman, I'll eliminate every one of your arguments based on it.
  
  : 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.

  Readers will note that the above-quoted passage from Daniel gives no indication whatsoever as to when the supposed prophecies were to be fulfilled. Therefore, it is pure speculation to apply a specific fulfillment to these "prophecies".

  : Allowing the Bible to interpret itself it is evident now what is meant by coming on a cloud. It denotes invisibility because when Jesus took up his kingship of God's Kingdom he came not physically or literally to earth but rather he gained access to Jehovah who is invisible in the heavens. He is spoken of as coming with the clouds and coming before Jehovah. It was invisible to the literal eyes of all humans.

  You call this an argument? All you're doing is arguing that Jesus will never again be personally visible on earth, in the sense of his human body being observable or a ghostly manifestation being visible, such as whatever seems to have appeared to such people as the doubting Thomas who is claimed to have put his fingers into Jesus' spear wound. This is not an issue here.
  
  :: If he came invisably in 1914, how is it every eye saw him?
  
  : They didn't.

  Then you disagree with the Bible. It's quite clear on the visibility of the parousia:

  Matthew 24:27: For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be.

  Luke 17:24: For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be.

  When lightning flashes, no one with normal senses can fail to see it. Therefore, the parousia, or the coming of the Son of man, will be visible to everyone with normal senses.

  : Because Revelation 1:7 is not about 1914. Its about the time of Armageddon.

  Actually, these passages -- assuming that they're actually coherent -- all talk about, not Armageddon, but the coming of the Son of man. Revelation 1:7 says nothing about Armageddon:

  Revelation 1:7: 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.

  The only place in the entire Bible that talks about Armageddon is Revelation 16:16:

  And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon.

  There are a huge number of problems in attempting to place whatever this is supposed to mean in any specific timeframe, And of course, the Watchtower Society's track record of 100% failure in applying "Bible prophecy" to specific events is legendary, so putting one's trust in anything it claims concerning esoterica such as Revelation is foolish.

  Bottom line: Revelation 1:7 is connected with 1914 only in the fertile imaginations of Watchtower writers.

  : 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.

  A fair conclusion that is entirely in harmony with all of my arguments.
  
  : 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

  So far so good, except that your last "him" should be "them". Nevertheless, what you've said so far completely jibes with Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24, as I've shown above. In other words, we agree on a major point of biblical expostion! Surprise, surprise, surprise!

  : because they opposed his people and thus opposed him.

  Nothing more than an unsupported JW doctrine. This claim merely assumes that JWs are exclusively God's people, despite what Luke 21:8 states:

  Look out that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’ Do not go after them.

  Titles in JW and Bible Student literature such as "The Time Is At Hand", "The Kingdom Is At Hand" and so forth, prove without doubt that JWs are exactly the kind of false prognosticators that Jesus warned against.

  : 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.

  Actually, the scriptures are clear that "their seeing him" precedes the soon-to-come destruction by means of special "signs" that precede, and are independent of, "the coming destruction":

  Luke 21:25-27: 25 Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and [its] agitation, 26 while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

  Mark 13:24-26: 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

  Matthew 24:29-30: 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.

  : This is not the same as when he was enthroned as king in 1914.

  Do tell. Since nothing of real note happened in that year, aside from the beginning of a typically large European war that had nothing to do with what C. T. Russell expected and published as one of "God's dates", it can hardly be argued that anything mentioned in this post has anything to do with an enthronement of Jesus in 1914.
  
  : You will note that Revelation also said that those who pierced him would see him. How? They're already dead.

  So far so good. Assuming that a resurrection ultimately occurs, no problem.

  : 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.

  A more ridiculous argument can hardly be imagined. No one today, aside from braindead JWs, thinks that failing to heed the braindead "message" of Jehovah's Witnesses has any relevance at all to anything in the real world -- even if they know anything at all about JWs, which about half the world does not.. Therefore, claiming that such a universal combination of ignorance and knowing rejection constitutes an "opposing" of "Jesus and his people" is insane. For the people who know nothing of Jesus, such a claim is stupid, because people cannot reject something they know nothing about. For the people who know something of Jehovah's Witnesses, almost all reject them as a cult that should be rejected on general grounds, and so they are in no sense "persecuting" JWs or deliberately rejecting what they know to be the truth.
  
  : 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.

  Once again you show that you do not know the scriptures. We now complete the circle, because Matthew 28:18 clearly states:

  And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things."

  If Jesus really were "with" his followers "all the days" from when he spoke until today, then in view of scriptures like John 14:19, we must conclude that this "being with" is not literal but spiritual. Thus, your speculations are proved invalid.
  
  AlanF
• 

  PMJ4

  OZZIE YOUR A POWER FREAK.WHEN YOU DELETED MY FIRST ACCOUNT I HAD MANNERS AND SAID THANK YOU FOR DELETING MY OLD ACCOUNT THEN YOU HAD TO BE RUDE AND TRY MAKE A FOOL OF ME.NO WONDER YOUR NOT IN THE TRUTH ANY MORE.WELL IM GOING TO SET THE RECORD STRAGHT THEN LEAVE ALL YOU TWISTED MIXED UP PEOPLE ALONE.MY FIRST ACOUNT WAS PMJ AND IT WOULDNT LET ME POST.SO I SET UP ANOTHER PMJ2.THEN THAT WOULDNT LET ME LOGIN.SO I SET UP PMJ3 WITH MY NIECES EMAIL ADDRESS BECAUSE IT WOULDNT LET ME REGISTER WITH MINE BECAUSE IT HAD ALL READY BEEN USED TO REGISTER.SO THERE REASON I HAVE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS IS BECAUSE CONTROL FREAK OZZIE KEEPS DELETING THEM.SO INAFECT SHE IS DISFELLOWSHIPING ME FROM THIS BOARD AND SHUNNING ME TALK ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS.ANY WAY OZZIE AND THE REST OF YOU GO A HEAD AND LIVE YOUR BITTER TWISTED LIVES.YOU WOULDNT NO WHAT LOVE FOR GOD WAS IF IT SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE.
• 

  Jeffro

  Just noticed this thread - I've been very busy with work.

  I'll respond to the rest of thirdwitness' latest drivel when I have time. But i'll deal with his introduction now.

  We have shown previously (http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/default.html) how 607BCE not 587BCE is indeed the year that Jerusalem was desolated according to the irrefutable evidence presented in God's word the Bible.

  No, you haven't shown 607 to be valid whatsoever, and I have already begun a series that indicates that site's flaws in detail.

  Even some of those who have previously tried to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses by saying 607BCE is the incorrect date of Jerusalem's desolation are now forced to admit that it may indeed be the correct date because they have no clear answer for the Biblical evidence presented in favor of 607 and against 587.

  Again, another straight-out lie. I (and others) have not been forced to admit anything at all, and the abovementioned site simply presents more fodder that demonstrates the dishonesty, circumlocutory, and flawed logic of proponents of 607.

  In light of this, not wanting to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses indeed have the truth, they now have resorted to this view: 'So what. It doesn't matter if it was 607 or 587! This proves nothing about 1914. It is still an artfully contrived story with no basis in the Bible. There is no evidence that 607 began the Gentile Times and that 1914 was the end of those Gentile Times.'

  Instead of admitting that there are also problems with the Society's interpretation of the 'Gentile Times', he claims that finding fault with the 'Gentile Times' doctrine is merely done as some kind of 'back-up defense'.

  thirdwitness continues to demonstrate gross intellectual dishonesty in his posts. And given that most of his previous posts have been obvious plagiarism, I have strong doubts that this one is any different.
• 

  AuldSoul

  PMJ4,

  You are continuing to create additional accounts. You did not limit yourself to iterations of PMJ accounts, you have had other accounts as well. I hope this new one is deleted in short order, as well.

  Bye.

  AuldSoul
• 

  badboy

  THIS IS SO LONG I CAN'T BE BROTHERED TO READ IT ALL!
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness,

  When will you learn that on this forum you cannot escape being called out for posting verses out of context?

  Luke 17:20-21
  But on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them and said: “The kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness, neither will people be saying, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For, look! the kingdom of God is in YOUR midst.”

  Luke 17:24
  For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be.

  These are in two different paragraphs, denoting a subject change. Now, I know full well that JWs presume to interpret what Jesus meant when he said "the kingdom of God is in your midst" as something other than what he said, but doing so does not alter the recorded words. Oddly, however, they interpret its meaning as equivalent to the presence of the Son of man. This may be where your logic breaks down right across the board.

  Nothing in the Bible ties the presence of the Son of man to the arrival of the kingdom of God. That is a fiction of JWs, not a teaching of the Bible. While the kingdom did not arrive with striking observableness, Jesus doesn't say that his presence would arrive in such an indistinct manner. In fact, intending a pun, striking observableness is an inescapable mental image created by the concept of lightning flashing from one horizon to the opposite horizon. EVERY eye will notice and will understand the significance of an event compared to a horizon spanning flash of lightning.

  However, with JWs we find that even though the Bible Students were anxiously awaiting 1914 they did not "comprehend" (by which I mean "imagine") that this was the time for Jesus enthronement until 1929, at the very earliest. EVEN the ones who were supposedly watching for the event did not discern its significance. How could this johnny-come-lately explanation at least 15 years after the event be compared to a lightning flash that spans the horizons?

  But, why didn't the Bible Students discern it for what it was when it happened? The reason is simple. They believed it had already occurred; Jesus' parousia began in 1874 and that his enthronement took place in 1878. In other words, they were off on when the parousia began by 40 years, so when it happened they missed it.

  In actuality, 1914 had no Biblical significance. If it had, its significance would have been recognized and proclaimed correctly at the time. On the same basis, neither did 1874 nor 1878 have any significance. When the presence of the Son of man begins, every eye will see it (either figuratively or literally) for what it is at the time it begins and will not need anyone to tell them that they should be beating themselves with lamentations. Just as I don't need you to tell me there was a flash of lightning after I see an arc snake across the sky from one horizon to the other.

  The arrival of the kingdom, however, required extensive preaching. It did not arrive with striking observableness except to those who were specifically waiting for its first manifestation of kingdom power. John 14 and 16 explain what the first earthly manifestation of that kingdom would be. It occurred on Pentecost 33 CE. (Acts 1, 2) On that occasion, 120 disciples were "transferred into the kingdom of the Son of his love." (Colossians 1:13-23)

  The Good News of the kingdom requires preaching, because not every eye saw its arrival in agreement with Luke 17:20-21. The visit of the Son of man (who has been reigning since the First Century) will require no introduction or explanation. His visit will be recognized by everyone for what it is, even by those who don't believe, prompting an immediate emotional reaction. It matters not whether you assert that "every eye will see him" is figurative. It still would be earthwide recognition of an event, seeing it for what it is and for what it means for the earth. This event would not require preachers. This event did not happen in 1914. Down to our day the JW conjecture that "occurred" in 1914 is still not recognized by the majority of the world.

  Do you bend your knee to Jesus, thirdwitness? On another forum a JW elder said JWs bend their knees to no man in answer to this question. I agree with him, of course. JWs don't. But Jesus' disciples did. (John 9:38; Luke 24:52; Matthew 8:2; 14:33; 20:20; 28:9, 17) So do the angels. (Hebrews 1:6) But Jehovah's Witnesses don't. Why is that?

  Although I am hopeful this will reach you, I imagine you will miss the point. Again.

  AuldSoul