The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
thirdwitness
The June, 1914/ Oct 1914 is really not that difficult to explain. It was at the end of June that the archduke was assassinated. That is when history declares that WW I began. But so what? Just because someone was assassinated then you think that the Devil must've already been cast down by then. By Oct, 1914 WW I was just getting underway. Turkey did not even side with Germany until Oct, 1914. Sides were still being drawn. Really this is a poor attempt to discredit JWs.
-
thirdwitness
I see that the arguments against the 7 times being 2520 years has been reduced to cartoons. This is apropos.
-
fjtoth
Really this is a poor attempt to discredit JWs.
JWs discredit themselves by their sheer dishonesty. You know very well that Russell predicted the END of the world for 1914, not Christ's return. He said Christ returned in 1874. Why don't you have enough truthfulness and honesty in your heart to admit it?
-
AuldSoul
AuldSoul: Let me ask you directly, a yes or no question...do you agree with the statement in the Daniel's Prophecy book? If so, then you are diagreeing with what you just wrote and converting your doctrine to that of the WTS within minutes. If not, then you do not support their doctrine either and therefore you are also an apostate.
In case you missed it. It is, once again, a yes or no question. I wonder if you will answer it with a yes or no.
Since your 2,520 years interpretation is cartoonish, reducing it to that form of expression is apropos.
AuldSoul
-
-
thirdwitness
I would like to address AlanF's long post on page 8.
He says: Luke 21:24 states (NWT) that "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." The key phrase in thirdwitless' argument is "will be". In the Greek, this is in the future indicative tense (Gr. estai), and that tense generally signifies something that has yet to occur. However, in certain cases it can refer to an indefinite future time period that may or may not include the present. Context is the only thing that can determine what the writer had in mind. Thus, the passage might be rendered more precisely in two ways:
Jerusalem will at some future time begin to be trampled on by the nations . . .
Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations . . .
The question is: which one is right? Since grammar is of no help, let's look at the context. Notice what I have highlighted in red. He has admitted and he is correct that it could mean 'will continue to be trampled'. He says we should examine the context. I agree. The context is this: Jesus is answering the question about when his presence will take place and what will be the sign. He then begans to tell how literally Jerusalem will be destroyed. Is this the trampling? If so when did it end. Did it end when the Roman army finished trouncing Jerusalem and led off the captives? Hardly. The trampling continued after that time. The destruction of Jerusalem was not the trampling. Jerusalem was already being trampled on by the Romans before its destruction. They were under Roman authority before 70CE. And so when Jesus said Jerusalem 'will be' trampled until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled he was letting the disciples know that the destruction of Jerusalem would not bring an end to the trampling like they were thinking. It would continue until the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled. God's Kingdom would not be set up in Jerusalem at that time when Jerusalem was being destroyed by the Roman Army. The trampling would continue. It is really not that difficult to comprehend. The context definitely allows for the meaning that AlanF admits is possible. Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations . . .until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. That is when the trampling would end. That is when his presence would begin. He would assume his position as God's king in the heavenly Jerusalem. And that is after all what they were asking about: When his presence and the end would come.
AlanF also says: Huge problem here: After his resurrection, Jesus stated that "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:18) If we take the Bible at its word, then the word "all" really means all. Therefore there was no authority left for God to give at some future time. This passage alone kills off the Society's 1914 doctrine, which requires that God granted further authority to Jesus in 1914 -- contradicting Matthew 28:18.
Only a huge problem for persons like AlanF who do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But notice Revelation 12 which was to occur in the Lord's day after Jesus statement at Matt 28:18. Notice verse 15 And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” Chirst was to receive authority in a special way in the future. But is this really so? After Satan is cast out of heaven Revelation 12:10 tells us: And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! So even though Jesus was given authority after his ressurection he did not exercise all his authority until the proper time appointed by his Father. He waited until he received his kingship over God's Messianic Kingdom. And even still he has not exercise all his authority because he has not destroyed all the other kingdoms. (Daniel 2:44) For further proof of this lets look at an illustration that Jesus gave: Luke 19:
11 While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly. 12 Therefore he said: “A certain man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return. 13 Calling ten slaves of his he gave them ten mi´nas and told them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent out a body of ambassadors after him, to say, ‘We do not want this [man] to become king over us.’
15 “Eventually when he got back after having secured the kingly power, he commanded to be called to him these slaves to whom he had given the silver money, in order to ascertain what they had gained by business activity.
Well of course you know the story. He rewarded those who had obeyed his commands. But as for the enemies of his look what happened.
27 Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them BRING here and slaughter them before me.’”
This proves: Jesus would not secure kingly power until sometime after his accension to heaven. And so his words were not just for his disciples living then but also for people living in the last days of this system of things.I like this comment by AlanF revealing his true motives: Translation: A lot of what Jesus predicted for the 1st century did not happen, so we must find ways to extend the failed prophecies at least as far as our day. LOL!
Translation: AlanF is playing you all for a bunch of fools as he does not even believe what the Bible says at all. Why do you think he would do anything other than try to mislead you away from the Bible truths that JWs have shown you from the Bible? AlanF tries to argue the Bible when he himself does not even believe it is true. This is why his arguments fall flat. Ask yourself these questions: Do you believe that Jehovah God would give Bible understanding to one who does not even believe that the Bible is His word? Does Jehovah God expect you to learn Bible truths from one who teaches that His Bible prophecies have failed?
-
ackack
Thirdwitness, you wrote:
The June, 1914/ Oct 1914 is really not that difficult to explain. It was at the end of June that the archduke was assassinated. That is when history declares that WW I began. But so what? Just because someone was assassinated then you think that the Devil must've already been cast down by then. By Oct, 1914 WW I was just getting underway. Turkey did not even side with Germany until Oct, 1914. Sides were still being drawn. Really this is a poor attempt to discredit JWs.
According to http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1stimeline3.htm Turkey didn't join until November. (just a side point). World War 1 is used as an example of how the world went crazy under Satan's direct influence. But Satan didn't directly influence World War 1 until October, two months after the war was in full swing. My intent is not to discredit JWs, rather, I'm finding fault with the logic of October 4/5th being special in any way. The war didn't suddenly increase in intensity, nor did the world "go mad" in any appreciable way.
World War 1 itself was predicted by many commentators of the day. It didn't take the world by storm, or come as some shock, but was pretty much anticipated. There is an interesting book, called England and Germany, published in 1913 I believe, where the author details why another war was inevitable.
I suppose I'm just trying to understand why World War 1 marked the beginning of anything? It certainly didn't mark the ending of the Gentile times...(that was in October, and the war clearly started at the end of July). Not really sure why Witnesses use it as an example of anything really.
But you're right, sides WERE still being drawn, I mean, the USA didn't even get involved until 1917 (afaik). But aside from USA and Turkey, I think everyone else figured out their sides before October.
And btw, it wasn't the archduke being assassinated thats meaningful, its Russia declaring war the next day and promptly invading Poland. So Satan wasn't involved there. Which bits of the war WAS he involved with then?
ackack
-
thirdwitness
More questions:Outlaw: 3rd Witness,you don`t like the posters to use secular sources of information.Yet you insist on using your sources,information from the WBTS publications..You openly admit you could`nt put an arguement together without them..Your not looking for a fair and honest debate.
I write using the Bible. I am not copying and pasting WT publications unless noted. The reason that I admit I could not write anything without the WT publications is because it is the WT publications that helped me to understand the Bible. I think that is true of most of you also. Whether you will admit it or not remains to be seen. How many consult the Insight book when they want to know about a certain person in the Bible? Raise your hand. Probably all of you. Why?
Danny: thirdwitness what say you? Put aside the chronology for one post and refute the Millerite origins of the Watchtower
I will let Russell answer for himself: “We found that for centuries various sects and parties had split up the Bible doctrines amongst them, blending them with more or less of human speculation and error . . . We found the important doctrine of justification by faith and not by works had been clearly enunciated by Luther and more recently by many Christians; that divine justice and power and wisdom were carefully guarded tho not clearly discerned by Presbyterians; that Methodists appreciated and extolled the love and sympathy of God; that Adventists held the precious doctrine of the Lord’s return; that Baptists amongst other points held the doctrine of baptism symbolically correctly, even tho they had lost sight of the real baptism; that some Universalists had long held vaguely some thoughts respecting ‘restitution.’ And so, nearly all denominations gave evidence that their founders had been feeling after truth: but quite evidently the great Adversary had fought against them and had wrongly divided the Word of God which he could not wholly destroy.”
“Our work . . . has been to bring together these long scattered fragments of truth and present them to the Lord’s people—not as new, not as our own, but as the Lord’s. . . . We must disclaim any credit even for the finding and rearrangement of the jewels of truth.” “The work in which the Lord has been pleased to use our humble talents has been less a work of origination than of reconstruction, adjustment, harmonization.”steve: 24 "...Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes"Daniel says "the kingdoms of men" NOT "ruler of HIS kingdom".Stop twisting scripture!
This looks like a You say tomato and I..... The ruler of His (God's) Kingdom is certainly the ruler over the 'kingdoms of men', all of the kingdoms of men since God's kingdom will crush the rest as Dan 2:44 says. hillarystep: Does you understand the preterist arguments of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, the very ones on which you are seeking to educate us all? How would you refute their arguments?
You'll have to be more specific. I know very little about preterists.
fjthoth: If it didn't "belong" to the apostles 'to know when Jesus would begin to rule as king in God's Kingdom,' why does it "belong" to the Watchtower Society?
Because Daniel 12:4 tells us “And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.”
steve: thirdwitness, I would appreciate a response to my explanation of Daniel 4.Look at my posts. I am only using the bible. Not extra-interpretation.Up for the challenge?
Sorry. Mustve missed it. But I believe I've about covered every question asked. Yours must have been the same as someone elses. But repeat it if I didn't answer it.
jayhawk: Does the Book of Daniel say in any part of it that its prophecies are written for the Mesiah? I am asking, because I don't know.
All of the prophecies in Daniel are about the Messiah.
Dan 2:44, "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;"
Dan 7:27 "And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the rulerships will serve and obey even them."
Dan 8:25: "And against the Prince of princes he will stand up, but it will be without hand that he will be broken."
Dan 12:1 "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."
Even Daniel 5 is about Cyrus, Jesus being the greater Cyrus, called God's anointed one in Isa 45:1.
Dan 4:17 "By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."
cabasilas: Question for thirdwitness: Has the Watchtower Society ever used these other verses to as proof like you are doing? They use words like "it would be fitting" or "it is reasonable," etc. Can you cite where the Society uses these verses?
I'm not sure if they exactly use any and/or all the arguments I have presented or just allude to the scriptures I presented. You can look it up on the WT library. The WT is not my god. Many of you quote from the WT more than I do. Maybe thats why many of you have left the truth. Because the WT was your God. Some seem to have replaced AlanF or Carl Jonnson for the WT.
-
thirdwitness
ackack, your argument really doesn't matter. There was a war going on in heaven and one going on down on the earth. I do not know exactly how long the war in heaven lasted and the exact date that Satan was finally cast out. I don't know exactly what was going thru Satan's mind and if he anticipated that Jesus was about to toss him out so he started something on earth. All we know is the Gentile times came to an end in October, 1914 and Jesus as the newly empowered king of God's kingdom began to cast him out at that time. Ever since then the world has steadily gotten worse. Woe for the earth. Your argument is really pointless.