I don`t think the parousia-thing is hard to understand at all, if we all just remember to see it in context. First of all: When the disciples ask the question "what will be the signs of your parousia", they lived in a time with no communication, no radio, no TV, no internet. So when something "big" happened, it might take days, even weeks for people to hear about it. This is what is meant by the following verse "you will hear of wars and rumors of war", etc. When Jesus says this, this doesn`t mean that there will be wars for 90 years while Christ is still in heaven! It just means that from a war starts, until people "everywhere" (remember, to the jews at this time, the middle east and southern Europe was the entire world), it takes a few days, at least. Second, what in Gods name does the meaning of "parousia" has to do with anything? Does it say in the Bible that this "parousia" begins with Jesus enthronement in heaven!? No way! Parousia doesn`t mean "yup, I`m still in Heaven, invisble, but I took over the power, that is, my daddy raised me up to some higher position...now I`m not just working the floor, I`m a DO now". No, in the minds of the people asking this question, it means "what will be the signs that you are among us, or that you are on the way!?". And not "spiritually". Physically. On the way down from Heaven, not just sitting on a throne.
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible
by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Flash
AuldSoul
Oh, and stevenyc asked you:
Thirdwitness,
You haven't responded yet. I am curious, did the master erchomai around 1914, or not? AuldSoul
Could you clarify the societies position on this?
Matt 24: 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. I understand that you believe the anointed Jehovahs Witnesses represent the faithful slave, but who is the Master, and at which point is his 'arriving' referring too (at the presence or at the tribulation)?steveAt quick count, thirdwitness is debating with close to 20 individuals at once. So it may have slipped passed him. You seem like a intelligent person. I'm sure you remember the Christ's Presence is invisible and precceeds His Arriving at Armageddon. Jesus is the Master.
-
hillary_step
Flash,
At quick count, thirdwitness is debating with close to 20 individuals at once.
I have never seen ThirdWitness and his admitted behind the scenes advisers do any debating, though I have seen them do much preaching.
HS
-
Flash
Hi hillary
Flash,
Those who preach without offering evidence are probably not in much of a position to decide who is intelligent and who is not.
I have seen ThirdWitness and his admitted behind the scenes adviser do no debating, though I have seen them do much preaching.
I start from the position that 90% or more of us here were baptized Witnesses long enough to know at least the basics of Witness doctrine and the reasoning behind it. I try to make a point of not getting drawn into having to prove something I am convinced the other person already knows. Besides, with some people no amount of proof will be sufficient. So I try to spare myself the agony.
As for ThirdWitness, maybe you and I just don't agree on what constitutes a debate. He made a case for something, people who disagree told him why, and now they're going point/counter point. I always considered that a debate.
ttyl
-
Flash
Hi again hillary!
Flash,
I hope you didn't think you offended me. I try not to be thin skinned, especialy here. We may not agree on things, and thats OK.At quick count, thirdwitness is debating with close to 20 individuals at once.
I have never seen ThirdWitness and his admitted behind the scenes advisers do any debating, though I have seen them do much preaching.
HS
-
Fisherman
Ann!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" A leap of Faith" One cannot even establish that the Bible is the word of God. It takes........
Regarding the cong of Lao and Jesus siting on the throne. I want to cite an example : in the book GTO, COJ comments on Jesus words "I saw satan falling..." what did Jesus mean. COJ explains that satan had not fallen yet. HIs view is very persuasive when coj explains that satan was defeated when jesus died and could not threat the woman and the child anymore. Anyway, Coj expalins that although Jesus said that he saw satn falling, that event had not yet occured.
THe Bible is like that ANN. It is not a text book it is an ambiguous poetic and ironic riddle.
Jesus told his disciples"To you it has been granted to understand the sacred.. of the kindom.. to those outside it is not granted" According this statement, one can derrive that only Jesus disciples can understand certain things. Ithink that it was minimus that said one can use the Bible to PROVE anything. Even wts teaching on the pararousia is at the very least possible.
Did you read AF's article on the ransom? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AF's article puts into question a lot of things but he doesnt know for a fact and neither do I if the ransom teaching and the doctrines about having to earn salvation and to suffer again after Jesus paid are true.
Its paid for. No more debt. I have never read anything so persuasive than that. I am sure that article has not only influenced my thinking but that of millions!!
And yet we have to wait and see because we dont know. To be safe I accept the ransom and have my sins forgiven. But after reading that article I do not pretend to profess that I understand the ransom. It does not make sense to me. But who am I? And who said that things have to make perfect sense?
But none of this disproves wts dogmas or doctrines about parousia.
-
hillary_step
Hi Flash,
I hope you didn't think you offended me.
No, I just wondered whether I had read the intent of your post clearly, and decided it would be better to edit out the ambiguity.
As for ThirdWitness, maybe you and I just don't agree on what constitutes a debate. He made a case for something, people who disagree told him why, and now they're going point/counter point. I always considered that a debate.
I beg to differ. Debates require the assimilation of an opponents viewpoint, point by point. ThirdWitness(es) has chosen carefully what he will answer and what he will not, sticking to those issues that he thinks he is correct about and that he stands a slim chance of at least appearing to look theologically competent with. This is not what the process of debating is all about.
That is why even on-topic questions that make him/them feel uncomfortable are boldly ignored. He is here merely to preach not to interchnage viewpoints, that is how he is able to claim victory over issues that even a disinterested party can see that he has been soundly thrashed in.
What seems to have evaded him/them, is that in order to claim a victory over a debate he would have to acknowledge that he has overturned the whole of the religious and secular world outside of the WTS, as what is being presented by 'apostates' is merely the long accepted views of professional scholars and historians.
This shows the confidence that is borne of stupidity, and the arrogance that defines the WTS.
HS
-
Fisherman
Jay:
"and every eye will see him" referring to Jesus comming THis event has not come to pass.
"when the son of man is revealed"
I dont thinks that scholars views are necesssarily true. WE have to wait and see. I am not saying that the wts teaching on parousia is the only explanation. Maybe the wts will carefully back away from the teaching in time. I would like to read what modern scholars are saying about it too. COJ gave me a different perspective though about Jesus enthronement. I have to do a lot of thinking on this again. But no one will ever know for sure, Did you ever read something outside the Bible saying"THis is what the soverogn lord...has said"
Scholastic opinions are always written or given in such a way as to allow the commentator a way out if his conclusion is shown to be wrong strikingly. I do not think that the definition of parousia, even a modern view can clear up waht God meant.
-
jayhawk1
I think Ann just about said everything I was thinking, but couldn't put into words. I don't exactly have a problem with the word "presence" as much as I have a problem with how Watchtower uses it. How can Jesus be here as ruler and yet not be here? If he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords along with being the Alpha and Omega and Prince of Peace along with whatever the other titles are, why not exercise his rulership already? It would seem to me that based on my limited knowledge, it would be more obvious supernatural forces were at work if Jesus did take the throne in 1914.
And for the JW to say, "Look at the awful weapons created by man around the year 1914! Look that is a sign for sure!" I'm sorry, but that came about because of the industrial revolution in the late 1800's brought on by industrial standardization of measurement and parts. That particular thing has nothing to do with Satan or Jesus. Or as George Carlin put it. "We have flame throwers because somebody was setting around one day and decided, "Gee I would like to set those people on fire over there, if only I had a way to throw the flame on them." Now the idea would have stopped right there, but he happened to say it in front of his friend... A friend who happened to be good with tools. A month passes by and "Hey, quite a concept!" KABOOM!"
-