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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jayhawk1

  Thirdwitness said to Frank rather predictably,

  To frank:

  Peter 3:3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised parousia of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.”

  It is during the last days which also corresponds with Jesus' parousia that this would be fulfilled. During the parousia people would be saying, 'where is this promised parousia?' You probably don't realize it but you, Frank, and your friends have had a part in fulfilling this prophecy. And for this we thank you.

  Allow me to be nearly as predictable... Matthew 24:23,24 "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. Matthew goes on to talk about the appearance of Christ being as obvious to everybody as lightning coming out of the east. Jesus' presence in 1914 is only obvious to one cult, Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  T-wit

  Steve and others, you talk about Chirst's coming as if it is a noun. Parousia is the noun. Coming is just a verb.

  You never heard of gerunds? Put 'the' in front of a verb and you get a verbal noun, e.g. 'the suffering of the Christ,' or 'the parting of the Red Sea.' You really are a twit - this is stuff you learn in elementary school!
• 

  plmkrzy

  Matthew 24:23,24 "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.

  Even the fds will be mislead is why my mother is so tenacious about the wts being gods only true organization. Whenever I brought up anything that pointed to the stupidity of the governing body she would use this as a defense for their ignorance so why even bother to argue?
• 

  jayhawk1

  I've never understood why the Governing Body never addresses themselves as "The Chosen Ones." I would figure with their arrogance, they would use it as their primary title.
• 

  plmkrzy

  I've never understood why the Governing Body never addresses themselves as "The Chosen Ones."

  It's a Jewish thing they needed to alter. Can you imagine the ramifications of publicly calling themselves "The Chosen Ones”?? But on the other hand it would aid the necessary persecution .
• 

  Flash

  hillary_step

  Hi Flash,

  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.

  That was nice. Intent does matter and can be confused when reading something as compare to hearing it.

  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.

  Hmmm...I think it depends on how we define a debate. In looking over Webster's 13 definitions for the word debate, I don't see were either side has to definitively answer the other, certainly not to their opponents satisfation. I don't know if you had any or many meetings with the Elders as a Witness taking you to task about something. I had many, they always tried to control the conversation. On one subject in particular, no matter how much I explained myself, meeting after meeting, it was never enough, it was always request after request for more information. You see, they had allready determined I was wrong, so no amount of reasoning or proof would be, or was, suffient.

  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.

  This shows the confidence that is borne of stupidity, and the arrogance that defines the WTS.

  HS

  I can't speak to this point well because of not following this Thread from start to finish. I do believe in 'picking ones battles' though, so I do not fault 3W if he is selective in what he will or will not answer when verbaly wrestling with close to 20 people at one time...I wouldn't fault you under the same conditions. Besides, like I said before concering the Elders, some people wont be satisfied with any answer.

  The last word is yours.

  ---

  ThirdWitness

  This is a minor departure from what I was taught as a Witness. Christ's presence (parousia) is one thing His arrival at Armageddon is another. This is one of the many reasons I left, the GB keeps redefining "truth" via New Light.

  Jesus becomes the newly established king of God's kingdom in 1914 as testified by the world events and the 7 times. He did come as king. Coming is a correct word to use when speaking of his arrival in 1914. But coming does not accurately depict the meaning of parousia because not only did he come but he stayed. He is now present. And he will continue to be present until his coming / arrival forth at Armaggedon. Then he will come forth to execute the judgements that have been rendered.

  As a 'side point' its His arrival that will be devasting to those overseeing His congregation "if" when He arrives, He finds them beating His congregation...which they are and have been doing, I'd say since 1914 after 35 years of waiting and seeing the End didn't come. Matthew 24: 48 ~ 51 and Luke 12: 45 and 46

  ---

  AuldSoul

  You also seem like an intelligent person. I'm sure you remember that current JW dogma says the faithful and discreet slave were chosen in 1919 after the master returned in 1914 and started examining religions claiming to be Christian. They base this on the following verses:

  I was never convinced about all those other dates the WTS would come up with. 1914 and their biblical formula to determine it made and still makes sense to me, and as I mentioned earlier, I clearly see empirical evidence to support it.

  Matthew 24:45-47

  45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

  "Arriving" is erchomai. JWs teach that Jesus, the master, has already appointed the happy slave over all the master's belongings. But these verses require that the erchomai precedes that appointment. Thus, stevenyc's question. Your answer failed to answer the question. Would you care to try once more?

  Respectfully,
  
  AuldSoul

  To tell you the truth it didn't come across that way when I first read your post. This is what happens when you don't follow a thread completly.

  It seems, at least on this point, we agree.
• 

  TD

  Hi Flash

  ..I think it depends on how we define a debate. In looking over Webster's 13 definitions for the word debate, I don't see were either side has to definitively answer the other, certainly not to their opponents satisfation.

  That reminds me of the "Argument Sketch" from Monty Python:

  M: I came here for a good argument.
  A: No you came here for an argument.
  M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
  A: It can be.
  M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
  A: No it isn't.
  M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
  A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
  M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
  A: Yes it is!
  M: No it isn't! A: Yes it is!
  M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.(short pause)A: No it isn't.
  M: It is. A: No it isn't M: It is A: No it isn't

  Since "argument" is one of the defining terms of debate, perhaps the problem lies in how it is defined. Ignoring valid points your opponent has made is not "argument," at least insofar as that term is applicable to debate. The most basic rule of formal debate is that to be effective, you must understand your opponent's position well enough that you can state that position as well as your opponent can. (I realize that this often gives XJW's an advantage, but I'm afraid that's simply the reality of the situation and there's nothing that can be done about it.)
• 

  ackack

  Flash: you wrote, "1914 and their biblical formula to determine it made and still makes sense to me, and as I mentioned earlier, I clearly see empirical evidence to support it."

  How do you get around the whole October 1914 thing vs. World War 1 starting in July? Or do you think this is much of a problem?

  thirdwitness's reply was that Satan knowing he was going to be cast out, came down to earth before hand to cause trouble. He didn't provide any biblical or ever watchtower support for that statement, so its probably just his or her own private speculation.

  BTW, empirical evidence? What evidence did you have in mind?

  ackack
• 

  jayhawk1

  Aha! So Satan came to earth and convinced Gavrilo Princip to shoot Archduke Ferdinand, June 28, 1914 just to get the party started a little early. I wonder if Satan used a snake to do his talking too. What a load.
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness: You may have missed this earlier.

  Just so we are perfectly clear I wasn't talking about Revelation 12, I was talking about Revelation 1:4-5. Only an idiot would think the two have some correlation beyond being in the same book of the Bible. Stop distracting the focus.

  Are you suggesting that the counsel John wrote to the seven congregations in Asia was not to seven 1st Century congregations in Asia? If you agree that the verse I pointed to was written to the seven congregation, then John introduced Jesus' in the First Century as "The Ruler of the kings of the earth." If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot and you disagree directly with the same Governing Body in which you apparently want others to have confidence.

  You keep choosing to debate something other than what I direct your attention to. Please stop doing that, you make yourself seem an ignorant twit, and an irritating person.

  Either Revelation 1 was written to the 1st Century congregations or not. Make up your mind on that first, and tell me which it is. Then tell me whether the titles by which John identifies Jesus applied to him at the time of the writing. That is, take them one by one and explain whether they applied to Jesus at the time of the writing.

  If you once more distract this post to a discussion of another passage of your choosing and I will consider you to be too dull witted for rational discussion. Try to stay on point this time.

  AuldSoul