by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Another question about days...
Since it was a prophecy about days and the day for a year rule that inspired the gentile times that was supposed to give us the year 1914, I have another day question. Read Revelation 11:3 about the two witnesses doing their thing for 1260 days. If we are to apply the day for a year rule, where do we begin with that and where does it take us?
...Jesus did erchomai in 1914 as king.
As you're using it, the word would be " ercetai "
3rd,
You wrote:
The problem with AlanF's insistance that parousia in Matt 24 can only correctly be translated as coming or advent and certainly not presence is that it is based solely on the fact that he has this great obsession to prove JWs wrong.
Isn't it the other way around? Who started this thread? Who is trying to prove who wrong? We don't accept the preposterous mental gymnastics employed by the Watchtower Society. We think their explanations are absolutely silly as well as unscriptural. You are the one with the obsession. You want us to change our minds to accept what is totally unreasonable and truly ridiculous. Open your eyes, man. How blind can you be to what you're really all about and out to accomplish? Only a person with a magnificent OBSESSION could keep plugging away as you do though you are shown to be totally wrong time and time again.
Frank
Frank,
The problem with AlanF's insistance that parousia in Matt 24 can only correctly be translated as coming or advent and certainly not presence is that it is based solely on the fact that he has this great obsession to prove JWs wrong.
Exactly. The men that make up ThirdWitness are incapable of honest debate. They do not even understand the principles of debate, they only understand how to preach, and they would lie to do this if they felt it would help their God, the WTS.
AlanF has proved that no modern scholar accepts the WTS use of parousia in Matt 24. ThirdWitness would like us to believe that this is a battle between Alan F. Apostate and the WTS, when in actuality it is the WTS battling ALL scholars and historians on this planet.
HS
It is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and gathers his people. Likewise it is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and brings the holy ones to heaven.
Matt: 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation....
Matt: 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven... (celestial display of some sort according to Watchtower's most recent interpretation)
"And they will see the Son of man coming ...
"And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds from one extremeity of the heavens to their other extremity"
The gathering of the chosen ones is associated with Christs coming.
The separation of the word coming and presense is word play. The only reason this becomes an issue is because the Watchtower first of all needed to explain the no-show of 1914. Secondly it is necessary for making sense of a century long period of Christ hanging around in preparation for armageddon.
Forget about Third-Witness. He's another You Know. And You Know what happened to him. Third-Witness is just another JW on his way out. He isn't acting on behalf of the governing body.
FJToth.
I skimmed through your article that you linked. I dont agree about your conclusions about NHK are accurate or that they fairly describe the man. On the other hand the man was modest and humble and found the time to be active in the ministry inspite of his busy schedule. As you may recall, when he had to give up power,( I know he was ill) but even before his ilness, the man did not oppose, Understandibly he kicked but he went along. Many good things can be recognized about the man by those who knew him.
Flash,
Personaly, if I believe a question to be asked honestly, I am inclined to answer it. If I feel my answer is sufficient but the one who asked it does not, I may try again. But I will not entirely surrender control of the discussion to others. When I'm confident I made my point, whether or not it has been accepted, I will move on.
People can agree to disagree, as the saying goes, but this often arises out of a failure of one or the other (Or both) parties to be honest.
It's not surrendering control of the conversation to be honest. Imagine a disagreement on a complex point of mathematics where the other side refused to acknowledge something as basic as the fact that 2 and 2 make 4...... It would be frustrating to say the least.
Honest discourse of any type, including debate, requires a degree of give and take. If you give an answer and someone disagrees with it, then it's up to that person to give a factual reason why they disagree with it. If they can't do this, then the debate/discussion is over.
However if they can give a factual reason why they disagree with it, then you need to acknowledge that fact however inconvenient it may be and either account for it or concede the point. It's a healthy process.
Fisherman,
I skimmed through your article that you linked. I dont agree about your conclusions about NHK are accurate or that they fairly describe the man. On the other hand the man was modest and humble and found the time to be active in the ministry inspite of his busy schedule. As you may recall, when he had to give up power,( I know he was ill) but even before his ilness, the man did not oppose, Understandibly he kicked but he went along. Many good things can be recognized about the man by those who knew him.
You have got to be kidding!!! I lived in the same house as NHK for the last 20 years of his life. I was his chauffer at times, and I spoke to him often at mealtimes and on the way to and from work. Far too many times I heard him belittle others in the presence of many others. I think I have a much better idea than you do concerning what kind of a man he was. Never in my life have I met someone who so much caused others to tremble and who shamelessly flaunted the power he possessed over others. I remember some Bethelites who were visibly shaken at hearing his name even after he died!
Frank
Fisherman said:
: I dont agree about your conclusions about NHK are accurate or that they fairly describe the man. On the other hand the man was modest and humble and found the time to be active in the ministry inspite of his busy schedule. As you may recall, when he had to give up power,( I know he was ill) but even before his ilness, the man did not oppose, Understandibly he kicked but he went along. Many good things can be recognized about the man by those who knew him.
You obviously have had no experience with Knorr. Knorr was a megalomaniac. The only reason he gave up power to the newly-formed Governing Body was that the "oracle of the organization", Fred Franz, had laid the theological groundwork for it with his Watchtower articles and District Assembly talks on "Governing Body". Had Knorr failed to go along, the rest of the Governing Body would have disfellowshipped him. I've spoke to many an ex-Bethelite about Knorr, and they all say the same thing -- Knorr was not a nice man, except perhaps to those he considered his near-equals in the Bethel hierarchy. You should get hold of Raymond Franz's book Crisis of Conscience and read his description of Knorr's unchristian actions with regard to his loss of power.
AlanF
