Wars, earthquakes and famines are not signs of the end (page 2)

Spike Tassel

Reniaa knows about kicking in the womb, after all (like my Posts 896 and 897 allude to)

palmtree67

While birth pains do signal the end of a pregnancy for a woman, there is also a set time period for it - 40 weeks.

That is an set time that you can look forward to.

I think thats the difference. If a woman never knew when her baby would be born - this year? Next year? In 5 years? 10 years? - that would be very difficult to bear.

Spike Tassel

but, while 40 weeks is the norm, it can be much earlier, and it can even be a bit later, right?

reniaa

birth pangs is the beginning of labour nothing to do with the 40 weeks although you are right a woman can give birth from 37 weeks onwards all dates on birth are estimates.

labour pains are the beginning of labour which can be for hours or days even and are extremely painful. In not so distant times giving birth was one of the biggest killers of women and yet it also heralded the beginning of life.

When a woman starts labour pains/beginning of birth pangs they at first are dull ache and quite distant apart, coming in waves but they serve as a warning before they get closer. The pain of your innards tearing apart comes into play later but at the start you know to get ready an goto the labour ward and gather your family and who you need around you.

Reniaa

besty

is your study available for download doug?

Spike Tassel

actually there are at least 3 beginnings to human life: conception, birth, and the start of the "real life" (1 Timothy 6:19)

palmtree67

The beginning of labor has nothing to do with the 40 weeks????? How many kids have you had?????

My point was that while there may be an "any day now" aspect to birth, the time frame for waiting is quite short.

Would you want to wait almost 200 years for a birth, being told constantly "Any day now! Soon! Any day now?"

I'm just saying its exhausting.

"Expectation postponed......"

Spike Tassel

if 1000 years is as 1 day, then a week's wiggle room world be 7000 years, but that can't be for if 6000 years of human history was complete in 1975, then we're at 6034 (apparently around October 1).

I'm not into date-calculations, I'd rather working on being more peaceable and less gullible instead.

Doug Mason

reniaa,

Pleased to meet you.

Re: your post #2050 above.

There is a saying: "a text without a context is a pretext". You can prove anything you like with selective extracts.

I suggest you look at the context from at least verse 6. The disciples had no idea that Jesus was going to leave, which meant they had no idea he was going to return. To them, and to Jewish teaching at the time, the destruction of the temple was to coincide with the manifestation of the Messiah. This was to be like the parousia of a potentate, in authoritative glory, which was not uncommon in their day.

The first thing Jesus tells them is to watch out for deceivers, who would come in his name. Indeed, the parallel synoptic text indicates they were already hearing of such people. So Jesus tells them that, being aware of these deceivers, they would "hear" stories about wars, and such. That is the context.

Jesus was telling them not to be concerned at the stories being put out, because these things would happen. He never speaks about the size of wars (etc.), their frequency, number of casualties, extent, etc. All he says is watch out for deceivers, you will hear stories about wars (etc.).

When was there never a war? When was the first earthquake? When was the first famine, or pestilence? If these are at the start of a birth, they are not indicators of the deliverance. Take care not to make a parable or allusion walk on all four legs.

Re: your post #2065

You correctly point out that this is about being ready at any time. All the time, the Christian says, "ready, coming or not". This is what the parable is about. Remember, a parable has only one meaning, and if that meaning is given in Scripture, especially by Jesus, we are not permitted to go any further.

The passage says nothing about looking at signs. Indeed the passage would appear to negate that thought.

List the other statements attributed to Jesus in Matthew about signs, and see the consistency of the argument that wars are not a sign, but that Jesus is.

Doug

Spike Tassel

Jesus starting to rule in 1914 is the sign, then.

Wars, earthquakes and famines are not signs of the end

Share this