Hopefully this doesn't do more bad then good, but it's funny they are going on the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/607 time, and appear to have not ever read what Jesus said. Luke 21:20-24 - “Furthermore, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju?de'a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. So when Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem to THAT generation, he said Jerusalem THEN would be trampled by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Now I just hope this doesn't get to them and they try to calculate stuff from 70AD.
The trampling of Jerusalem didn't begin until AFTER Jesus died (easy way to prove WT waaaay off on everything)
by EndofMysteries 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Larsinger58
I'm hoping you are making a joke, right?
That is, you do know the destruction in 587/607/529 was of the first temple, and the one in 70 CE was of the second temple? Thus there were two destructions? Christ was not referencing the first destruction by the Babylonians, but the second by the Romans.
You were seeing who was paying attention, right?
Ahem! Didn't work!!
-
Mary
I brought this to an elders' attention years ago and basically, this is how the GB likes to interpret Luke 21:20-24
“Furthermore, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near." -
happened in 66 C.E. when the Romans first attacked."Then let those in Jude'a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her".
There is very little evidence that these early Christians (or Messianic Jews as they were then known) actually 'fled to the mountains', although there is some debate as to whether some of them might have fled to Pella. Earliest written account for this though, is not until the 4th century CE. But for the sake of argument here, let's assume that they did flee to the mountains. This would have been done presumably when the Romans first retreated around 67 CE."...Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people.."---Again, this would have been referring to the time that Jesus' followers were supposed to 'flee to the mountains', after the Romans retreated around 67 CE.
"....and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations..."
After the Romans returned and devastated Jerusalem 68CE - 70 CE"...and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled..."
This of course is the part that they change. Without any justification whatsoever, the Organization insists that this "trampling" began not in 70 CE (which would be the logical flow of what we've already discussed), but in 607 BCE. This change was done for no other reason than them trying to shore up their bizarre theory that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. Just add 2520 years to 607 BCE and you come up with the year 1913. Tweek it by saying there is no "year zero" and viola, you've got 'biblical proof' that 1914 is the be-all and end-all of life as we know it.If you bring it to their attention and ask how they can possibly interpret the first part of verse 24 as applying to 70CE and the latter part of the same verse to a date hundreds of years earlier, you'll just get a glazed look and no logical answer. Which really is no surprise.
-
BluesBrother
They say:
"Know Jehovah" book pages 96/97
"16 The only city in all the earth upon which Jehovah placed his name was Jerusalem. (1 Kings 11:36) It was also the capital of a God-approved earthly kingdom typical of God’s heavenly Kingdom. Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. was very significant. This event marked the beginning of a lengthy interruption of God’s direct rule over his people on earth. Some six centuries later, Jesus indicated that this period of interrupted rule was still in effect, for he said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.”—Luke 21:24.
17 During “the appointed times of the nations,” worldly governments would be allowed to interrupt rulership approved by God. That period began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E."
I reckon that the presentaton by Endofmysteries and Mary make a lot more sense. Sadly, I spent many years reading that scripture and the penny never dropped at the time. I guess we were so stuck on the belief that it began in 607 BCE that we never thought any more
-
Vanderhoven7
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem (not literal Jerusalem but the kingdom of God) will be (or continue to be) trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Eveything can be solved if you are permitted to add words/thoughts to the Bible and change the meaning of words without any precedent other than that it fits with your eschatology.
-
Vanderhoven7
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh . . . and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20, 24)
Delgrave writes: The times of the Gentiles has to be kept in it's proper historical context. Jesus said that "all", including the times of the Gentiles, would be fulfilled before his contemporary generation had passed. Dispensationalists go outside the box of "this generation" in order to teach a futuristic view of Christ's Olivet teachings. To do that they have to redefine both "the times of the Gentiles" and "this generation". Needless to say, the WTS "1914 generation" has proven to be more than just a little embarrassing.
The times of the Gentiles refers to the treading down, or desolation, of first century Jerusalem, which Jesus called "the days of vengeance". In other words, it was God's mission for the Gentiles to bring judgment upon Jerusalem. This is consistent with past judgments upon Israel, when God brought Gentiles armies into their land to desolate it.
The whole controversy centers on the duration of the treading down of Jerusalem. The Greek for "trodden" is pat-eh'-o (#3961 in Strong's Concordance), and it means "to trample down underfoot". The parallel to Lk.21:24 is seen in Revelation 11:2, which says:"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot (pateho) forty and two months." Rev.11:2
Interestingly, the times of the Gentiles, or treading down of Jerusalem, entailed no more than a forty two month period of time, corresponding with the duration of the Jewish-Roman War. This is in perfect harmony with Daniel 12:7, where the defining characteristic of "the time of the end" is said to be "the scattering of the power of the holy people", which we are told would be accomplished during "a time, times, and a half", or forty two months.- - -
Re the literal nature of the 42 months, Barnes writes:Shall they tread under foot forty and two months - Literally, this would be three years and a half... it is impossible to show, with any degree of probability, that the city of Jerusalem was “trampled under foot” by the Romans for the exact space of three years and a half. Prof. Stuart, who adopts the opinion that it refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, says, indeed, “It is certain that the invasion of the Romans lasted just about the length of the period named, until Jerusalem was taken. And although the city itself was not besieged so long, yet the metropolis in this case, as in innumerable others in both Testaments, appears to stand for the country of Judaea.”
-
Jeffro
EndofMysteries is correct.
As I've said elsewhere previously:
The period of 2,520 years is referred to by the Society as ‘the appointed times of the nations’, quoting Luke 21:24, however the original text of that verse employs a form of the Greek word esomai (‘will’), and indicates that the ‘appointed times of the nations’, regardless of its intended application, signifies a period of time that began after Jerusalem was captured by the Romans in 70 CE and cannot validly be applied to an earlier period.
-
Jeffro
Larsinger58:
I'm hoping you are making a joke, right?
That is, you do know the destruction in 587/607/529 was of the first temple, and the one in 70 CE was of the second temple? Thus there were two destructions? Christ was not referencing the first destruction by the Babylonians, but the second by the Romans.Oh dear. Larsinger58 (the self-proclaimed 'Messiah') claims that Endof mysteries 'must be joking' for suggesting that the trampling of Jerusalem didn't start until after Jesus' death. And then Larsinger58 asserts the same thing anyway.
Seriously, get professional help.
-
Phizzy
Interesting stuff ! more WT crap interpretation.
Just a side note, I seriously doubt that "Jesus" uttered such a "prophecy" with a neat fulfillment in 70 C.E
I think that there is a lot to suggest that the words were put in to the mouth of jesus long after 70C.E Leolaia has an interesting post that shows that even the Markan version of the "prophecy", which is found in a book, The Gospel of Mark, portions of which may well be pre 70C.E, was written after the destruction.
-
Jeffro
I think that there is a lot to suggest that the words were put in to the mouth of jesus long after 70C.E Leolaia has an interesting post that shows that even the Markan version of the "prophecy", which is found in a book, The Gospel of Mark, portions of which may well be pre 70C.E, was written after the destruction.
Indeed. There is no evidence that the so-called 'gospels' were completed prior to 70CE, or that they weren't revised later.