Vidqun: Reminded me of my letter to Brooklyn. They answered it with a "no comment"
Hmm. I got the same response to my letter.
Nice letter, Cofty. Well done. I'm also curious about the questions Cold Steel asked.
My Letter to Brooklyn about the Parousia that got me disfellowshipped
by cofty 85 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
St George of England
Facinating.
Did the other elders make any comment on the content of the letter or did it just go over their heads?
George
-
Band on the Run
Cofty,
I know from college, law school, and practice how many countless hours you had to spend researching and honing your writing. It is a most impressive written document, regardless of the content. They should have appointed you to the GB upon receipt of the letter. Now I know why your time as a Witness had to end. I'm not referring to your analysis but the intellect and intuitive insight needed to prepare such a piece. Most of all, while still a Witness, you were able to be so deferential and polite but assertive with them. I try but I usually end up screaming at them and lose all my points in the process.
Such a letter must be so rare for them. My great-grandfather, gm, mom, and dad would tell me of extraordinary Witnesses who were so faithful but so much brighter and diplomatic than Rutherford and Knorr. If they had a "following" of more than three, they were disfellowshipped on trumped up charges that no hard-core Witness believed.
While I was reading your letters, parts of me wanted to cry, to exclaim, and laugh. It was good for me to read on a personal basis after what happened to me in NY the other day. How many people with itsby bitsy doubts know where to turn, how to articulate, and reason? They should have viewed your letter as important feedback. It is not only the Witnesses who don't answer correspondence. In my personal life, I wrote a legal demand for damages resulting from a clear case of negligence where I live. The friendly staff told me they receive the letter, served to go a trial date. No response for about four weeks now. There is proof of service. In fact, the main person involved sees me on the property and smiles at me. Because I need to go in front of a judge, I cannot curse or interrupt her business activities.
It hurts. Nevertheless, I am certain your letter had tremendous impact. Perhaps not an postiive impact but a large impact, nevertheless.
-
Witness My Fury
Marked for reference.
Nice thread trash Lars...
-
breakfast of champions
What I see in that letter is a highly intelligent person trying to make sense out of complete nonsense.
Thanks for posting it COFTY
-
ProfCNJ
Hi Cofty. What can I say? Your letter appeared very logical and coherent. The bible verses you have expounded are indeed very enlightening. I cannot however comprehend why they need to disfellowship you when you had a very polite, respectful tone.
They way you have assembled your piece is enough to shake current JW belief about "parousia". Your points are too crisp just to be ignored by any Christian interested in vouching for the truth.
As I have explained separately on another thread, I find no need for an invisible presence or coming for Christ IN 1914 since he has been directing and guiding IN SPIRIT his followers (or his Christian congregations) since he resurrected. He is doing that loving function until now. Evidently, his followers, including the brothers and Christians all over the world, are more interested in his true coming or return - the one that is visible.
WT in Brooklyn should have answered the query in detail, citing verses and other credible sources to counter your reasoning. For if the brothers in WT has the UNASSAILABLE TRUTH in their midst, then no amount of contrary proof can dismantle their belief at least in this aspect.
My hats off you Bro. Cofty. :)
-
Larsinger58
Was Jesus here saying that the appearance of wars, famine and earthquakes should be taken as evidence that his parousi'a had begun? or is it not the case that the emphasis of his words in verse 4 through 8 are that his followers should not overreact to the appearance of such signs. They should not pay heed to those who say at this point "The due time has approached".
Here's a technical note for you, Cofty. Wars and reports of wars should be taken separately from the other signs. The generation that would see these signs during his parousia would begin with "nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom." Thus "wars and reports of wars" is in contrast to "nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom." What Christ was saying was to ignore the regular small-time wars that would happen throughout generations prior to the generation of the second coming. But when you see "nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom" then is when that generation would begin -- that is, when a WORLD WAR takes place. Thus that generation would begin with a world war. After that world war, then the other signs would also take place. So regular wars were to be ignored, but not the other signs that occur after a world war takes place. In your statement, you are not distinguishing "reports of wars" meaning usual conflicts between individual nations from "nation against nation and kingdom" which is a reference to a conflict involving multiple nations. Thus the disciples were told not to take note when they hear of regular wars here and there, but to take note when there is a world war, after which the other signs would take place.
Thus the very first sign of that last generation would be a world war and that's why we can begin the last generation of 80 years in 1914.
Now I'll just note this for the record in regards to the chronology. Secular history dates the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE and fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The WTS loosely follows the Bible that introduces a 70-year period of desolation of the land to pay back its sabbaths which they date from the fall of Jerusalem to the return of the Jews from Babylon in 537 BCE. They quote from Josephus regarding this 70-year period, only Josephus dates those 70 years of servitude from the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Josephus' reference is consistent with the Bible's reference to when these 70 years takes place. So the Bible and secular history (except for Josephus) are in conflict. The Bible's NB Period is some 26 years longer than reflected in the secular records. So you have some options here as far as the "7 times" prophecy. Based on the above, the 2nd coming is dated in either 1914 or 1934.
But others, like Martin Anstey interpret the "70 weeks" prophecy as being fulfilled in the 1st of Cyrus. This prophecy begins when the "word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem" which links to the reference to Cyrus rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple. If that's the case, then 455 BCE should date the 1st of Cyrus. Martin Anstey reached this conclusion which means he believed that the Persian Period was thus 82 years too long, since the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE rather than 537 BCE. Now is that what the Bible truly represents? Was Martin Anstey correct? Maybe, maybe not. But there is no way to harmonize the Bible's timeline for this period with that of secular history, so you have to make a choice. But in passing, if you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE as Anstey does, then calculate 70 years back to the last deportation, as Josephus requires, then year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II would fall in 525 BCE and his 19th year in 529 BCE. That means you have another potential date for the 2nd coming based strictly on the Bible in 1992.
Those are the options: 1914, 1934 or 1992. However, when we contrast those dates with the events, only 1992 works. Why? Because the messiah doesn't appear until after the State of Israel is set up and not until after the "great tribulation." The great tribulation is a reference to a one-time event that never happened before nor would happen again with the focus on Daniel's people, the holy ones. Daniel talks about "dashing the holy ones to pieces" during this great tribulation (Daniel 12:7)
"And as soon as there will have been a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces, all these things will come to their finish.”
In other words, the "great tribulation" was part of the punishment of the Jews for leaving God's covenant. They were to suffer exile and while in exile be subject to persecution during the "appointed times of the nations," which would climax in this one-time event of the great tribulation, after which all this would end and they would be restored to their homeland and God's favor.
Now Armageddon is not going to kill of any righteous people. Armageddon is not going to kill off any "chosen ones" in the kingdom. So these "chosen ones" who are going to be killed is not a reference to faithful Christians but to the natural Jews. It is the natural Jews who are almost completely exterminated during this "great tribulation" requiring the days to be cut short so that at least a remnant of them are saved. This one-time event just before the Jews are restored to their homeland was the HOLOCAUST. Even so, it is not until after this great tribulation takes place as one of the critical signs of this last generation that the messiah appears. You don't see the "sign of the son of man" appearing until after the great tribulation. Further, he is said to be "near at the doors" when the fig tree starts to grow tender, that is, when the State of Israel is newly established. Based on that, neither 1914 nor 1934 can be considered the date of the 2nd coming.
But now, we get a break in the chronology due to the VAT4956. This text has two lines (lines 3 and 14) that do not match 568 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. These mismatches have always been noted by scholars, but never compared until recently. When compared, the lunar positions in both lines match the same lunar cycle occurring in 511 BCE, suggesting that 511 BCE was the original year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. If so, then year 19 falls in 529 BCE, which would, in turn, date the 2nd coming in 1992 but also confirm that 455 BCE must have been the original year for the 1st of Cyrus.
Meaning what? Meaning if you follow the chronology of the signs and date the 2nd coming near the end of that generation and definitely after the great tribulation and the new State of Israel being set up, then you have to fix the ancient popular timeline. Except now, because of the VAT4956, you don't have any options to pick and choose dates based on various interpretations of scripture. The WTS has always said that when there is a conflict between secular and the Bible, they choose the Bible. I agree with that as well. But the secular date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II that must be compared with the bible's timeline is now 511 BCE, not 568 BCE; the VAT4956 confirms 568 BCE is the revised date. So for a second there is a little concern that the Bible might contradict this superior secular reference to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian Period, but just for a moment. That's because when the 1st of Cyrus is dated to 455 BCE, then year 23 of Neb2 falls in 525 BCE, which in turn means year 37 falls in 511 BCE as the VAT4956 confirms.
So when you do the hard work and get real about the facts, the Bible prophecies work out. 1992 occurs before the end of that generation of 1914 ending in 1994. So when you have the right interpretation and the right facts of ancient history, then the Bible is fulfilled precisely. The 2nd coming comes near the very end of the parousia just as the dignitary in a procession arrives last; that's the point of reference for Christ's parousia. The last generation begins with a world war and ends with the 2nd coming, that's the basics. In the meantime you have a great tribulation, which was the Holocaust and the "end of the gentile times" allowing the new State of Israel to be set up. All that occurs just as the Bible prophesied.
Cofty, you've gone to the trouble to distinguish what's in the Bible and what the WTS teaches. So finish your research. Determine if the Bible is true or not when correctly interpreted. Be just as critical of secular sources as you are of the WTS.
Regards
-
Larsinger58
Or just as the disciples were asking Jesus how they would know when the destruction of Jerusalem was close, and when the conclusion of the system of things was imminent is it not logical to conclude that they also were asking for signs to indicate when Jesus parousi'a or royal visit was due to begin?
Another technical note for your Cofty. Matthew and Mark speak of the "great tribulation" as mentioned by Daniel. Luke never mentions Daniel. It is very important, therefore, to recognize that the "great tribulation" of Daniel is an event that occurs during the end times and is a one-time event and thus has nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Therefore, please note that Luke's mention of the fall of Jerusalem is placed before the events mentioned in connection with the last generation. Here is that reference:
LUKE 21: 10 Then he went on to say to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; 11 and there will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another pestilences and food shortages; and there will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs.
12 “But before all these things people will lay their hands upon YOU and persecute YOU, delivering YOU up to the synagogues and prisons, YOU being haled before kings and governors for the sake of my name. 13 It will turn out to YOU for a witness. 14 Therefore settle it in YOUR hearts not to rehearse beforehand how to make YOUR defense, 15 for I will give YOU a mouth and wisdom, which all YOUR opposers together will not be able to resist or dispute. 16 Moreover, YOU will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of YOU to death; 17 and YOU will be objects of hatred by all people because of my name. 18 And yet not a hair of YOUR heads will by any means perish. 19 By endurance on YOUR part YOU will acquire YOUR souls.
20 “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."Thus the fall of Jerusalem is not part of the signs of the parousia or the last generation. Now there is a parallel between what happened to Jerusalem and what happens during WWII. The "disgusting thing in a holy place" in each case is a foreign army attacking the Jews. When the great tribulation takes place, which is before the Jews are restored to their homeland and thus while they are in exile, means the "holy city" and "Judea" are where the Jews have resettled in exile. Warsaw, Poland is by far the city of the highest concentration of Jews in exile at the time of WWII, thus it becomes the "holy city" or anti-typical Jerusalem. The Nazi army, much like the Roman army, literally surrounded Warsaw, Poland with huge tanks and bombarded the city. After that, the Jewish ghettos in Warsaw and other cities were sealed off and then liquidated. So there was a brief time to escape and flee from the cities into the wilderness and the mountains.
I bring this up because if you get serious about the parousia and just when it occurred and you think that the fall of Jerusalem is part of that last generation, then it confuses things! That's why it is very important to note that Matthew nor Mark reference the fall of Jerusalem, only Luke, and Luke excludes the fall of Jerusalem from the signs of the last days, but places that event before the parousia. Thus the parousia is not part of events occurring in Jesus' time, but way into the future.
Now the year of the 2nd coming is set by chronology prophesies of Daniel. What the disciples were asking were for more details in regards to Jesus' return and the "end of the system of things" which means the end of the "appointed times of the nations" which meant when the Jews would have their homeland restored.
In this regard, Jesus' reference to the growing tender of a fig tree was a direct response to that question. The fig tree represented the new State of Israel being set up and the appearance of the messiah would occur shortly after that. That is, when they see the new State of Israel being set up then the messiah's appearance would be "close at the doors." When Jesus arrives at the 2nd coming, he uses the body of the prodigal son, an ordinary man. This does not take place until 45 years after the "end of the gentile times" which ends 1290 days and thus ends in 1947. Christ fulfills the "1335 days" which is 45 years later and thus, again, 1992. BUT, the "sign of the son of man" begins to appear when this person is born. This person is born then undergoes 40 years of testing, during which time he leaves his god and faith and becomes the prodigal son before returning, just before the 70th week, which is 1989-1996. So the messiah must be born 40 years earlier meaning around 1949-1950. So when the Bible says he is "near at the doors" shortly after the State of Israel is set up, that is specifically fulfilled since he was born in January of 1950 and the State of Israel was set up in the Spring of 1948.
-
AnnOMaly
Thorough research and excellent reasoning, cofty. A few years after you, I also started re-examining the Parousia idea, looked at the eschatological Scripture texts you mention - also Ps. 2 and 110 and others - and came to very similar conclusions. Rev. 11:15-18 struck me too: when the kingdom of the world becomes Christ's, the dead are judged, the ruiners destroyed and the faithful rewarded - the whole deal - not a bit fulfilled now and the rest fulfilled at some indeterminate time in (as it turned out) the distant future. The Bible really teaches (in contrast to the WTS's interpretation) that the Parousia/Coming is one event, or at least involves a rapidly-occurring succession of events, not something in two or more stages protracted over nearly a century, and is clearly evident and unmistakable to ALL, both believers and unbelievers. This was before I delved into WTS history and found out that even the 'chosen' didn't discern the Parousia in 1914 and for many years afterward anyway LOL!
By the way, I hope you're doing well. I have read of your illness and your difficulties with your JW family and, although I haven't commented, you have been on my mind.
-
Band on the Run
Amen. My personal belief is Christ was present even during his time in the tomb. Paul and the others teach that Christ is ever present. Would Jesus of Nazareth just leave his church alone for centuries? He had to return even after his resurrection in power and glory.
Oh, the years I believed the Witnesses were the only true Christians. The more I learn I realize they are a cult, pretending to be ancient Israelites.
Do the gospels ever show Jesus teaching intricate and crazy chronology? No. He spoke in broad strokes. The parables are to help people with their everyday, immediate lives. He taught everday life. In fact, he was good at the issues of routine life that we can find help today with our lives.