Looking at the public Dec 2013 Watchtower under Bible questions answered it looks like they are saying that the invisible return of Christ is completely in the future. I thought that they always said it started in 1914? Am I reading this wrong?
1914 not Christ's Return anymore?
by pacloc 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AnnOMaly
It's very carefully worded and over-simplified, missing a whole lot out. Naturally, Joe and Jane Public will assume 'return' and 'arrival' refer to the same event because it's unlikely they'll pick up on the subtleties of the wording. Nothing theological has changed here.
Oh and welcome to the forum
-
pixel
Pacloc,
The WT/FDS/GB says that Jesus's arrival was invisible in 1914. His "return", invisible only but the effects will be felt everywhere will be in the future.
With that you get:
Jesus came in the first century, left when he died, came again in 1914, left again around 1919, will come again during great tribulation, and will leave after great tribulation, but will be with the people that will inhabit the earth forever in paradise. It seems he loves to hang around on earth.
Go figure WT's theology.
-
Simon
Yes, return and arrival should be interchangeable as long as you are talking about the same place.
i.e. if you have returned then you've arrived, if you have arrived then you have returned.
Maybe they are trying to have 'arrive' mean in heaven and 'return' refer to earth? In which case, if it took him 1914 years to get back to heaven I presume he had a slow train or took a wrong turn somewhere.
What a complete crock of crap. I mean, it's 2013 ... does anyone with the slightest intelligence and no mental issues really believe any of this nonsense anymore???
-
wallsofjericho
Jesus return has 2 phases now.
This is the spin on the wording of Matt 24:45
The Master will appoint the slave over his household (1914)
Happy will that slave be when upon his arrival he finds him doing so (future)
so 1914 is still end of gentile times and beginning of last days, but instead of counting years from his 2nd arrival/coming in 1914 the JW's will now count years from his future arrival (the 2nd part of his now 2 part 2nd arrival/coming)....which basically kicks off the great trib
clear as mud
-
eyeuse2badub
Hi Simon,
One can arrive at a place without returning. One can arrive in Ireland, having never been there, without returning.
-
eyeuse2badub
Didn't Albert Einstein once say that if cannot explain something simply, you did not understand it to begin with?
-
AnnOMaly
[Simon] Maybe they are trying to have 'arrive' mean in heaven and 'return' refer to earth?
Other way around.
[walls] Jesus return has 2 phases now.
BSs and JWs have always believed in a return in 2 phases or 'two-stage coming.' They added more stages or senses of 'come' or 'arrive' along the way. They've implicitly introduced a new one by having a Slave appointed over the domestics for the first time in 1919 because, if the Master has to arrive in the future to assess the performance of the Slave, he must have been away somewhere. (The parallel text in Luke 12:42f. underlines the point.) The Slave that turns out to be wicked thinks the Master delays in arriving so, again, the Master must be away for him to think that.
[use2b] One can arrive at a place without returning. One can arrive in Ireland, having never been there, without returning.
But Jesus HAS been to Earth before. He indicated he would return. If he returns, he arrives, in which case he has come and is present - none of the lengthy two stages nonsense as taught by JWs, where 'present' is something radically different from 'arrival.' Yes, it is that simple.
-
Gopher
The more stages and phases they tack on to the original teaching, the more most of the R-and-F Witnesses will just stop trying to understand and say "they're the ones who know the deep things they're talking about".
The Watchtower -- baffling people with BS for 134 years and counting!! -
Nathan Natas
Eyeuse2badub commented, " One can arrive at a place without returning. One can arrive in Ireland, having never been there, without returning."
This may be linguistically correct, but would it apply to Jesus' "arrival" and "return"?
He supposedly was here on earth about 2k years ago, right? Suspend disbelief and play along...