65 QUESTIONS---FIRST 10 ANSWERS

by You Know 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

hillary_step

Robert,
You must actually think Jehovah is an idiot don't you?
No, I think that you are an idiot, though I appreciate that in your own mind you imagine yourself in omniescent terms...lol
As far as the 1st century preaching work, and other events spoken of as happening in the entire inhabited earth, it simply means from the standpoint of the known world at that time, as far as they knew the world. For certain when that phrase was used it meant more than a mere city. So, to assert that Jesus' prophecy applied only to tiny little Judah, when he said the entire inhabited earth, is simply absurd. If Christ was merely talking about Jerusalem and Judah he wouldn't have made reference to the entire inhabited earth. When that expression was used it always meant an extented area, not some localized event.
As you cannot even seem to see the contradiction in your own statement, what can I say.
It was you Robert, who asserted a worldwide framework and application for prophecies that alluded to the 'whole inhabited earth'. I succesfully showed you that in Biblical terms this often had local application.
In principle you agree with this in your quote above, only disagreeing with it when it crosses the shadow of your interpretation of what this term 'entire inhabited earth' meant with regard to prophecies related by Christ.
You Robert, have just made a major ass of yourself....again.
HS
PS - I recommend that you read James Russell's 'Parousia' before entrenching yourself in self-conviction. It presents the Preterist point of view in an extensive and scholarly way.
Another recently published book which presents seven compelling lines of evidence pointing to a pre-fall of Jerusalem dating for the Revelation is 'Before Jerusalem Fell - Dating The Book Of Revelation - An Exegetical And Historical Argument For A Pre-A.D. 70 Composition'.
These scholars do not ask us to accept their viewpoints because they are 'annointed of God' but becuase they have done the groundwork historically that I suspect that you have not.
Edited by - hillary_step on 22 June 2002 18:39:10
Edited by - hillary_step on 22 June 2002 20:27:8
You Know

I succesfully showed you that in Biblical terms this often had local application.
No, you were not successful in your attempt to localize the great tribulation. "Local" is a perversion of the term. While in some usages it may not have encompassed the entire globe, the term "entire inhabited earth" certainly didn't apply to some locale like Jerusalem.
You Robert, have just made a major ass of yourself....again.
No, again, you are merely engaging in wishful delusions. LOL / You Know
hillary_step

No, you were not successful in your attempt to localize the great tribulation. "Local" is a perversion of the term. While in some usages it may not have encompassed the entire globe, the term "entire inhabited earth" certainly didn't apply to some locale like Jerusalem.

The translated phrases are identical in the Hebrew and in the Greek.....lol
You have once again dismissed everything, historical and theological in preference to your own interpretation of what the phrase 'entire inhabited earth' may mean. You accept that it is local in some instances and yet insist, without any burden of proof being given that your intepretation is correct. You suppose that 'the entire inhabited earth' as mentioned by Jesus means exactly that, yet same term is used to describe the extent of the preaching work etc. it is to be understood in its local framework, ie.e as applying to the 'then known world'.
Robert you are a nut living in an asylum for the theologically insane....lol
Have a splendid weekend, and do read those books when you get an opportunity, once you have read some real research on the subject, feel free to revert to me.
JosephMalik

You Know,
Your answer to question 2 is pure nonsense, nothing more than Watchtower filler. What Jesus was talking about was His literal body which He called a temple. His remark was a prophecy and real, He meant what He said and your explanation makes Him out to be a false prophet. Notice:
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Did Jesus raise His own temple or body according to this scripture? Yes, of course exactly as promised. But to understand all this lets start at the beginning.
:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
There is sufficient introduction given in John chapter 1 to prevent mis-application of this text but it simply states that the Word (a non human entity) was made (flesh) a human being. And this glorious human being was the ONLY begotten of the Father. Why? Because the Word actually made man in the beginning as stated in verse 10. But now we have a human being, the only
human being in fact actually begotten of the Father. How the Word came into existence is not discussed in these texts since John 1:1 has the Word already existing with God before man was made and does not deal with this point.
45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The last Adam (man) became (when?) a life-giving spirit. (after His death and resurrection of course) And some translations put the word became in front of the first Adam but the though still remains that it carries through to the last Adam as well to balance both half's. So what is the point of all this? And does spirit mean something more than non-human in this case?
Now follow the context in Timothy and know why Paul wrote this way to the Corinthians he was correcting and understand how and why our Lord can make immortal man out of common man. The hypostasis nature of the Christ and His immortal nature as a human is taught here:
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
Now is this scripture teaching that only Jesus has immortality? No! Who is the light which no man can approach and is He (the one producing it) immortal as well? The light is God of course and this God is also immortal according to this same Paul in this same letter at 1 Timothy 1:17. Follow the context and see that this human Jesus is the only human in the universe to gain immortality to this date.
Yes, this human Jesus of all mankind is the only human to hath immortality and now dwells in places no man hath seen. This is because God restored him to the glory He had before the world was in answer to His prayer. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. And more to the point regarding question 2 this non-human Word or Logos raised by the Father could raise His own human body just as he prophesied: John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The result is both human and non-human natures, a hypostatic union that our Lord is permitted to maintain by His Fathers own permission as written in : John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. :18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. So it is all there YK. Future use of this body does not change history nor does it nullify the value of the sacrifice offered in any way. Where is your proof that it does? You are wrong just as the Watchtower is wrong on this matter and this shows in your
ambiguous answer, but perhaps someone else will grasp what I am saying here.
Joseph
You Know

Hillary's Step
You have once again dismissed everything, historical and theological in preference to your own interpretation of what the phrase 'entire inhabited earth' may mean.
No, I haven't dismissed "everything". I considered each usage of the term that you presented. What I have dismissed as preposterous is your own interpretation of what you think Jesus meant when he said that the great tribulation would come in upon the entire inhabited earth.
You accept that it is local in some instances and yet insist, without any burden of proof being given that your intepretation is correct.
No, that's not true. I don't accept that the term in the instances you presented was defining something local. While not global, the term was clearly not intended to describe something confined to a locality such as a city. To describe Jerusalem as "the entire inhabited earth" is to render the phrase completely meaningless, which is apparently what you would prefer.
To show how absurd the sort of reasoning that you have embraced actually is, let's consider another text where Jesus used nearly the exact same expression. In Revelation where Jesus addressed himself to the seven congregations of Asia Minor, at 3:10 Jesus said that he would keep those faithful ones in the Philadelphian congregation safe "from the hour of test, which is to come upon the whole inhabited earth, to put a test upon those dwelling on the earth." Now, regardless of when you think Revelation may have been written, Asia Minor is a long way away from Jerusalem. And since there can only be one tribulation that has no equal Jesus must be talking about the same calamity. So, by Jesus' own words the prophecy regarding the tribulation affecting the entire inhabited earth clearly applied beyond the local confines of Judah and Jerusalem. And since Asia Minor was never subjected to any tribulation it is also evident that Jesus' prophecy in Revelation was meant to apply to the literal whole inhabited earth at a much later time.
You are simply wrong. But, I commend you for taking a whack at it. LOL / You Know
/ You Know
Edited by - You Know on 22 June 2002 20:36:19
hillary_step

Robert,
"from the hour of test, which is to come upon the whole inhabited earth, to put a test upon those dwelling on the earth." Now, regardless of when you think Revelation may have been written, Asia Minor is a long way away from Jerusalem. And since there can only be one tribulation that has no equal Jesus must be talking about the same calamity.
The whole point, which seems to be evading you is that the 'entire inhabited earth' to your own admission was representative of the 'then known world'.
You then make the quantum leap from that understanding and presume that in certain instances it also applied to the whole global arena in the year 2002. You do this with absolutely no evidence but only your own interpretation of the matter. Do you appreciate that most theologists disagree with your view of this. Does their opinion count less than yours? If so, why? Present some evidence that by the term 'entire inhabited earth', Jesus meant the Global scene in the year 2002.
For goodness sakes Robert, wake up.
Best to you - HS
willy_think

Rob,
Are you Jesus Christ?
Can a truth be wrong and still be a truth?
You Know

Hillary Step
The whole point, which seems to be evading you is that the 'entire inhabited earth' to your own admission was representative of the 'then known world'.
If I have admitted it, how is the concept supposedly "evading" me? Is it not rather the case that you simply refuse to accept the fact that the entire inhabited earth can also mean the ENTIRE inhabited earth?
You then make the quantum leap from that understanding and presume that in certain instances it also applied to the whole global arena in the year 2002. You do this with absolutely no evidence but only your own interpretation of the matter.
Compared to your stunted tottering baby steps, I suppose a normal mental stride would appear as a "quantum leap." According to your "reasoning," Jesus' kingdom is not going to rule the entire inhabited earth. You are evidently laboring under the hysterical delusion that God's universal kingdom is going to rule over only select localities, what you might refer to as "localized entire inhabited earths." LOL
Do you appreciate that most theologists disagree with your view of this. Does their opinion count less than yours? If so, why?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but popular opinion doesn't establish what the truth of a matter is. Only reason can do that. So-called theologists are no more qualified to interpret the Bible than some homeless guy on the street. I think because of their training they are in some cases less qualified to do so. Based upon what you have tried to put over on this thread, and others, if their reasoning is as twisted and shallow as yours than I can categorically dismiss them as not having any insight into matters pertaining to my faith.
Present some evidence that by the term 'entire inhabited earth', Jesus meant the Global scene in the year 2002.
I present the Bible as evidence, but that's apparently not what you want. But, to a person of faith, the fact that the present system has existed since the time of Christ is proof that Jesus' words still have relevance in the year 2002. How so? Those who would try to confine the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy to the ancient and remote Jerusalem quickly find themselves in a bit of a mess. For example, at Matthew 24:29-31 Jesus foretold that after the initial phase of the tribulation that the sign of the son of man would appear in heaven and that "all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation."
According to the sophistries of the "theologists" you recommend, evidently the expression "all the tribes of earth" doesn't really mean "all the tribes of earth," but merely all the tribes of Israel that happened to be dwelling in the entire inhabited earth located at Jerusalem. LOL I would imagine that there is no end to the silliness that an imaginative mind can come up with.
Too, the fact that Christ applied the prophecy of Daniel to himself, where he referred to the Son of man coming upon the clouds of heaven, is proof that the prophecy was intended to have a far-reaching global application. The 7th chapter, which Jesus was making reference to, foretells the end of all human rulership, and states that Christ's rulership will extend to all national groups and languages. After relating the vision Daniel wrote: "Up to this point is the end of the matter." The very fact that we are debating these things is proof that we have not arrived at the envisioned "end of the matter." The Roman Empire system has existed in its various mutations down to this year 2002 and has for a fact extended its tentacles around the earth, as the prophecy indicates that it would. Obviously Jesus' 1st century appearance did not bring an end to Satan's beastly political system; but, according to the prophecies, when the Son of man comes, the present ruling power has his rulership taken away, "in order to annihilate him and to destroy him totally." By no stretch of the imagination, or perhaps better worded...no sane person would argue that the political system has been totally destroyed by Christ's kingdom, as the prophecies mandate.
What is more, returning to the span of verses in Matthew, Jesus said: "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 extremity of the heavens to their other extremity." Unless we wish to render language and words completely meaningless, expressions such as the above have to be accepted as intending to depict a global phenomenon. Did any such gathering occur after Jerusalem's tribulation in 70 CE? Quite the contrary. Christians who had been living in Judah and Jerusalem fled and were scattered to the proverbial four winds, where they remain until this very moment. The prophecy, however, depicts the opposite as taking place, namely that deputized angels would gather Jehovah's anointed ones from wherever they may be residing on the earth. Anyone, "theologists" included, who insists that expressions such as "from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity" should be understood as intending to apply to some localized area can simply be dismissed as an unreasoning fool or a petty con man, and in some cases---both.
/ You Know
You Know

Willy think asks
Are you Jesus Christ?
No. Why do you ask?
Can a truth be wrong and still be a truth?
I suppose it can be truly wrong.
Hope that helps / You Know
JosephMalik

The prophecy, however, depicts the opposite as taking place, namely that deputized angels would gather Jehovah's anointed ones from wherever they may be residing on the earth.
YouKnow.
Oops! Another error and a whopper at that. The prophecy again states:
:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: :32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: :33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Where are the anointed ones You Know? I do not see any. Did you make up this alteration of the text yourself or did you let the Watchtower do it for you? And when the Son of man shall come ALL Nations shall be gathered. Makes no difference if they still exist or have passed into history. All nations means exactly what it says, taking in all mankind from the very beginning of man until this time. After all this is the time for the resurrection and Nations with sheep are found everywhere in time, not just in our present time. To our Lord such Nations no longer in existence are simply asleep and exist in Him. Also notice that who is selected and who is rejected in such texts is based upon what they are as human beings, their human kindness to others not on their biblical beliefs or religious affiliation. The WT does not understand the resurrection or who such sheep are or the Kingdom itself and it shows. We have discussed this text many times before and you still do not get it do you? Since you apply it only to the anointed as you call them, prove it here and now. But the text applies to all sheep, anointed or not, good or bad but still worthy since anyone raised by our Lord for any reason will be an immortal human being in this Kingdom. Only the condemned are rejected as goats as they are beyond help and not fit human beings to bring into this Kingdom. Joseph

65 QUESTIONS---FIRST 10 ANSWERS

Share this