Is Watchtower totally off base on Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vanderhoven7

  To me it is quite evident that the GT spoken about in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving Jews throughout the nations.

  However, what is not so clear to most is that the GT of Revelation deals with the same event. My understanding is that the GB of Jehovah Witnesses has no clue as to how to interpret the apocalyptic messages found both in the synoptics and Revelation. But Steve Greg has Armageddon down pat. What do you think?

  https://youtu.be/2NrXZhLR56Y
• 

  Acluetofindtheuser

  It's because of the new heavens and new earth prophecy. If all good people go to the new heavens after death then what's with the new earth that's repeated in the old and new testament?
• 

  Beth Sarim

  Armageddon is not an event.

  Its a place ,,Harmageddon

  In Rev 16.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Yes, and as far as I can see, the GT consists of a series of events that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
• 

  raymond frantz

  I used to believe that Arnageddon was a global event but it is quite clear that Arnageddon is a local event that will be fought in the vicinity of Israel it has everything to do with the Antichrist who will at the time reign from current Jerusalem
• 

  Beth Sarim

  Revelation 16:16. "Harmageddon" is a local place in Israel.

  If you gotta bible,,, please read that scripture. And the corresponding scriptures.

  We can put "Armageddon"",, to bed. It aint coming.
• 

  JohnR1975

  
  

  me it is quite evident that the GT spoken about in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving Jews throughout the nations.

  
  Mat 24:14 can’t be talking about ancient Jerusalem as the good news had to be preached in the entire inhabited earth before the end would come
• 

  peacefulpete

  Even though Luke attempts to protract the span of time from the "great distress in the land and wrath against this people" and the arrival of the Son of Man, even that writer linked the two together. There is no way to honestly avoid that conclusion. Regardless whether the writers or redactors had 70CE or 135CE in mind, they still understood the events of their life would trigger/precipitate the Son of Man's coming.

  Luke defines it as he understood Matt and Mark:

  There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

  So we can dispense with the idea that this expression has future meaning.
  

  Revelation also has such an expectation. Some scholars have concluded the text was originally a Jewish apocalypse, or a collection of them, that was reworked, extensively interpolated by a Christian about 50 years later.

  The 'tribulation' Christians were having 'gone through' so as to be standing in the temple of God, is clearly describing martyrdom, likely under the reigns of Nero and/or Trajan. (Rev 7)

  It can be said that similar to the Gospels, the Christain writer here anticipated divine intervention before long and that he and his living contemporaries would have a protective 'sealing' when God unleashes his vengeance.

  In short, while both the Gospels and Revelation share a recurring idea (oppression and distress upon the righteous precipitating divine action), neither happened as hoped. And neither were referring to a time thousands of years later.
• 

  peacefulpete

  JohnR....Mat 24:14 can’t be talking about ancient Jerusalem as the good news had to be preached in the entire inhabited earth before the end would come.

  Col 1:6,23 ... In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.... This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
• 

  Vidqun

  I view it differently. Here's a few criticisms:

  1) There’s no temple in heaven (Rev. 21:22). When John mentions the symbolic “sanctuary” in a heavenly setting, he refers to the tabernacle sanctuary (16:5). The following is God’s new earthly temple, made up with living stones (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21, 22).

  2) Dual prophecy: "Quite a few Bible prophecies have been designed with a dual message, thus having a double meaning and fulfillment. Most famous of these must be the composite sign of Jesus’ end time prophecy, which deals with the conclusion of the Jewish system, yet corresponds to his parousia at the conclusion of the present system (cf. Matt. 24, 25; Mark 13; Luke 21)." E.g., "kingdom against kingdom" and "the great tribulation": “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Matt. 24:7, 21 ESV). The Jews had a bad time in Jerusalem, but not that bad.

  3) Armageddon is between God and “the kings of the whole world.” Megiddo is therefore a world situation and not a place (cf. Joel 3:2).

  4) So I view the scorching sun, hunger and tears as things associated with the earth, not heaven, i.e., the new earth in whatever form it takes (Rev. 7:16, 17).

  5) The beasts are political entities, i.e., kingdoms or empires, in Daniel, as well as Revelation.

  6) The seven trumpet blasts and seven plagues are indeed God's judgments, but in connection with the whole world (cf. Luke 21:35). This is the coming "great tribulation," which should be distinguished from the Day of the LORD and Amageddon (cf. Matt. 24:29-31), to follow.