Posts by biblexaminer

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

Thanks wolfman for that link. I did see that awhile back. It's a fine effort. However, it foments the same old superstitions that I have sought to get away from.

The idea that God is behind natural disasters has proven harmful to mankind and beneficial to insurance companies who seek to de-risk themselves, relegating more and more to "acts of God". They get rich of this superstition. I received another such letter this year as my insurance company further de-risked, assigning local flooding to "acts of God". So I will not be covered.

Jesus did not say that 'earthquakes and the like' were signs. Rather they were anti-signs. "Be not terrified" for "the end is not yet" as "these things are but the beginning of pangs of distress" ( an idiom )

He was pointing out to superstitious listeners that natural calamities were no reason for fear, and certainly no reason to take flight, prematurely.

The article you linked to says that "earthquakes" are "the beginning of sorrows". This is from only one version of the bible, an incorrect translation. The literal translation is "beginning of birth pangs" and that is not sorrowful. My wife's first birth pangs were an exciting event for us both, the start to the best day of our lives.

Hardly sorrow.

Thanks again, but that interpretation is very incorrect. Been there, done that.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

Vander.

Concerning what you said here.

"Actually I am saying that verses 27 -30 are all on the subject of 67-70 AD. Jesus mentions His second coming parousia in passing ..."

I'm sorry, as we see from those verses, Jesus is doing no such thing

29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days ( supposedly Jerusalem 70ce) the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, (in 70..?) and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, (in 70...?) and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. (In 70..?) 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather (in 70..?) his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

You are most definitely saying that the second coming was in 70ce while at the same time trying to say it's future.

You are going to have trouble convincing Christians to believe the above verses were fulfilled in 70ce.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

Vander. Thanks for your continued interest in this topic. Your skin has some calluses.

Looking over what you have posted, you have taken Mt. 24:29 out of context. In verse 27 we find the "coming of the Son of Man" described well, which you say is future, in verse 28 the 'rapture', which you say is future, and you apply 29 back to Jerusalem of the past, only to apply verse 30 to the future once again. I really don't think it's reasonable to arbitrarily select verses that way. It smacks of twisting Jesus' words to fit your pre-conceived ideas. And I feel sure that his disciples wouldn't have thought in this manner.

1

Check the competition

by biblexaminer in

if one wants to know where the watchtower society is going, just breeze over to their competitors site.

tct.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tct+network&rlz=1c9bkja_enca677ca677&oq=tct&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j69i60j0j69i60.3770j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=utf-8&hl=en-us#hl=en-us&q=garth+coonce&imgrc=z8rsi20dawwolm%3a.

biblexaminer

Unfortunately the link posted doesn't work. But if you are able to go to TCT.TV and especially if were able to find the one video where they just got their set finished and they're talking about it you will see a striking similarity to the governing body of the JW.org site and the TV and even the set with the blue in the background

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

Thanks.

* I hope you are not thin skinned and take offense when others choose to have and express an opposing view. I am fact oriented. And I in no wise am any sort of Preterist.

I came to the conclusion that you were a "partial Preterist" early on.

Unfortunately, you are saying it both ways from my standpoint. And we can never have it both ways. *

It is a matter of where you decide Jesus changed horses. Of course we each think the over is in error.

In choosing the spot that you did you, you unfortunately relegate the Second Coming, which is described in very accurate detail as 'seen by all and quite glorious', to a non-event of the first century of which there is no record. It then becomes 'spiritualized' to the point that it evaporates and it undermines the Christian hope by telling a story of a 'parousia past'.

Jesus contrasted the false teachers, just prior to His Second Coming (Mt 24:23-26),with the reality of His coming (Mt 24:27-31) it being, not hidden like some cowardly act, but glorious and for every eye to see, like lightening filling the entire sky from east to west.

Jesus even twice makes mention of the subsequent 'taking away' of His chosen ones, what some call the 'rapture', during this monumental event. This did not happen in 70ce and if it all did, then Christians hold faith for nothing.

How could one teach that the Second Coming took place as you tell it, in the first century, and then teach that it's also future? We cannot have it both ways.

I noticed that you didn't show any reasons why my views above are in error. You have stated your views several times, but not demonstrated why mine are in error. I have tried to do this with your work. I feel I have.

May I ask you to please refrain from cut-and-paste and respond to our conversation on a point by point basis. Having had discussions with others in the past, I've seen much of the information you cut and paste, much of which I find of no value. Please refer to the Scriptures instead of cut and paste, I have copies. Thanks so much

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

Looking over your info Vander, I see you take an opinion that fosters Preterism. I am quite sure it would be incorrect to believe that at Mt. 24:23, Jesus is still talking about Jerusalem. He closed that discussion in verse 22. It was complete.

Indeed, He has changed the focus onto the second question, concerning our day. This is confirmed by Mark and Luke. At Mark 13:21, for instance, Jesus, referring to the last days, warns that "Then also", in the last days, there would come false messiahs.

Luke records this change with more brevity at Lu. 21:25. "Also" and refers to what John recorded in the Apocalypse. (Hence, the Olivet Discourse is also referred to as "The Little Apocalypse".)

By confusing this, one relegates the Second Coming, which Jesus promised "every eye shall see" Rev. 1:7, to a non-event and that gives fuel to Preterism and also detractors.

My Jesus will come. And He will come as He said he will at Luke 21:27 and His Sign, the Sign Of The Son Of Man, is HIS SIGN. As Jonah's sign was named after him, and Christ borrowed it, so Jesus sign belongs to the Christ, the sign of a blackened sky, (Mark 15:33) such as when He expired on our behalf. Mt. 24:29, Mr. 13:24, Lu. 21:25, Rev. 6:12.

I eagerly await The Sixth Seal. Come Lord Jesus.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

I took a look at the Chiams angle. Not for me. Maybe a different Jesus. Vander has a few interesting points. Completely contradicts everything in the Chiams work. So you know somebody here is not on the mark.

I will comment on Vander's work as I see a few things in there of value.

How about this quote. "- Impossible -Matt.24:21 precludes dual fulfillment."

Vander, I didn't see anywhere in there where you explained this. Can I help?

This verse says the 'Tribulation' in question had never happened up until the time that it would, It then would happen and never happen again ....therefore is a one-time-event. ? Is this what you mean?

In this case, the Generation Jesus spoke of could only be His own and therefore the Generation teaching of the WTS is bologna.

Was I on your wavelength?

1

Check the competition

by biblexaminer in

if one wants to know where the watchtower society is going, just breeze over to their competitors site.

tct.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tct+network&rlz=1c9bkja_enca677ca677&oq=tct&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j69i60j0j69i60.3770j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=utf-8&hl=en-us#hl=en-us&q=garth+coonce&imgrc=z8rsi20dawwolm%3a.

biblexaminer

If one wants to know where the Watchtower Society is going, just breeze over to their competitors site. TCT.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tct+network&rlz=1C9BKJA_enCA677CA677&oq=tct&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j69i60j0j69i60.3770j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-US#hl=en-US&q=garth+coonce&imgrc=Z8RsI20daWwOlM%3A

You can see what the bigGbigB is competing with and where the rabbit hole is that all the money is disappearing down. TCT network has one edition of their TCT.TV that discusses the amounts of money involved and the retirement of their debt.

The situation for WTBTS would be far worse, because TCT is an amalgamation of a multiple of separate groups. Watchtower is alone. And Watchtower is trying to juggle their competition while at the same time remaining in the seat or Moses.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

biblexaminer

I'm interested in hearing someone explain the Olivet Discourse.

Note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, I've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.

Some feel that they have figured out one piece or another. However, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

Some make outlandish claims.

I know that the Watchtower version is so much refuse. It's so self-contradictory and slanders God and our Lord. And it doesn't make any sense either.

If you have an opinion on one aspect or another, then that might be interesting to hear.

But what I am interested in is individuals who can make it all work.

41

Talking with a young elder

by biblexaminer in

i had a discussion with an elder recently.

it was interesting in a macabre sense.

we were outside the kingdom hall on a nice sunny day recently.

biblexaminer

Oubliette

Allow me to quote you finally. You said "... isn't clear about the point he wanted to make."

The point, fellow poster, is that this was a life's experience. It isn't a "writing" as you make reference to. I had no intention of writing a novel or a user manual designed to point everything out for each reader. The fact that you failed to grasp the significance of the conversation I was relating is unimportant. You interjected yourself into the discussion trying to make yourself the focus. The whole world should stop turning because you failed to grasp the meaning. (insert kicking and screaming here)

You would walk into a lecture about rocket science and tell the instructor he was "abstruse" because you couldn't get it.

And when he threw you out of the room, you would label him "pedantic".

Those that needed to understand, those who have history in the Org, those who have some bible learning under their belt... these understand. And they can use this tool.

Now, I won't bother you again. I would appreciate the reciprocal.