Posts by thirdwitness

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Anyone care to answer why Revelation 1:7 says "every eye will see him" referring to Jesus' coming.

If he came invisably in 1914, how is it every eye saw him? The answer can easily be given by using only the scriptures and nothing else just in the case of the 7 times and Christ's parousia. 1 Timothy 6:16 tells us about the ressurected Jesus: " whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting." So right away we can illiminate the thought that every eye will literally see Jesus. The Bible clearly says no one can now literally see Jesus just as no one can literally look upon Jehovah without dying. Daniel 7 explain just what it means to come on a cloud. Daniel 7:13 says, “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

Allowing the Bible to interpret itself it is evident now what is meant by coming on a cloud. It denotes invisibility because when Jesus took up his kingship of God's Kingdom he came not physically or literally to earth but rather he gained access to Jehovah who is invisible in the heavens. He is spoken of as coming with the clouds and coming before Jehovah. It was invisible to the literal eyes of all humans. The second part of your question shows you do not understand what JWs really teach. You ask: If he came invisably in 1914, how is it every eye saw him? Revelation 1:7 corresponds to Matthew 24: 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Revelation 1:7 says, Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him. Now notice that his coming the clouds of heaven in this case where every eye sees him results in all the earth beating themselves in lamentation. Why? Because it means their destruction. They will indeed then see close up and know that Jesus Christ is bringing destruction upon him because they opposed his people and thus opposed him. But of course they cannot literally see Jesus because since his ressurection no one has seen or can see him. They will see him by seeing the destruction he brings upon wicked mankind for rejecting him as King and rejecting his brothers. This is not the same as when he was enthroned as king in 1914. You will note that Revelation also said that those who pierced him would see him. How? They're already dead. Well, remember Jesus said if you do it to my brothers you do it to me. So those who persecute Christ's brothers are doing the same as persecuting Jesus. And they will see and know that they are being destroyed for opposing Jesus and his people. This also explains why Jesus said to his apostles: A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live. --John 14:19. The world would never again literally behold or see Jesus again. Only those who are called to heaven would see him again because they would be immortal spirit beings just as he is now.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

You miss the whole point. NO one is saying the days or presence of the Son of man is 120 years long. It could be. Who knows? But the fact is that it is many many years long and over 100 years is not too long for Christ's presence to last according to the scriptures.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

The final nail in the coffin of AlanF's and other opposition to JWs interpretation of parousia. Luke 17 offers a parallel of Matthew 24. An examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia. Luke 17: 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Note that 'the days of Noah' = 'the days of the Son of man'. The days of Noah was a time when people were carrying on the everyday affairs of life and took no note of their impending destruction. They took no note of what Noah was saying and doing. How long were the days of Noah when men were taking no note until the flood came? According to Genesis 6:3 Jehovah says of wicked mankind in the days of Noah: "... his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” So the days of Noah before the flood, specified by Jehovah, when men were taking no note of Jehovah was at the very least 120 years. Quite an extended period of time. Enter Matthew 24: 37 : For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. Lets compare this scripture to Luke 17:26,27. Luke: Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, Matt: For just as the days of Noah were Luke:so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: Matt:so the presence of the Son of man will be. Luke: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, Matt: For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, Luke: until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Matt: 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, The sentences are virtually the same, almost identical with one notable exception. Luke says 'the days of the Son of man' but Matthew says 'presence of the Son of man'. What can we surmise from this? The 'days of the Son of man' = the 'presence of the Son of man'. And both equal the days of Noah when people were living their everyday life taking no note of what Jehovah's servants were doing and saying. Then the flood came and swept them all away. A time period that lasted over 100 years. The days or presence of the Son of man is not just paralleled by the period when the flood actually swept them all away. The days or parousia of Jesus is paralleled by the days of Noah before the flood also when they were taking no note of what was to come upon them. The days that someone is present involves not only their arrival but the period of days that they remain after their arrival. Likewise today, for the most part people are living their everyday lives not taking any note of the days or presence of the Son of man and that Jesus is gathering his people into one ark or organization for survival of the impending destruction to be brought upon this wicked system. So in conclusion, this proves decisively that the presence or parousia or days of the Son of man is a specific extended time period that begins before the actual destruction of the wicked system when people are taking no note of God and his reigning King and what he is doing and taking no note of their impending destruction just like the days of Noah which lasted over 100 years. In view of this definitive and undeniable scriptural evidence, parousia is no brief coming at the destruction of the wicked as many would have you believe. Not only that but parousia in Matthew 24 can accurately be translated by its root meaning presence and presence accurately depicts the entire meaning of parousia because the days or parousia of the Son of man covers many many years just as the days of Noah covered many many years

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Auldsoul:You did not demonstrate when the final part of the days were, that he would only be given rulership in the final part of the days, or that the authority would be given "after a long period of time".

You need to go back and read it again. Look at Daniel 7 and Revelation 12. Also notice that after Jesus 'eventually' secures kingly power he returns he destroys the disobedient. This shows that his kingly power was secured long after his return to heaven. This shows that the kingly power would not be secured until the time of his parousia.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Let me clarify a little for you. In chapter 1 of Revelation John mentions that he was transferred into the 'Lord's day.' This would be 1914 and onward. So I believe that yes the letter to the 7 congregations are for the congregations in the Lord's day since 1914. But as I said in my answer previously Jesus was king of kings even while on earth. So even if you don't want to believe the letters are for the congregations since 1914, that is ok. Jesus being exalted to heaven at his ressurection is still of course the rightful king and by being at the right hand of God he could certainly be called ruler of the king's of the earth. Even when on earth he could be called king of kings because he was the chosen king to rule over the earth.

But then I later expounded on my answer when I wrote this:

Notice Revelation 12 which was to occur in the Lord's day after Jesus statement at Matt 28:18. Notice verse 15 And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” Chirst was to receive authority in a special way in the future. But is this really so? After Satan is cast out of heaven Revelation 12:10 tells us: And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! So even though Jesus was given authority after his ressurection he did not exercise all his authority until the proper time appointed by his Father. He waited until he received his kingship over God's Messianic Kingdom. And even still he has not exercise all his authority because he has not destroyed all the other kingdoms. (Daniel 2:44) Daniel 7 also shows us that it is during the last wild beast of the earth, the time of the small horn that grows big(Rev 17:10 tells us there would be seven. "And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is (Rome), the other has not yet arrived (Anglo-american)) that Jesus gains access to the throne of God. Well just notice:

13 “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

For further proof of this lets look at an illustration that Jesus gave: Luke 19:

11 While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly. 12 Therefore he said: “A certain man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return. 13 Calling ten slaves of his he gave them ten mi´nas and told them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent out a body of ambassadors after him, to say, ‘We do not want this [man] to become king over us.’

15 “Eventually when he got back after having secured the kingly power, he commanded to be called to him these slaves to whom he had given the silver money, in order to ascertain what they had gained by business activity.

Well of course you know the story. He rewarded those who had obeyed his commands. But as for the enemies of his look what happened.

27 Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them BRING here and slaughter them before me.’”

This proves: Jesus would not secure kingly power until sometime after his accension to heaven. So either the Bible contradicts itself or Jesus was to receive kingship in a special way and authority in a special way after a long period of time in the final part of the days. By being appointed to this special kingship as ruler of God's kingdom that was to destroy all other kingdoms no longer would his authority have an affect only on his congregation but it would affect all of mankind. Jesus even though having all authority waited until this special appointment before he exercised that authority to its greatest extent. And still he has not exercised all of his authority. He will do that at Armageddon. I realize that some like AlanF will take the option that the Bible contradicts itself and its prophecy have failed but for those who still believe the Bible is inspired of God, we can see that the Bible all harmonizes and that the explanation is both scriptural and reasonable.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Auldsoul, here was my answer to your question: Auldsoul said: If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?

Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

The visions of Revelation take place in the Lord's day from 1914 onward. Jesus is speaking to the congregations as king of God's kingdom. Besides that. Even when on earth Jesus was king of kings because he was the rightful king to take up the throne of God's kingdom. But he waited untill the 7 times had been fulfilled, the appointed time set by Jehovah to take up his kingship as rightful king of God's Messianic kingdom.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Ok, and yes I believe the WT publication accurately quoted Josephus.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

I see no reason to continue to argue about what parousia means. AlanF on the one hand admits parousia means presence but on the other hand tries to quote from scholars that say parousia can mean presence or coming or arrival or advent. The scholars that he quotes from admit that parousia means presence. His argument is quite silly. Notice some of AlanF's on words.

While the root meaning of parousia is "presence"

Parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival". It is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.

a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia,

A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand."

Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence."

Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. (end of quotes)

Does this mean that it can have the primary meaning of presence? Yes. Depending on the context. Well how about this. Lets just render parousia as presence in every case and let the reader use his discernment about the context rather than base the translation on the traditional 'Christian' view of Christ's 2nd coming.

AlanF is silly for arguing that the NWT is somehow evil for translating parousia as its root meaning--presence.

Papyrus:

. . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the parusia of the king . . .

"It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parusia."

Can presence be substituted for parousia in these cases?

. . . and applying ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the presence of the king . . .

"It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome presence."

Why yes it can?

I am not going to go thru all your scholars one by one and refute anything because you totally ignore what the scholars say about parousia and there is nothing to refute. You even ignore what you yourself say about parousia in admitting what it means.

You keep saying things like:

While the root meaning of parousia is "presence"

Parousia often has the flavor of both "presence" and "arrival". It is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.

a presence always requires a preceding arrival, and an arrival always results in a presence. These two sides of the same coin are combined in parousia,

A related word is the verb pareimi: "to be present, have come, have arrived, have appeared, be on hand."

Nearly all Bible translators use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the root meaning is "presence."

Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3. (end of quotes)

Then you turn around and claim the NWT is wrong for translating parousia as presence. You don't make any sense. I think even your friends on the DB are wishing you would drop it because it is getting embarrassing.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

Auldsoul said:

Matthew 24:45-47

45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

"Arriving" is erchomai. JWs teach that Jesus, the master, has already appointed the happy slave over all the master's belongings. But these verses require that the erchomai precedes that appointment. Thus, stevenyc's question. Your answer failed to answer the question. Would you care to try once more?

This is a case when you are trying to assign erchomai some magic special status. Its just a verb. It means arriving or coming. Let me say this again, Jesus did erchomai in 1914 as king. His parousia or presence began at that time. The Bible shows that first he erchomai forth and inspected the house of God and his temple. He at that time apponted the FDS over all the earthly belongings. He will echomai forth at the end of his presence to destroy the wicked.

Please under that erchomai has no special connotation to Christ's coming in 1914 or Armageddon. It is just a verb that can be used for anyone who comes to do something. It describes in these verses in Matt 24 the action that Christ takes during his parousia.

So to summarize, it is during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and inspects the temple. It is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and gathers his people. Likewise it is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and brings the holy ones to heaven. And it is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and destroys false religion. Also during Christ's parousia he comes forth and destroys the governments and all the wicked. Now I hope you can see that Christ comes forth and does a whole lot of things during his parousia. Parousia is an extended visit of a king. In this case in Matthew 24 the king is Jesus.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

thirdwitness

I believe that I have answered every question posed to me on this subject. Some do not like my answers because they do not coincide with what you want to believe. No answer would be good enough for ones who have but one agenda: to try to discredit Jws.

Take for example AlanF as repects the NWT translating parousia as presence. The problem with AlanF's insistance that parousia in Matt 24 can only correctly be translated as coming or advent and certainly not presence is that it is based solely on the fact that he has this great obsession to prove JWs wrong. So he decides based on this theology that presence is the wrong translation and coming is the correct translation even though most if not all scholars acknowledge that the literal meaning of parousia is presence. Some say that parousia is a coming yes, but also a presence. AlanF wants to translate parousia as coming so that he can hide the fact that there are two different words used in the text, parousia and erchomai. This way he can obscure the true meaning from ones who don't know that there are two different words used. And mislead any unsuspecting unstudied JWs or interested ones. Bible translations that use the word coming are basing this on the traditional view of 'Christians' that Christ has a 2nd Coming. They are interpreting parousia according to their beliefs. But as shown by many scholars, coming does not accurately depict the meaning of parousia to the fullest extent. The NWT on the other hand translates parousia literally as presence. This way the reader can determine the meaning for himself based on the context of what Jesus is saying. The NWT is not trying to deceive or confuse the reader. The reader can use his own judgment as the whether parousia is just a coming or a presence which of course involves an intial coming. There is nothing wrong with this. Other translation have done the same. But AlanF denounces the NWT for doing this. Why? Because he doesn't care what the Bible is truely saying. He doesn't even believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. He has only one agenda: to try to discredit JWs and mislead all that he can away from the truth.