Posts by beginnersmind

7

Jesus gave the Sign

by Doug Mason in

when jesus answered his disciples question about the sign of the temples destruction, they coupled it with the end of the age (aeon) because the end of the temple would clearly indicate that the jewish age had come to its end.

likewise, the disciples believed that this momentous event the destruction of the temple would herald the appearance of messiah in power.

they did not recognize that, instead of coming as a mighty conquering warrior, the messiah had arrived as a babe.

beginnersmind

They would hear about wars simply because “nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom”. Things such as “food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another” are not a sign of the death of an Age but are of the very first signs of the labor pains of a birth.

Doug interesting points you make. On the point quoted above wasnt everything (conclusion of sysem of things & sign of his presence) connected ie in the same time period? You say its not a sign of a 'death' but of a 'birth' but to me its just figurative of the beginning of sufferings using the analogy of birth pains and that would mean there were more greater sufferings ahead. Further after Jesus talked about wars, famines & earthquakes he said they were a "beginning" and then went into more detail on other signs including the sun being darkened etc then gave the illustration of the fig tree and when we see these things happening 'know that he is near at the door." etc

I guess a question i could ask myself is when the disciples asked Jesus the question about Jerusalems destruction and then the sign of his presence and conclusion of the system of things did Jesus in his reply seperate those things or was his reply to the whole of that question? But v29 of Matt 24 says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..." seemingly linking the previous verses of the chapter to the signs of Jesus coming. If he didnt mean that what did he mean when he said "those days"? Would like to hear what anybody else thinks about these points.

22

Is my understanding correct?

by Doug Mason in

is my understanding correct?

1. to arrive at 1874 for christs parousia, ctr employed time parallels from the scriptures and measurements from the great pyramid.

2. ctr used a 2520-year timeframe to arrive at october 1914 for the end of the gentile times.

beginnersmind

Beginner, when you go to the reply box, you reply to the person you want to quote. His words are
way down at the bottom of the screen. Scroll down and cut and copy them- Hold the left mouse
button and drag over his words. Release and right click, choose copy.

Hope this works, thanks.

Sorry Doug for hijacking your thread a bit.

8

I have a little problem with minor & major fullfillments in Bible prophecy

by beginnersmind in

hi this is the 1st thread (posted only a few times as well) ive started.

dont know why, maybe i thought i would get my head bitten off.

you know like a sheep amongst lots of wolves!

beginnersmind

Thanks for the welcome Narkissos. I remember on the point of 'God knowing or not knowing everything in the future' being told similar to your illustration of a tv or radio and how we can choose to tune in or turn it off when we want and that was like God with the future. I could accept that was possible. Although i know of those prophecies in Daniel and Revelation i hadnt thought about the Bible itself and the multiple prophecy scanario

I dont know what to think about the prophecies on Jesus. I mean, wasnt some of them that Roman soldiers would cast lots on his clothes and he would be speared in the side etc. I cant see how Jesus could have been working to fullfill those kind of prophecies although theres no reason he couldnt have been working to fullfill others. The only way i can get my head round this is that God (ie if you believe God & Jesus are seperate) was making it happen to fullfill the prophecies or God decided to look into the future and see what exactly would happen when Jesus would be on the earth and then just 'prophecy' what i saw.

Thanks for your comments. I guess my point succinctly is that if there are multiple fullfillments of prophecies ie the same or similar things happening in different time periods are they just a coincidence or are they made to happen? Just going back to Jesus. What about Jonah in the big fish for 3 days/nights and that prefiguring Jesus death and resurrection. Coincidence or not? :)

22

Is my understanding correct?

by Doug Mason in

is my understanding correct?

1. to arrive at 1874 for christs parousia, ctr employed time parallels from the scriptures and measurements from the great pyramid.

2. ctr used a 2520-year timeframe to arrive at october 1914 for the end of the gentile times.

beginnersmind

OTWA thanks for clearing it up i understand completely what your saying now. As for it being written after the destruction of Jerusalem although i believe to the contrary i could not prove it one way or the other. I take it not only have you left the JW behind but the Bible as well? I dont suppose you or anybody could tell me how to put a quote in my posts from someone elses post please? Im having to just retype everything at the minute.

22

Is my understanding correct?

by Doug Mason in

is my understanding correct?

1. to arrive at 1874 for christs parousia, ctr employed time parallels from the scriptures and measurements from the great pyramid.

2. ctr used a 2520-year timeframe to arrive at october 1914 for the end of the gentile times.

beginnersmind

I understand theres an argument that theres been no increase from the 20th century onwards regarding wars, famines & earthquakes which i can believe. I wasnt debating that point. I have read these accounts numerous times and they all say the same thing to me. Jesus when saying 'the end is not yet' was meaning there would be a time when there would be wars and rumours of wars but the end was not yet for the destruction of Jerusalem and not to be scared about those reports beause there would be other signs which would warn them. The 'do not be misled' comment was about ones saying 'i am he' and saying 'the due time had approached' and not to follow them. History shows these things happened before Jerusalem was destroyed ie wars, earthquakes & famines. So how can 'do not be misled' refer to them when they happened and then later Jerusalem was destroyed? I cannot see the direct link between 'do not be misled', Jesus words on wars, famines & earthquakes & 'the end is not yet'. You could say ones should not mislead themselves into thinking the end was coming just yet for Jerusalem when they heared these wars and reports of wars but thats just linking the word 'misled'.

If someone said to me they believed this prophecy has a major fullfillment today but at this moment in time we are in the Matt 24:4-6, Luke 21:8-10 stage ie only up to these ones who 'mislead' and the 'wars and reports of wars' and no further then i could accept that. I dont know if that is what your saying. I supose it then all depends on how far one believes we are into this prophecy. Anyway i wasnt trying to argue with you just to undersand where you are coming from better. :)

8

I have a little problem with minor & major fullfillments in Bible prophecy

by beginnersmind in

hi this is the 1st thread (posted only a few times as well) ive started.

dont know why, maybe i thought i would get my head bitten off.

you know like a sheep amongst lots of wolves!

beginnersmind

Hi this is the 1st thread (posted only a few times as well) ive started. Dont know why, maybe i thought i would get my head bitten off. You know like a sheep amongst lots of wolves! Anyway i was thinking about prophecies and ones that have or supposed to have a minor and a major fullfillment and what it means for free will, predestination etc. Firstly let me just say im not saying i do or dont believe them its just i have a problem with them. For example lets take the 'last days' one. Now if JW's and other end time groups to some extent i suppose are right on this and again im not saying 100% they are or arent but were supposing they are and remember its an example. If its right i can imagine a number of scenarios. We could have Jesus looking into the future from before coming to earth and seeing what would happen after he arrived and up to 70AD (minor fullfillment) and then having to look again till he came to a time when those things by chance were happening again and then deciding at this time it would be a good to have its major fullfillment. The other one i can imagine is the same till 70 AD but instead of looking for a time when those things by chance were happening he decides at this future time he (or God) will make it happen thus bringing about the major fullfillment. I guess my point is which came first. Was the prophecy 'created' for a known (non interfered) future time or was the future time 'created' for the prophecy? Of course the same goes for any prophecy that has or ones say has two fullfillments and there no doubt can be more scenarios. I hope im not rambling as sometimes i find it difficult to put into words the thoughts that are in my mind.

22

Is my understanding correct?

by Doug Mason in

is my understanding correct?

1. to arrive at 1874 for christs parousia, ctr employed time parallels from the scriptures and measurements from the great pyramid.

2. ctr used a 2520-year timeframe to arrive at october 1914 for the end of the gentile times.

beginnersmind

Sorry i dont know how to insert a quote in here (or paragraphs if my last post are to go by) so i'll just have to re-type it. OTWO you write ....supposed sign that jesus gave, ignoring the fact that he first said "Let nobody deceive you...(after listing wars, famines, earthquakes).... the end is not yet." Could you elaborate on what your trying to say here? Are you saying when Jesus mentions wars, famines & eathquakes they arent a sign for the last days as such, just if someone says they are dont believe them?

Didnt everything in these verses get fullfilled by 70AD? Personally speaking i have a problem with 1914, last days & JW's since the 'new light' in 1995. I could take the leap of faith in it having a second fullfillment in our day but when the generation changed i started having doubts. I mean if all these signs were to be transported to our day then shudnt they all have the same fullfillment ie if the literal generation saw all the signs take place up to 70AD then the literal generation now should see it? I couldnt see how you could still stick with that prophecy for this time period but then say it has a different meaning to the original fullfillment. Is that unreasonable? I thought to myself maybe its because Jesus meant it to apply in the 1st century and only then. There is no second and major fullfillment of it. Ive not settled on that thought though as im still reasoning evrything out and it might take some time!

51

My dear atheist posters, what would you recommend . . .

by pennycandy in

for a reliable, accurate study of the authenticity of the bible and/or the existence of god?.

.

beginnersmind

Hi Scully actually i did get that you were being sarcastic when you said "Gods 'perfect' law" with or without an emoticon. I was just briefly paraphrasing what you said. I dont know where your from but trust me most Brits will get sarcasm when they see it! And to Lilly hi and i understood and agreed with with what you said previously about that thats why i posted in your defence. Did i somehow imply i didnt? I wasnt saying i thought God was punishing an incoent rape victim. That was only my 2nd post and i managed to get both of you misunderstanding me. Thats the trouble with words that are simply written down as opposed to speaking them as they can so easily be misunderstood. Sorry to the OP (pennycandy) for my posts as they are not answering the question asked but im sure you will forgive me if only this once.

51

My dear atheist posters, what would you recommend . . .

by pennycandy in

for a reliable, accurate study of the authenticity of the bible and/or the existence of god?.

.

beginnersmind

Im pretty new here so please go easy on me. My point is not to comment on the God of the OT or other specific accounts but to stick up for Lilly as she seems to have been ganged up on a bit i think unfairly. Scully in your original post you thought that those verses were about a girl who was and i paraphrase "raped and according to Gods perfect law would have to marry the rapist and that was the vilest thing and thats supposed to be righteous and justice and that it was uttered by the mouth of a loving God". Lilly simply showed that that wasnt what the verse was about and then explained it in. I agree Scully you never "claimed that God condoned these activities" as Lilly said, but your original post clearly implied God was punishing an innocent rape victim. Although what Lilly said was technically wrong you have to admit Scully you were saying God was basically wicked because of your view of those verses. I know thats not the same as saying God condones those acts but im trying to make you understand why Lilly made that statement. As i said im new here and i dont want to make enemies with anyone well not just yet lol but i thought some were a bit harsh on her and i thought i would support her and hopefully we can all get along whatever our opinion.

5

A completely different view of DFing from the scriptures and Greek

by avidbiblereader in

'" (nrsv) "when they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples," (niv) clearly, being satisfied or having eaten all that one desired could not be said of eating a small fragment of an unleavened loaf.

the common view is that this means they had finished eating the meal and the pieces of the one loaf.

1 corinthians 5: 3 3 even though i am not with you in person, i am with you in the spirit.

beginnersmind

Dont know how to put a quote in as this is my first post but its in reply to the first paragraph under the heading "Quotes from another source" regarding the adding of 'it' to v 20,33 making it mean the Lords Meal. Dont shoot me but this is how i undersood the passage when reading 1 Cor 11:20-34 in context. Paul is talking about the Lords Meal and how they were basically treating it like a normal meal ie they werent waiting for others or they were gettin intoxicated while others where hungry and if they wanted to eat and drink (ie a normal meal) they could do it in their own homes (v21-22) but they shouldnt be doing that here respecting the Lords Meal as v27 says they would be doing it unworthily. Interestingly i just looked up the Adam Clarke commentary which you quoted further down, for 1 Cor 11:20-34 and it says something similar however he goes into more detail and explanation and goes as far as saying not to connect any other meal with the Lords Meal. I found your post very interesting and i agree with it regarding disfellowshipping but its just when i read those verses in 1 Corinthians my immediate feeling or understanding or whatever you want to call it (im not basing it on any support for any argument ) on its meaning was what i wrote above.