Friend

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 218 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Friend

• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  Friend Mat 24 etc are a real headache...

  It takes time and careful and prayerful thought. There is help through talking with other believers, but mostly the individual must resolve him or herself to thoroughly and honestly evaluate.

  Friend
• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Zep

  My assertion is that the potential for a unique fulfillment exists, not that it has actually occurred. That Christianity has not yet made great inroads into regions like the Middle East, Indochina, the Far East, et cetera is no threat to that assertion. Certainly each event described in Jesus’ answer for a sign of his parousia and the end of the age have yet to occur. Whether each event unfolds as depicted and when that might occur is impossible to say with absolute certainty. Believing that they will occur with the results indicated is an act of faith. The most we can do is honestly examine the record.

  Friend
• 
  14

  Great Tribulation

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  great tribulation.

  the biblical text of matthew 24:21 speaks of a great tribulation that, unless cut short, no flesh would be saved from.

  jehovahs witnesses have often applied that scriptural text as having a major and minor fulfillment; one fulfillment associated with jerusalems destruction in 70 ad and a later fulfillment just prior to the end of this worlds system of things.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  ***

  Great Tribulation

  The biblical text of Matthew 24:21 speaks of a great tribulation that, unless cut short, no flesh would be saved from.

  Jehovah’s Witnesses have often applied that scriptural text as having a major and minor fulfillment; one fulfillment associated with Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD and a later fulfillment just prior to the end of this world’s system of things. Chiefly the influence toward that understanding stems from two things, 1) that Jesus was answering two questions, one of which related to an event beyond Jerusalem’s destruction, namely his parousia and the end of the age and, 2) that the Bible book of Revelation refers post-Jerusalem-destruction to a yet future event where salvation would depend upon suffering through a great tribulation. (See Revelation 7:14)

  Strictly using the text of Matthew 24 and 25, leaps in logic are made to conclude that the text of Matthew 24:21 has a second, major fulfillment beyond the tribulation leading up to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD. To a large extent those conclusions are to satisfy the text of Revelation 7:14. The idea is that, since both Matthew 24 and Revelation 7 refer to “great tribulation” and since both accounts speak to ultimate salvation at the hands of Jesus then the two texts must be referring to the same event. Since the text of Revelation was evidently written after the destruction of Jerusalem then it is concluded that the “great tribulation” of Mathew 24:21 must have two fulfillments, a minor and major fulfillment. The question is, need the two accounts be bound together in that manner, a manner that wreaks havoc with the flow and explicit language of Matthew 24 and 25? (That effect is what I referred to earlier as “leaps in logic”.)

  One huge problem with concluding that the text of Matthew 24:21 has a minor and major fulfillment is language used later in Matthew’s account that refers to events “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” (Matthew 24:29) The problem is, if we hold that the great tribulation of verse 21 is speaking of the same tribulation as that prior to the sign of the Son of man then we must explain away the clear intention of some “immediate” event said to occur after it. Well, no sign of the Son of man occurred “immediately after” the great tribulation associated with Jerusalem’s destruction. We must then explain away why Jesus would have used such confusing language for an otherwise clear enough response (confusing in that “immediately after” was to be understood as applicable to one fulfillment of the great tribulation but not the other, future great tribulation). Since Jesus made no distinction in his reply then reading that into the text becomes a leap of logic. The question becomes, need the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 be the same event as the “tribulation” preceding the sign of the Son of man or the “great tribulation” of Revelation 7:14?

  If we look at what Jesus was replying to it becomes rather obvious that some sort of tribulation would naturally occur prior to each event questioned. One question related to a capital city’s destruction (Jerusalem) and another to “the end of the age” associated with Jesus gaining power as a king (his parousia), what you might call an overthrow. Historically both types of events are preceded by tribulation, even great tribulation depending upon who and where you are. That basic and simple perspective puts an entirely different light onto the text of Matthew 24:21 and later texts where Matthew’s account refers to tribulation associated with the sign of the Son of man, which sign immediately precedes the end of the age.

  Having in mind the two questions Jesus asked it is easy enough to conclude that Matthew 24:21 is referring to an event specific to Jerusalem’s imminent destruction, which is one of the events he was asked about. Likewise, having in mind that Jesus was also asked about a second event, it is easy enough to see that language use in verse 29 about tribulation is referring to an entirely different event, an event that would also be preceded by tribulation. Again, we have mention of tribulation specific to an event. As indicated, each event would have its own tribulation, Jesus just happened to apply the term “great” to the first. But, that does not rule out that tribulation associated with “the end of the age” would be less than great! In fact, considering the extent of that latter event (affecting all the tribes of the earth) and the other descriptors in Jesus’ reply regarding it, it is easy enough to realize that the term “great” is more than appropriate also for that tribulation.

  Of that latter event Matthew’s account describes people of all the tribes of the earth beating themselves in lamentation. Luke’s account describes the same event as causing anguish among nations with people not knowing the way out and extremely fearful of looming catastrophe! (See Luke 21:25,26) If that is not describing “great” tribulation then I don’t know what would describe it! So, with other words Jesus, in his reply to the second question asked, also spoke of great tribulation preceding the end of the age. So, there is no need to make leaps in logic to apply Matthew 24:21 to any later fulfillment, a second or major one, nearer the time of “the end of the age”. The same is also true of the text of Revelation 7:14. That is, since Jesus’ reply for a sign of his parousia and the end of the age did speak of great tribulation preceding the ultimate event of “the end” then language used at Revelation is easily understood as connected with that event, also an event depicting ultimate salvation from a corrupt and satanic system.

  Friend
• 
  12

  To Seven

  by Frenchy in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  dear seven,.

  i sympathize with your dilemma.

  im in the same boat myself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Frenchy

  Hope this is not butting in, but I am compelled to add my voice to those already here. Well put!

  Friend
• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Carmel

  Did not Paul categorically claim that the gospel had already been taken to the "whole world"?

  The text I believe you have in mind is that found in Colossians chapter 1. Can you demonstrate that Jesus' expression found at Matthew 24:14 is limited by the text of Colossians chapter 1? Can you demonstrate that those words attributed to the Apostle Paul have any bearing on the answer attributed to Jesus for a sign? Does the text of Colossians chapter 1 indicated any correlation besides the one you suggest? (I.e., did Paul indicate that his expression was the fulfillment of Jesus' answer?)

  Friend
• 
  5

  What to believe?

  by Seven in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all, in my search for the truth i have found it.

  necessary to carefully examine things from a non christian perspective.

  i have visited many jewish websites and have become quite disillusioned by what i've read.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Seven

  I think the question is, what authority does Greg base his assertion on?

  As for translating, words are translated based upon many considerations. For instance, depending upon context, it is possible that a single word/phrase could be legitimately translated as "praise God" or as "praise Zeus."

  Also not to be missed is that Greg is talking about subjects that have their roots in Hebrew culture and religion, not Greek culture or religion. Therefore questions about words used or translation of those words used must necessarily focus on accurately communicating the original ideas, not any reading in of ideas from other contexts.

  To me Greg's expression is just one more unsubstantiated assertion.

  Friend
• 
  34

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  by Friend in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today.

  some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience.

  lately this subject has come up in other circles so i chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  The following was originally written as part of a response to criticisms against the belief that the synoptic gospel contains Jesus' answer for a sign of his parousia that is realized today. Some of the language is then necessarily a bit unusual because of the originally intended audience. Lately this subject has come up in other circles so I chose to also post the comments to this forum.

  ***

  Jesus' Answer for a Sign

  Constantly there are discussions about the biblical accounts found at Matthew 24 & 25, Mark 13 and Luke 21, which texts attribute to Jesus a reply to two questions asked him. Because of convictions that Jesus' reply is finding a fulfillment in our day several questions arise.

  1. Did the reply attributed to Jesus indicate any significance beyond Jerusalem? If so, was that significance to the extent some believe it to be, that is, global?

  2. Is there evidence internal to the reply that indicates legitimacy, that is, that the reply as passed down to us is genuine prophecy rather than something written after the fact?

  3. Assuming that the reply attributed to Jesus is genuine and that it did implicate an event or events beyond Jerusalem's demise, do we have rationale to look for any unique fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?

  Global Implications
  Does Jesus' answer provide any basis for a fulfillment of his words beyond the destruction of Jerusalem? The following discussion will answer, "Yes" to that question.

  Part of Jesus' answer includes the text of Matthew 24:14, which reads:

  "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world [Greek: oikoumene], as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come."

  Those words have Jesus describing the extent of preaching work prior to "the end." If those words are possibly describing a global preaching work then Jesus' answer may have an application beyond the destruction of Jerusalem until a time that global preaching would be real.

  So, at this point in the discussion the question becomes, Can globality be attributed to Jesus' answer for a sign, specifically in his expression about how extensive the gospel would be preached? That discussion focuses on Jesus' use of the expression oikoumene as found at Matthew 24:14.

  In New Testament Greek the basic application of oikoumene was to the Greek-speaking world, as opposed to parts of the world beyond Greek influence. In other words the basic application was to the known Greek speaking world. A quick reading of practically any reputable Greek lexicon should easily make that point. So then the question becomes twofold. 1) Was oikoumene ever applied pre-New Testament period toward the world beyond the Greek influence encompassing the idea of globality and 2) Is there any reason to understand such an extended application of oikoumene in words attributed to Jesus at Matthew 24:14?

  Consider the following entry from Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek (also known as the Great Scott)

  oikoumen-ê (sc. gê), hê, inhabited region, v. oikeô A. au=Hdt. 7.1=lr ; then the Greek world, opp. barbarian lands, Dem. 7.35 ; pasa hê oi. IDEM=Dem. 18.48 ; in Arist.Mete.362b26, hê oi., = the inhabited world (including non-Greek lands, as Ethiopia, India, Scythia), as opp. possibly uninhabited regions, cf. Cleom.2.1 ; in Arist.Mu.392b26, hêde hê oi., = our world (= Asia, Libya, Europe); oikoumenai worlds, IBID=au=Arist. Mu. 392b31=lr ; hê philia perichoreuei tên oi. Epicur.Sent.Vat.52 ; sou (i.e. Ptolemy au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 11 or au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 111) tês oi. pasês basileuontos PSI5.541.7, cf. LXX 1 Es.2.3 ; loosely, the whole world, Hyp. 4.33 (prob.), Antiph.179, PMag.Lond.121.704, Luc. Halc.3, Ath.8.350a : so perh. in some passages cited under au=Ath. 8.350a11=lr.

  II. the Roman world, ho agathos daimôn (etc.) tês oi., i.e. the Emperor, OGI666.4,au=OGI 668.5, POxy.1021.5 (i A.D.), CIG2581-au=CIG 2,au=CIG 4416,Ev.Luc.2.1, Act.Ap.17.6, au=Act.Ap. 24.5, Sammelb.176.2 (ii A.D.), Gal.10.7, Luc.Macr. 7.

  III. hê oi. hê mellousa the world to come, i.e. the kingdom of Christ, Ep.Hebr.2.5.

  In the above expanded definition it's clear that, aside from any meaning Christian exegetists may apply, oikoumene had been used prior to Jerusalem's destruction as referencing "the inhabited world" and "the whole world". It should be noted that those two usages are aside from the idea of "the Greek world".

  Continuing the discussion into oikoumene, it is also of interest to read what Great Scott has to say under the term kosmos. The entry includes this statement:

  [kosmos] IV, 3. in later Gr., = oikoumenê , the known or inhabited world, OGI458.40 (au=OGI 458.9=lr B.C.), Ep.Rom.1.8, etc.; ho tou pantos k. kurios, of Nero, SIG814.31, cf. IGRom.4.982 (Samos); ean ton k. holon kerdêsêi Ev.Matt.16.26.

  What makes the above entry interesting is that it gives the specific reason for the basic meaning of oikoumene; it's describing the known world. Quite naturally people would normally use terms based upon what they know of. That being a legitimate assumption, for first century Greek speakers we can naturally conclude that usually the term oikoumene referred to the Greek speaking world. However, since the term had been used with reference to globality, assuming a user has knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth beyond Greek speaking people (meaning knowledge of global inhabitation), then we cannot exclude usage of oikoumene as meaning global. As represented in the Bible Jesus is just such a person. The Bible attributes Jesus with knowledge of all creation. In that case, then Jesus would have knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth unknown to his followers or any other Greek speaker.

  As presented in Great Scott, prior to Jesus there had already been expanded usage of oikoumene aside from the Greek speaking world and carrying the meaning of the inhabited world and the whole world. Those users were thinkers like Aristotle and Hyperides who intelligently and intentionally pushed their ideas and concepts beyond the known. Jesus is likewise represented as such a person except that, being the Son of the only true God, the Bible attributes to him the ability of speaking expansively about the known rather than the unknown. That Jesus is attributed knowledge beyond the common is substantiated at John 16:12 where Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

  Jesus was forced to use expressions of the day in order to communicate, however, according to the Bible record he also admitted speaking of things that were not then understood by his audience. This acknowledgment can be found at John 14:25,26. According to Young's Literal Translation it reads:

  "These things I have spoken to you, remaining with you, and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you."

  So, again, considering pre-Christian usage and the universal knowledge of Jesus, it cannot be excluded that Jesus used oikoumene literally in reference to the whole world.

  That information is fine for demonstrating existing possible legitimate usage of oikoumene meaning literally the whole world. However, the possibility of such usage is not evidence that it was actually used that way. For that we must examine internal evidence, we must turn to the synoptic gospel.

  As pointed out earlier, Matthew 24:14 has Jesus using oikoumene in reference to the extent of the gospel's dispensation. Besides expressing the extent of dispensation the same text also embodies the mandate to preach the gospel. Is there any occasion when Jesus spoke of this gospel being disseminated where it is contextually suggestive that he had in mind universal dissemination, that is, global preaching?

  Yes, Matthew 28:18-20 is one such place. In that text Jesus first describes himself as newly bestowed with universal power/authority. Immediately after this he mandates how far and wide the gospel is to be preached when he says:

  "Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations…"-Darby

  Contextually it seems reasonable that Jesus informed disciples of his new universal authority justifying the broad mandate he then gave. In short, the mandate was intended to be universal (worldwide) which explains why the assertion of universal authority. It would seem odd to assert that Jesus intentional expression interjecting his universal authority was disconnected from the mandate to spread the good news by making disciples. It would also seem unreasonable to assert Jesus mentioned this to authorize a lesser than universal work. Jesus' followers had not resisted his assignment for them to preach. Why now would Jesus need to assert so much authority for a strictly localized preaching? A reasonable explanation is that Jesus offered his universal authority as his responsibility to all humankind that the gospel reaches them all. If his responsibility was for earth-wide dissemination of the gospel then that would be his mandate given.

  So, contextually, Jesus use of his new authority at Matthew 28:18 evidences-whether it was initially understood or not-that Jesus had in fact mandated a universal (meaning: global) dissemination of the good news. This writer would contend that the text of Matthew 28:18 does more than just suggest possible world-wide preaching when a suggestion is all that is needed to consider Jesus expression at Matthew 24:14 as being global in extent. That critical connection is evidenced in that the context of both texts-Matthew 24:14 and 28:18-20-connect the preaching of Jesus' followers to the same event of "the end."

  Rationale then exists for understanding Jesus' words at Matthew 24:14 as referring to global in terms of extent. This can be said in that there was previous similar usage of the applied term and because the mandated extent of preaching is suggestively universal. If Jesus' expression at Matthew 24:14 suggests globality then there is a basis to conclude that Jesus' reply to the two questions put to him indicates a fulfillment beyond the destruction of Jerusalem.

  Is The Account Genuine?
  Indisputably the biblical texts in question can be dated to within 100 years of when events noted supposedly occurred. Critics claim that the subject texts apply entirely to Jerusalem's destruction and that they were written after the fact. These claims are an attempt to discredit that any genuine prophecy was uttered. Since Jesus' predicted fall of Jerusalem was similar to the actual event then naturally critics offer an easy enough explanation, that is, that the "prediction" was written after the fact. However, that criticism is practically useless when we consider that such an action presumes intent to deceive. Such a deception would necessitate getting the story straight. After all, if you what to deceptively convince others of a prediction then you must get the details straight. Otherwise what's the point? Did the would be deceivers get the story straight?

  According to Matthew's account Jesus said, "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, the moon not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the land lament, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Darby)

  Assuming, as critics have, that those words above somehow refer to Jerusalem's destruction and that they were written after the fact as a hoax, then naturally the question becomes, is there any indication whatsoever that events described above ever happened? Unless those events can be evidenced then the notion of an after the fact hoax is, at best, questionable. On the other hand, if a post-destruction hoax is asserted that includes the notion of a post-destruction prediction then the logical problem arises that such an assertion must be evidenced. To this writer's knowledge that assertion has not been evidenced to the point of absolutely excluding the genuineness of the text.

  If the texts we have today are genuine and there is an application beyond Jerusalem's destruction, an application that is global, then naturally we would expect the account to include depiction of events beyond anything having to do with Jerusalem's demise. If such an intention/application can be evidenced then the fact that the account of Jerusalem's destruction is similar to the actual event is understandable and we can rationally look at the rest of the reply for some sort of later fulfillment.

  So, are the subject accounts legitimate, are they genuine? The most that can be said is that their legitimacy has not been entirely refuted. In that case we have only the texts themselves to examine and decide if they have merit. Therefore the question becomes, besides any presumed fulfillment toward Jerusalem does the account contain any verifiable and unique fulfillment beyond Jerusalem?

  Only Jerusalem?
  It is at this point that the subject discussion becomes very involved, mostly because Jesus was asked two questions for which he gave one inclusive reply.

  The Bible attributes to Jesus an answer to multiple questions having to do with his predicted decimation of the city of Jerusalem, his coming (Greek: parousia) and the end of the age (Greek: aionos). Specifically, Jesus was asked 1) when Jerusalem's predicted destruction would occur and 2) for the sign of his coming and of the end of the age. (See Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7)

  It is significant that Jesus was asked more than just when his predicted destruction of Jerusalem would take place. Naturally we should look for Jesus' answer regarding that event because he was asked about it; however, that was not the only event Jesus was asked about. Therefore it is also natural that we look for Jesus' answer to the other question put to him, namely for the sign of his parousia and the end of the age. Realizing that Jesus was asked multiple questions and that he provided a single, lengthy and inclusive reply, then we must ascertain from that reply which of his statements apply to which question asked. Since the destruction of Jerusalem was only one of two subjects of inquiry we must be careful not to read into the text that his answer to each inquiry relates to Jerusalem's destruction. We must thoughtfully let language in Jesus' reply direct conclusions about which inquiry he is providing answer to with certain of his expressions.

  One problem facing those who would look for a modern fulfillment is that practically every Christian community has looked for a fulfillment of Jesus' words and quite often thought it was realized based upon what they were experiencing at the time. Most often those conclusions were drawn from experiencing war, pestilence, earthquakes, or some other event mentioned by Jesus in his reply. However, history indicates that most of the observable events described in his response have occurred with relatively the same frequency and intensity as we see today. For example, there is no firm basis to conclude that earthquakes are numerically or physically greater today than in the past. Another example is that of war. There has hardly been a generation that did not have some exposure to war, and some generations have experienced horrible war (e.g., the 100 years war). Therefore, based upon Jesus' reply, what can we look for today that would be any sort of unique fulfillment of Jesus' answer for a sign? That is the critical question.

  At this point it is essential that we realize and carefully consider a fundamental aspect of our subject, that Jesus was asked two questions for which he offered one inclusive reply. In that case we must be careful not to arbitrarily apply each circumstance Jesus described toward each event questioned. Jesus was asked about different events so his response must be accordingly correlated. Also, each feature of Jesus' reply had to manifest itself as Jesus described for its fulfillment.

  The two questions Jesus was asked are often construed as no more than a question about the destruction of Jerusalem. That explanation stems from the context of the subject text. Closely prior to asking their questions the Bible record has Jesus proclaiming a shocking event, namely the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the first question asked essentially is 'when will that happen' then many commentators and critics have explained that Jesus' entire reply was to a question of the same subject, the destruction of Jerusalem. However, there are perhaps insurmountable problems with that view. For example, Jesus was also asked for a sign of his coming (parousia). What does Jesus' parousia have to do with Jerusalem's destruction? When asking for a sign of Jesus' parousia what did those disciples have in mind? Had they thought that Jesus or his parousia would be responsible for or associated with Jerusalem's destruction? Had they ever heard of any parousia of Jesus'? If so, what was it?

  Often Jesus spoke of God's Kingdom, and his disciples followed him as the Messiah, the savior, the one born king of the Jews, the holy one of God. For that reason Jesus' disciples-especially the 12 apostles-were constantly discussing and thinking about sharing in rulership with Jesus. Assuming his disciples knew anything about Jewish history, then certainly they understood that destruction of their capital city would not necessarily bring Jesus or any other Jew into power as king of God's Kingdom, nor would this event in itself provide means of knowing that Jesus rulership was near. (Normally destruction of a capital city does not denote nearness of or continuity of rulership held by the same nationality, in this case Jewish rulership.) Therefore, when Jesus disciples asked for a sign of Jesus parousia, they certainly were asking about when they could realize his return, with his kingship, or at least when this would be imminent, and there is no obvious correlation between Jesus' parousia and Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, any notions of grandeur associated with sharing in Jesus' rulership would naturally have been of concern after hearing that their capital city was to be destroyed. So, if anything, hearing of Jerusalem's destruction increased the curiosity of Jesus' closest followers to basically want to know, "Well, when will this destruction happen, and since our capital will be destroyed, how can we know when you are starting your rule?" This idea of ruling with Jesus had been primary on each of their minds, and they now wanted to know when this would be evidentially imminent. As far as questioning Jesus goes, this wanting to know when they could expect Jesus to begin ruling as a king was on their minds right up until Jesus ascension. (Acts 1:6,7) Did Jesus disciples have reason to connect "the end of the age" with Jesus rulership?

  Quite recently before the incident of questioning and answering that we are discussing here Jesus had informed/reminded his disciples of his imminent death, his resurrection, and future kingdom rule. (Matthew 20:17-28) Also, prior to Jesus prediction that Jerusalem was to be destroyed he had alluded to his future kingship. (Matthew 22:41-45; Luke 20:44) On an earlier occasion Jesus had been asked by his followers to explain one of his illustrations in particular, that of the wheat and the weeds. In his reply, Jesus connected the 'end of the age' with kingdom rule. These facts are enough to reasonably conclude that Jesus' disciples had connected Jesus' return as king with the end of the age. It seems that much of the time Jesus disciples were preoccupied with the notion of having power as co-rulers with Jesus, so details referencing that subject would naturally be remembered and pondered. There is nothing to suggest Jesus' disciples had other things on their mind when they asked Jesus for a sign of his parousia. And, again, historically, Jesus coming or returning with kingly power-or any Jew for that matter-would have nothing to do with the destruction of the Jewish capital. Additionally, Jesus responded to his disciples' question as if he was being asked about when he would return with kingly power. Noticeably, Jesus, in his response, referred to himself at least twice, not just as returning, but as returning with power. It seems he understood the real meaning of his disciples' second question. (See Matthew 24:30; 25:1; 25:31)

  Therefore, unless the question about Jesus parousia can be linked with Jerusalem's destruction then reading Jesus entire answer as if it applied to that single event is without merit.

  Unique Fulfillment?
  Responding to two questions asked Jesus' spoke of events that would occur and could or would be observed. Naturally examiners have considered those events and asked themselves questions like, "Is there anything unique about events Jesus offered supposedly as a sign?" and, "Are those events in evidence today?" and, "Have those events occurred in the past?"

  Because many events described by Jesus have, for the most part, always been a part of life many critics naturally conclude that those events were never intended to be any sort of a sign or else the supposed answer for a sign is a false one. However, Jesus' response did more than describe observable events; it also described features of how those events could be observed (i.e., the extent of observation) and effects or potential effects of those observations (i.e., fear). So, a true examination of the answer attributed to Jesus must necessarily include more than a consideration of events, it must also consider how Jesus said events would be observed.

  Primarily Jesus indicated that it would be his disciples that would or could recognize fulfillment of his answer. However, as part of his reply he also said those disciples would be scattered about preaching the gospel. That means that observable events would have to be observable to the same extent as Jesus' disciples were preaching because they were the ones indicated as able to realize fulfillment of Jesus' words. If it is true that Jesus had indicated global preaching then observable events described by Jesus must likewise be observable on a global scale with the potential effects he described, namely fear. For events to be observable on a global scale and have effects Jesus described then one of two things must occur. Either 1) each of those events must occur globally and concurrently-which has never happened-or else 2) each must be occurring concurrently and be observable via global communication, which communications must provide for the effects Jesus indicated (i.e., potential fear).

  If parts of Jesus' answer were intended to have global application then events associated with those applications could only be rightly examined based upon whether they have ever happened concurrently on the right scale (global) or else communication allowed the observability of the same events on the right scale (global). Criticisms that deal with less are invalid. Considerations of the reply attributed to Jesus must consider all aspects of his answer, both the events and how their observation is depicted.

  Historians know of no time period during which each event in Jesus' answer for a sign was manifest concurrently on a global scale. Therefore, since only within approximately the last 100 years has humankind had anything resembling true global communication-versus knowledge of global events-then it is possible that during this period Jesus' answer for a sign could uniquely find fulfillment. New questions arising are:

  1. Have Jesus' words found fulfillment or potential for fulfillment in our day?

  2. If so, according to Jesus' depiction, who would or could recognize that fulfillment?

  3. Finally, according to Jesus answer, is recognition of any sign of Jesus' parousia or "the end" necessary for salvation?

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 11 August 2000 11:5:11
• 
  7

  HYMAN RICKOVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF

  by SolidSender in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .. edited by - solidsender on 10 august 2000 3:48:18

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  SS says:
  

  It’s common knowledge around here I post as BigQuestion

  I imagine you have a fascist rule that says I can’t.

  As far as I know there is no such rule; you can talk to yourself all you want. Frankly, looking back at all the times where SS complimented BQ or where BQ complimented SS becomes quite hilarious. Is that how you became a general manager for Unisys Australia Limited, by talking to yourself?

  I am sorry, that, your admission, is just too funny.

  Friend
• 
  32

  Ho Hum, just another JW sex abuse case

  by Dubby in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  judge blasts church over sex offences .

  by michele tydd .

  a wollongong judge yesterday launched a scathing attack on the jehovah's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Xandit

  Bite? LOL. I didn't plant the sentence as bait.

  The other issue is the subject of this thread. The Society faces a huge problem from past preventable child abuse.

  Over the years the Society has known of horrid acts of child abuse committed within the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unlike other communities, Jehovah's Witnesses have been taught to cover over horrible and dangerous transgressions to the point of being over protective of someone who has sown plenty of bad seed. In most societies if a sociopath abused children then community leaders would expose them to the elements, so to speak, to fully reap the rich rewards of their planting. To this day that tendency-a needed and expected tendency-is still not the norm among Jehovah's Witnesses. This very moment there are ongoing cases of terrible crimes against JW children by adult JWs that are still not reported to authorities. Of course, for the past few years the Society has directed local elders to follow local statutes in the matter regardless of any perceived cost in reputation. However, prior to that the Society often took the view that ecclesiastical privilege carried a blanket protection to the point that elders had no responsibility whatsoever beyond a child's immediate safety, reporting to a child's parent or dealing congregationally with an offender. That former direction led to a problem where pedophiles could find a sort of haven among us, Jehovah's Witnesses. The main problem facing the Society is its past tendency to hush up these sorts of things to the point of putting children at risk.

  Primarily the issue above puts the Society at financial risk. However, between the Society improving its cash flow from the early nineties and their very lucrative return on investments, the Society is cash rich so that they could probably whether the storm of civil litigation and subsequent money penalties in the form of awards.

  The blood issue is entirely different. Changing that particular teaching too dramatically would not necessarily put the Society into danger of civil litigation, but it would put them in danger of massive defection. An organization like the Society needs member support. Financial support from membership is the proverbial water well. If that well dries up then the money completely dries up along with social support. That is why the blood issue represents a greater threat and the Society will fight it hard. That is why it becomes critical that JWs who feel the teaching should be revised should share that view with the Society. If the Society is reassured that its members will support significant change then there is already scriptural explanation ready to enact them.

  Friend
• 
  32

  Ho Hum, just another JW sex abuse case

  by Dubby in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  judge blasts church over sex offences .

  by michele tydd .

  a wollongong judge yesterday launched a scathing attack on the jehovah's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  Path, Zep,

  It looks like we are in complete agreement on the problem facing the Society on this issue of blood. Like I said, that one issue probably represents the most tangible threat to the Society’s existence. Their policy will change on day, and hell will be paid. Unfortunately many have already paid the price of hell, including children.

  There is another issue in the making, but it does not pack the punch of this blood issue.

  Friend