Posts by Vidqun

10

Why did God give the Ministry of Reconciliation (Justification) to the apostles instead of the Kingdom message?

by Sea Breeze in

why did god give the ministry of reconciliation (justification) to the apostles when starting churches rather that the kingdom message in matt.

24: 14 that jesus spoke about?

2 cor.

Vidqun

I have a different theory, one that the Witnesses will hate. Perhaps Matt. 24:14 and Mark 13:10 are not fulfilled as yet. These point to a future fulfillment:

Matthew (24:3) speaks of “end” as συντέλεια (τοῦ) αἰῶνος the end of the (present; αἰών) age = a combined end, a point of time marking completion of a duration, orig. ‘community contribution’ [the basic semantic component relates to something complementing something already present] in our literature only in a temporal sense and in v. 14 τέλος = the last part of a process: “This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world as a testimony to all nations. And then the end will come.” The proclamation of the kingdom is therefore to start on the eve of the Tribulation. The preaching campaign is one of a kind, not to be repeated (cf. Matt. 24:14, 21 CSB). See BDAG.

Mark (13:10) is even more specific: “Also, in all the nations the good news has to be preached first.” πρῶτος = pertaining to being first in a sequence as to time, set (number) or space (BDAG), in the sense of a precondition in the Synoptic eschatological discourse (EDNT). The preaching of the gospel is a precondition and should therefore commence before the Tribulation takes hold. It is not to be repeated (cf. Mark 13:10, 19). See also unique use of πρῶτον in connection with “judgment” in 1 Pet. 4:17.

In my view Acts 2:16-21 was only partially fulfilled during the first century. This also points to a future fulfillment.

47

2024 Annual Meeting Doctrinal Change

by Listener in

a change to their doctrine came from jackson.

this isn't a transcript of his whole speech but i thought i would try and get some of his main speech in writing.. at around 1hr26 minutes he starts talking about some dangerous thinking in feeling there is some wiggle room in regards to the schedule for the gt.

but you see, we need to be careful about what we are thinking about the number of anointed ones left on earth.

Vidqun

Duran, you've got some serious mixing and matching going on there:

"All needed nations will give their power to the UN when the time comes [Rev. 17:12]. This is necessary in order to bring about the 8th and final king that is used by God to serve as the 'hour of test'/hour of judgment'/'judgment on the house of God' [1 Peter 4:17; Rev. 3:10; 17:11, 12]. This 'hour' is the 42-month period of GT [Rev. 13:5; 17:11]. It is only GT for those that are refusing to go along with the rule of the UN. Prior to the UN getting the power to become the 8th king, WW3 must occur, it is the death-stroke on the beast as the 7th king [13:3]. The beast being revived is when it becomes the 8th king. [13:3; 17:11]"

Few problems here:

1) Remember beast with deathstroke only had ruling authority 42 months. Beast from the earth would take its place: "He exercised all the ruling authority of the first beast on his behalf" (Rev. 13:12). "The second beast was empowered to give life to the image of the first beast" (Rev. 13:15 NET). First beast is no more. Beast from the earth brought to life a new beast.

2) One hour is not equal to 42 months (3 1/2 years). (11:13; 17:12; 18:10, 17, 19; cf. 8:1).

3) I'd say we are now at Rev. 6:8. Next is Rev. 6:12 (sixth seal).

4) "He also caused everyone... to obtain a mark on their right hand or on their forehead" (Rev. 13:16 NET). Seems like the worship-part is the deadly part (13:15; 14:11; 19:20; 20:4).

5) Hour of test: First century Philadelphian congregation (3:10; cf. 1:11, 19; 4:1).

56

Annual Meeting live updates

by ukpimo in

i have obtained the live link for the annual meeting tomorrow:.

annual meeting live link.

the meeting will begin at 9:45am eastern time, for those of us in the uk, that will be 2:45pm.

Vidqun

Duran, I do not see WW III in prophecy. I do see a lot of natural catastrophes and celestial phenomena in the pipeline. Perhaps these will herd the nations into the camp of the UN. Under such circumstances a central authority to keep law and order and to organize relief efforts and distribute relief supplies would make sense. Not that conventional war could be ruled out. Jesus did prophesy about wars and reports of wars.

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

Touchofgrey, what you are actually doing is establishing boundaries and rules for God. He used men to write down what is necessary under the guidance of His spirit. If you follow the scriptures you will see there is actually no contradictions. We either do not have all the facts or it's our because of our perceptive shortcomings. As a whole the scriptures is in harmony and furnish with what we need for the moment. This will become clear as we see the storm clouds over this world gathering. If you reject the scriptures it will be to your detriment.

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

Touchofgrey, whenever there's various eyewitness, there will invariably be differences and contradictions. No two people see the same event in the same way. So the few contradictions are easily explained by differences in background, personality, circumstance, writing style and time passed since it was documented.

Albert Huck's "Synopsis of the First Three Gospels with the addition of the Johannine Parallels," edited by Heinrich Greeven, is a valuable resource for study in this regard. I have the 13th edition. As far as I can remember, Kurt Aland also published a synopsis of the four gospels. There are differences, and that is to be expected.

E.g., "in the healing of the blind man (men?) near Jericho, Luke states it took place as Jesus “drew near to Jericho” (Luke 18:35). Matthew attests it happened after Jesus leaves Jericho and there were two blind men healed (Matt. 9:27). Mark narrates both the entrance and exit of Jesus from Jericho; and while leaving Jesus encounters and heals blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46)." Questions that come up: How many blind men did Jesus heal on that day? Was he coming or going or both? Did the writer(s) witness the occasion or was it narrated to them?

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

Jeffro, this one was made especially for you:

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

What swayed me most about the authenticity of the Gospel accounts are their contents. I have read lots of books before, but they were special. Very few contradictions and some excellent advice and moral guidance in there. And as for the theory that a disciple or groups of disciples came together and sucked all of it out their thumbs is somewhat hard to swallow. And as already discussed, to be willing to die for a big lie is highly unlikely from a human standpoint.

28

how do you feel about the use of the name Jehovah now?

by enoughisenough in

for those who still believe in god and the bible, how do you feel/think about the name jehovah now?

i am one who never wanted to bring reproach on god's name.

i will admit using the word jehovah now makes me feel rather icky...like i am promoting a lie of sorts.

Vidqun

Enoughisenough, here is another set of videos for you to peruse. A Kairite Jew, Nehemiah Gordon, actually endorses the pronunciation "Jehuwah." Interestingly, he found the pronunciation in over a thousand MSS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgXMmBst8w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA3VKpVP17U&t=439s

But what should be kept in mind:

1) The different vocalization systems are not that old, dating from about 600-800 CE, although they are based on a much older oral tradition.

2) Then there is the Albright-Reisel Hypothesis that suggests that the current pronunciations are all based on either North or South Israelite pronunciation:

Prof. William Foxwell Albright viewed Greek Iaō as a transliteration of the South Israelite (Judahite) Yáhû. According to him, *Yēhou, transliterated by means of Greek Ieû, originated with North Israelite usage. In his book "Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths," he quotes the writings of historians to support his hypothesis. E.g. Porphyry mentioned in his writings that Sanchuniathon had compiled a history of the Jews from information received from a priest of the God Ieû, the latter being North Israelite pronunciation of the South Israelite Yáhû (Iaō in Greek).1
Post-exilic times would herald a change. Dr. M. Reisel, pursuing a different line of reasoning, concluded that the “cultic vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHuàH or YaHuàH”.2 This would especially have been the case during post-exilic temple worship. Reisel’s conclusion anticipates the outcome of Albright’s hypothesis, hence the name Albright-Reisel Hypothesis.3

1. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths, pp. 262, 263, footnote 155.

2. M. Reisel, The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., pp. 40, 41, 74.

3. S. Ortlepp, The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton from a Historico-linguistic Perspective, p. 5.

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

Jeffro, it's a case of the pot is calling the kettle black. I have clearly demonstrated your irrationality by you insinuating "destroy" means "corrupt," in order for you to fit it into your brand of theology. By the way, none of the Bible translators agree with you in this instance.

189

What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?

by Touchofgrey in

is there any independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible said he did?.

the four gospels were written by unknown authors many decades after the so called events, so can't be considered as eyewitness accounts.

i think that there may have been a apocalyptic preacher who was executed by the romans and the story evolved from their.

Vidqun

Earlier in this thread, I correctly pointed out that Daniel 9:27 does not say that Jerusalem would be destroyed. For completeness I will also add that although Daniel 9:26 says the city would be 'destroyed', the actual word used in the original text (Strongs H7843) means corrupted rather than destroyed in the sense of perished (Strongs H6), desolated (Strongs H2717), erased (Strongs H4871) or completely destroyed (Strongs H2763). See also Daniel 11:31; 12:11.

Evidence associated with the piel and hiphil as the predominant conjugation stems suggests that the verb signifies an act of ruthless destruction subjecting the object to complete annihilation or decimating and corrupting it so thoroughly that its demise is certain. The only difference is that the piel has resultative meaning, being used when the reference is to acts of destruction already carried out, whereas the hiphil emphasizes the subject’s intent to carry out such destruction, being used when the reference is to current or durative acts of this sort.
J. Conrad, “שָׁחַת,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 584.

To destroy or not to destroy? No Jeffro, your clarification does not work for me. Jesus describes the occasion best. I'll go with his version on the matter. His explanation, of not a stone upon a stone remaining, describes it as it turned out in the end: "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." (Luke 21:6 ESV)

15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matt. 24:15-16 ESV)

He could even warn his people to flee, and they did.