Hi tbk,
This post (off site) may be of help. Also check out the link at the bottom of that post.
Posts by Bobcat
-
17What did Jesus Teach the "Kingdom of Heaven/God" is?
by truth_b_known inthe books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.
jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".
those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".
-
-
-
28
May JW Broaadcast - so bad, "it's not even wrong"
by FFGhost indon't know how many of y'all still watch it.. this month's topic is "the king of the north" - cook goes into monotonous detail over the jw interpretation about rome, germany, ussr, russia, etc.. leaving aside for other commentators the emotionally manipulative videos of jws in russian holding cells, the tearjerker interviews, the god-awful stiffness of cook (i suspect he has never genuinely smiled, much less laughed, in his 60+ years), just thought i'd comment on one topic.. the centerpiece of the program is a "morning worship" monologue from splane.
let's again just leave to the side the dude's pomposity, smugness, and inflated sense of his own genius, and think about this part of his monologue.. he was tracing the history of the "king of the north" and talked about how "britain" (not england, not the united kingdom, not great britain, but "britain" - no idea why they have that fixation - anyway...) became the kotn in the 19th century.. paraphrasing his comments: "britain would not have become kotn if france had its way.
france was much wealthier and more powerful, but at the battle of waterloo, britain defeated france.
-
-
-
15
Art work in the 1933 book riches
by mickbobcat ini picked this book up at a flea market for three bucks.
the art work is great.
i love the satan and .
-
-
Bobcat
Hi Minimus,
Yea, I agree. I usually take most of the subliminal stuff with a grain of salt. But there are a few that are hard to explain any other way.
The picture with the one naked man up against the other, I wonder if CT Russel borrowed the artwork? And if so, why would he put such a picture in his publication? Was this a way to get the curious to buy the book? It seems like the poor colporteurs would be run out of town for trying to distribute this kind of stuff.
-
15
Art work in the 1933 book riches
by mickbobcat ini picked this book up at a flea market for three bucks.
the art work is great.
i love the satan and .
-
-
-
17
Why a 1914 Return Date is Impossible
by Sea Breeze inrevelation 20:2-3. and he [jesus] laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years,.
and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.. we see that the millennial reign begins with satan being bound.
he will be bound for 1000 years.
-
-
Bobcat
Hi SB,
Wish you well.
-
17
Why a 1914 Return Date is Impossible
by Sea Breeze inrevelation 20:2-3. and he [jesus] laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years,.
and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.. we see that the millennial reign begins with satan being bound.
he will be bound for 1000 years.
-
-
Bobcat
Hi Sea Breeze,
Whether Jesus reigns on earth or in heaven is irrelevant in my reply above. Rev 20:4 specifically describes the 1000 years as a time when his disciples reign with Jesus, not when Jesus begins ruling. One of the links I included in my post was to NT indications of when Jesus begins ruling. As 1Co 15:25 shows, he is already ruling while he still has enemies. His disciples begin ruling with him after the destructive events in Rev 19 and Satan'a abyssal in Rev 20:1-3. Of course, Jesus' rulership during the 1000 years will be far more manifest than it has been before that. It will be open then (Dan 2:44), compared to behind the scenes (so-to-speak) as it is now. (Compare Mt 13:31-32, 33)
As for what the NT indicates about when Satan is cast out of heaven, see this thread (off site). This should not be confused with when Satan is abyssed in Rev 20:1-3.
The early church fathers you quoted are not incorrect per se. They just don't factor in that Jesus has been ruling God's Kingdom since he returned to heaven. (Col 3:13) It's just that his rulership is presently more discreet. But it will eventually be much more overt. This discreet, then overt rulership of Jesus is sometimes referred to as "Inaugurated Eschatology." (See posts # 13, 15, 17 starting here.)
-
26
Was your faith in Armagedddon connected to current events?
by Wasanelder Once inremember when nixon resigned?
the big a was here some said.
remember 1986 and the "international year of peace and security?
-
-
Bobcat
I used to have the WT view of Armageddon referring to a final battle. And, indirectly, it does. But I have come to appreciate that Armageddon, based on Rev 16:13, 14, 16 refers to a "place" where worldwide forces mobilize against God's people. Megiddo and the surrounding area, as a staging area for foreign armies, would have posed an imminent threat to the ancient nation of Israel.
Now I take Armageddon as implying a movement against Christianity (as opposed to natural Israel), and thus, for me, "the place called Armageddon" is a symbolic place. It is also possible that the Har in Harmageddon is an allusion to Ezek 38:7-9. (See this thread for additional.)
In Rev 16:16-21 the gathering of forces to Armageddon (Rev 16:16) prompts a (destructive) response from God (Rev 16:17f; just as it does in Ezek 38:17-23). So, from that standpoint, "Armageddon" could be described as a "battle" since battles are often named by the place where they are fought (e.g. Normandy, Marathon, etc). But more happens at "Armageddon" than just a final battle. (Compare Rev 16:19)
Vanderhoven's link on page 1 of this thread, although it understands a preterist (1st century) application of Rev 16, it does correctly apply the term Armageddon to a gathering of foreign/enemy forces against those who are viewed as God's people.
So, back to the question in the thread topic, I now see the approach of Armageddon as being related to a worldwide anti-Christian movement on the part of all governments. Whether it happens in my lifetime or not remains to be seen. And how one nation (such as Russia or China) act towards Christianity is not necessarily indicative that the time has arrived.
In Rev 16:13-14 the "False Prophet" is one of the leaders in prompting this gathering of forces. I currently understand this to be the US/GB (i.e. Great Britain) so that, a more significant indication of the approach of Armageddon would be the attitude of the US towards Christianity. There are some indications of changes in attitudes in the US towards Christianity even now, but nothing yet of the sort described in Rev 16:13, 14, 16.
Another factor related to this is that, if the "False Prophet" is portraying the US/GB, then, it would imply that the US is still a predominate nation, able to influence a worldwide gathering of forces. Currently, the US seems to be on the verge of losing that dominate influential position. So, based on what I said just above, one might think that the gathering to Armageddon would not be too far off in the future, that is, if how I currently understand things holds true.
Of course, such views are subject to change, mine included. But that is how I understand things at the moment.
As such, other wars, pandemics, food shortages, cries of peace and security, et al, are not related to how close Armageddon is. On the other hand, Rev 9:20-21 which is part of the 6th Trumpet, portrays the majority of mankind as becoming set in their rejection of Christianity. This parallels with the gathering of forces to Armageddon in the 6th bowl (Rev 16:12-16). So the two combined portray a total rejection by the world of real Christianity and a movement to get rid of it. All of this together is what prompts God to react in the 7th Trumpet (Rev 11:15-19) and the 7th bowl (Rev 16:17-21) which essentially describe the same thing (i.e. a time of destructive judgment by God).
-
17
Why a 1914 Return Date is Impossible
by Sea Breeze inrevelation 20:2-3. and he [jesus] laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years,.
and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.. we see that the millennial reign begins with satan being bound.
he will be bound for 1000 years.
-
-
Bobcat
You might consider a different view regarding Jesus' reign:
If you read Rev 20:4 carefully, it does not discuss the length of Jesus' kingship. Rather, it specifies how long his disciples would "reign" with him.
The NT describes Jesus as ruling "until [God] has put all enemies under [Jesus'] feet." (1Co 15:25; Heb 10:12-13; Ps 110:1) For an analysis of when Jesus began ruling, based on what the NT indicates, see this post. And for an analysis of the Greek word parousia (translated as "presence" in the NWT), and that the word is never used in the NT in reference to WHEN Jesus is crowned or given ruling authority, see this post. (Both links are off-site.)
But back to Rev 20:4. See the reasoning used in this post (also off-site) regarding who is being described in Rev 20:4.
Incidentally, I agree with you on the New Covenant being intended for all Jesus' disciples.
-
21
Headship and WT's Changed Understanding
by Bobcat ini don't think anyone has mentioned that the february 2021 study wt (p. 15, 16; par.
8) changed wt's long standing view on headship within the congregation.
wt used to view all baptized males as being the head of all baptized sisters.. this view led to such absurdities as a sister having to wear a head covering on a bible study because her baptized 10 year old son was sitting in on the study with her.
-
-
Bobcat
It would be easy to have missed the changed WT view. The article makes absolutely no mention of the fact that this was a change in view.
One paragraph talks about how some people might sort of push an elder into thinking he is a head over sisters when they come to him looking for him to make decisions for them. But the reality was that the WT held brothers to be the spiritual head over sisters. The sisters would naturally think that they should go to the elders for direction, just like a child might go to a parent for direction.
Someone of Reddit also commented on the fact that there was a box in the study article describing the role of the GB. But that it was rather noticeable that the box did not point out the obvious - that if brothers are not spiritual heads of sisters, then, the GB are not heads either.
The whole article was curious about what it didn't point out. It was like it wanted it to appear that this was always the case.
I might add that I went to their online library to check the Publications Index under headship. Under headship within the congregation they have the Feb 2021 article referenced. No other references are listed. Yet, the last link in my first post of this thread is to a thread that has literally dozens of WT publication references to the old headship view.
I wonder if they've scrubbed the Index of the old viewpoint?
-
27
History of Head Covering for JW Women
by UnDisfellowshipped init is not a case of her being appointed to conduct a congregational meeting.
in such cases the dedicated brother should offer the prayer, and the sister may conduct the study with her head covered.
for if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn.1 cor.
-
-