if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Jeffro
The one with the pretty charts.
There is something ‘solid’ that the JW 1914 doctrine could be said to be based on 💩 , but it’s not ‘exegesis’. 😂
---
Let me assure you that it is rock-solid exegesis confirmed by the facts of modern history.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Ding
The Gentiles Times Reconsidered by Carl Olaf Jonsson demolishes the 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem and with it the 1914 calculations.
----
Jonsson's thesis fails because it misinterprets the 'seventy years of Jeremiah' and of the historical fact of the Jewish Exile which lasted for 70 years-ended in 537 BCE, therefore, it must have begun in 607 BCE. QED
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
Solid exegesis would exclude assumptions and speculation and easily convince Bible Scholars of the exegetical soundness of Watchtower methodology and conclusions
----
Absolutely so many beginning Bible Students find that is most certainly true as they study WT publications along with their copy of the Bible.
---
How many non-JW Bible scholars do you know that are convinced from the scriptures that Christ's parousia occurred in October 1914?
---
Rolf Furuli would now be considered to be in such a camp.
---
Can you run the solid exegesis by me so I can see for myself that 1914 is not established by absolute Bunkum eisegesis.?
---
No problem. You need to focus on Daniel 4 and Luke 21 for both discuss the Gentile Times or the 'appointed times of the nations.
Next, you could use the WT Index for further information.
Further, you could consult various Bible commentaries to evaluate your conclusions.
If you need further assistance then scholar is available to help for scholar likes to help the 'litt;e people or ones'.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
My take is that all three dates are based on eisegesis and that Jehovah's Witnesses would not baptize anyone who does not tow the line completely. Why baptize someone who you would later disfellowship for expressing disagreement on any officially marked dates or doctrines?
----
Absolute Bunkum! The date 1914 CE is based on solid exegesis whereas 1918 and 1919 are based on careful eisegesis all three main prophetic dates form an eschatological triennium.
----
Now none of these dates were criteria for Christian baptism before the twentieth century...so why is believing in these dates so critical now if one can be a true Christian while rejecting all three?
----
True, it was not until the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the next century that the 'Revealer of Secrets', Jehovah God revealed the understanding and timing of such events in association with the Kingdom of God and the birth of the new nation in the context of Eschatology and its inauguration. Thus true Christians are now properly identified in relation to the fulfillment of God's purpose respecting HIs True Church- a modern eschatological Church furthering the interests of that Kingdom from 1914 CE and carrying out the Master's command to make preach, teach and make disciples along with Christian baptism.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
I want to know if, in your opinion, your organization would baptize Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919? Yes or no.... and why or why not, will do.
--
My opinion is that such a baptismal candidate certainly in the case of 1914 would not be eligible as a candidate for Christian baptism for the reason that 1914 is a more rigorous Bible teaching being exegetically based whereas 1918 and 1919 are based more on eisegesis.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Linda 14
In the interim, I will make a brief comment on your first question.
Luke 21:
However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled"
From that context, how does Jerusalem come to represent seat of davidic line of rulers? Is the context not clearly referring to literal Jerusalem?
----
Luke 21:24 contains three major elements that require careful exegesis:
1. Jerusalem - typical or antitypical used by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse
2. What does the word 'trampled on' mean and how and when does it apply?
3. What then is the significance of 'appointed times of the nations' how and when does this apply?
Food for thought until next week.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Linda14
You ask some good questions that are easily answered. I am away at the moment but will return next Tuesday so will get to your nifty questions at that time.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
---
Regardless of what you think, would your organization baptize Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919?
--
If my opinion is unsatisfactory then perhaps you can ask the Organization for an appropriate response.
scholar JW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
So will your organization baptize those Christians who don't believe in 1914, 1918 and 1919?
--
Christians submitting to baptism would most likely endorse such teaching as it is well-founded biblically so i cannot envisage this becoming an issue.
scholarJW
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Vanderhoven7
"Can a person be a Christian if he or she doesn't believe that the events purported by Watchtower to have taken place on these three dates actually happened?
In other words does one have to believe in 1914, 1918, and 1919 to be a Christian?"
----
The answer is NO. Such parabolc interpretations and others are not considered to be primary doctrine - not essential for sakvation.
However, such interpretations are helpful and beneficial for one's faith, especially in establishing the identity of the true and only eschatological Church which alone is doing the Lord's work today by preaching the Gospel.
scholar JW
