Scholar
How does that 1914 make sense? Maybe you can help me with this questions.
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?
2. Who said that the seat of davidic rulership was vacant as at first century? Was Jesus not born a king through David line? Did Jesus not make a triumphant entry into Jerusalem as the king of the Jews? Did Nathanael, and even the Jewish rulers not place on his stake, "Jesus, king of the Jews"? (John 12:15,16; Isaiah 9;5,6) Zech 9:9 didn't present the matter as king designate. There king was coming into Jerusalem.
When declaration to lift the turban was made at Ezek 21:26, the bible didn't say " let seven times pass over it". That phrase was picked up from another prophecy meant for Nebuchadnezzar. That is entirely different context. That of Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar. The bible book of Daniel told us the prophecy and stated how it was fulfilled. done and dusted.
Another problem is giving the seven times a different reckoning. On what basis actually? How does adding up different biblical context make any sense?
3. We go to revelation 12.
This chapter is used to prove how the kingdom was born. The child is said to be God's kingdom. A government.
First. Rev 12:17 says that the dragon went to persecute "the remaining ones" of the woman's offspring.
If the remaining ones of her offspring are persons, how then is the child the woman delivered not also refer to a person, but a government?
Secondly, verse 10 says "now have come to pass... the kingdom"
Did you notice that it was after the war in heaven that the point was made that it was now, that the kingdom came into being?
So the kingdom should come into being after Satan was ousted, not before.
We move to Rev 11.
The GB made a smart move there. Rev 11:15 is said to fulfill in 1914, but why is it that verse 18 was moved to the future? Russell and others who studied that Revelation knew that those verses should come together, that's why they thought that the kingdom will come in 1914. But since it didn't come, the verses were detached and given different times of fulfillment. That's wrong.
As for Parousia, it will take time to explain how my personal study gave a different understanding of that scripture. In a nutshell, Jesus answered the question of the sign of his presence at Matt 24:29,30- "the sign of the son of man". probably that heavenly phenomenon mentioned in verse 29 will be the physical evidence that the son of man has come. that's the sign requested at Matt 24:3. This his coming/presence would cover a period of resurrection and rapture before the actual destruction of the wicked.
All that Jesus said about nation fighting against nations, food shortages etc was not part of his presence. He was telling them what will occur before his presence. His presence is the end. The end is associated with when Jesus come for judgment and eventual destruction. In other words, conclusion of the system of things. That visible evidence will show that he is NEAR at the door. (Matt 24:33). Jesus didn't now say "the end is not yet" because that was the end. Don't let the word "end" make you think of immediate destruction.
To help you get the point, run a study on "presence", "manifest*", "Reve*lation", "trumpet", "conclusion", "end".