- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I believe that he is the beginning of the creation by God, the firstborn of all creation.
Doesn't your Bible say these things? Most do.
This is what I believe. Yes, begotten, but things may be just a bit different here, considering it is Jehovah we are speaking of and not a man.
“Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB)
Could this passage merely be talking about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract?
The Wisdom that is here described was “produced,” or created, as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. Jehovah God has always existed and has always been wise. (Ps 90:1,2) His wisdom had no beginning; it was neither created nor produced.
It was “brought forth as with labor pains.” Furthermore, this wisdom is said to speak and act, representing a person. (Prov 8:1)
(Some say that the holy spirit is spoken of in that manner and so the holy spirit must be an individual. Well, the same reasoning would apply to this scripture then.)
Depicting the Son of God as wisdom is appropriate, since was was God’s Word or spokesman and was the one who revealed Jehovah’s wise purposes and decrees. Elsewhere, he is described as being “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and also the “wisdom from God.” (1 cor 1:24,30)Hi david,
You have shown us that the JWs have changed their doctrines when they are found to be false.
So the JW organisation is not infallible and has taught many falsehoods in the past.That being the case why do you not help them see that their grasp on scriptural truth at present is tenuous at best and encourage them not to witness till they have to shunned their present false teachings, based on their poor attitude to scriptural understanding, and established their gospel on truth?
I am also fallible. As are you. If you applied the same principle to yourself, we would never hear from you again.
Hi david,
Does your sense of personal fallibility stop you challenging your church about their false teachings?Nick, frankly, out of all the false teachings out there, I'm probably most concerned with people who think and teach God is a monster who tortures people for all time, because of the sins of a few years.
Hence, I'm speaking with you.
Hi david,
So fallible men at the Watchtower have prepared doctrines for your consumption using scripture and logic and you are to accept them as gospel to maintain unity and preach them door to door as the gospel of Christ without first checking them scripturally for authenticity? Is that wise or safe ?I know that is the mantra you keep teaching and truly want to believe, desparately.
What troubles me is you tend to begin these rants with words like:
“So…”
and then go on to explain the wrong conclusions you have come to that have no basis in anything I've ever said. So you make it appear as though I somehow support your twisted views. It really doesn't matter what I say, does it. Your next response will be similar nonsense, won't it. You really don't need me for this conversation with yourself, but when someone is so wrong, it's hard not to say something.Hi,
The JWs pride themselves on their unity and their works.
If only they would take such care of the gospel given us
and preach it instead of their truly fanciful speculations.Such obedience would matter more
Hi david.
This is taken from Wikipedia about the HoY.
When you read it it appears to have a lot in common with the JWs history as they prophesied the coming of Christ in 1914 I think it was and then said that he is here, but invisible. I also think that 1874/75 or something like that was also important. Perhaps you can elaborate.
It seems to me that when a false prophecy is given the escape clause seems to be “oh it did happen, but you just can't see it”.
Now look for the same thing with the HoY
Nuclear war starting September 12, 2006
Hawkins announced in the House of Yahweh's February 2006 newsletter that nuclear war would start September 12, 2006.[citation needed] He claimed it is a part of the HoY's commission to warn the nations and the people of the world. He was interviewed on the Channel 4 web show thisisaknife about his apocalyptic predictions. Amongst other things, he claimed that Abilene, Texas would be saved from the impending destruction and invited the show's presenter to join him there so he would be safe.
Despite nuclear war not starting on September 12, his website nonetheless stated that the prophecy had been fulfilled. On September 22, 2006, Hawkins updated the website (http://www.yisraylhawkins.com) to change his prediction. He said September 12 was only the starting point for nine months of nuclear war which will kill a third of all humanity, followed by a further four months of war that will darken the skies. He did not explain why there has been no sign of nuclear war since his predicted start date.
Hawkins claims the nine months are analogous to the nine months of a human pregnancy but did not explain how.[citation needed]
A countdown of days remaining until the beginning of nuclear war on 12 September 2006 remained on his website, and ran into the negative for some time. On 2 October 2006, the counter read 10 days until the start of nuclear war, The reason for this change is unknown. The counter has since been removed from his website.
Who knows, maybe the HoY will be like the JWs in one hundred years, that is if this world is till going? And the followers will just sigh and say, “oh you ridicule this prophecy, but can't you see that it happened invisibly?” Perhaps they will turn 3 and a half years into 3 and a half decades or 3 hundred and fifty years. There is always a way to squeeze out of it.
From what I can see they will have an escape clause just as the JWs did all those years ago.
But nothing can justify false prophecies david.
It's true that JW's have been overly eager to see the realization of these prophecies.
Shortly before Jesus died, his disciples “were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” Then, after his resurrection they asked whether the Kingdom would be set up right away. Also, about ten years before Peter wrote his second letter, some were “excited” by “a verbal message” or “a letter,” reputedly from the apostle Paul or his companions, “to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” (Luke 19:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; Acts 1:6)Concerning 1914,
The New York World of August 30, 1914, states:“The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”
–The World, a New York newspaper, August 30, 1914.The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen. They were convinced that it would not result in a burning up of the earth and a blotting out of human life. Rather, they knew it would mark a significant point in regard to divine rulership. At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule.
Some people argue that even if the “seven times” are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of “the time of the end” by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. (“Let Your Kingdom Come,” pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or any other year for that matter—has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?
In 1876 the Bible student Charles Taze Russell contributed the article “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” to the Bible Examiner, published in Brooklyn, New York, which said on page 27 of its October issue, “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” The Gentile Times is the period Jesus referred to as “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24)
It is true, that not all that was expected to happen in 1914 did happen, but it did mark the end of the Gentile Times and was a year of special significance. Many historians and commentators agree that 1914 was a turning point in human history.
Again, this over eager anticipation is similar to those who “were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.”
But what we do believe is that in that year Jesus began to rule in the midst of his enemies, that his “presence” began, and that he hurled Satan down to the earth, and that this was the beginning of the “woe” for the earth.
“Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.” Sure, we've always had wars, but we've never had world wars.No previous war in history compared with it. It was so different that historians of that time called it The Great War.
Of it, an encyclopedia states: “World War I took the lives of twice as many men as all major wars from 1790 to 1913 put together.” It noted that total military casualties were over 37,000,000, and added: “The number of civilian deaths in areas of actual war totaled about 5,000,000. Starvation, disease, and exposure accounted for about 80 of every 100 of these civilian deaths. Spanish influenza, which some persons blamed on the war, caused tens of millions of other deaths.–The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 20, p. 377.World War! Pestilences! Food shortages! Sounds a lot like Mat 24 or Rev 6 to me.
Something we have to realize is that Jesus spoke largely of his presence, but many translate this word his “coming.”
Here's an article by JW's:
Jesus’ Coming or Jesus’ Presence—Which?
“What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”—MATTHEW 24:3.
JESUS’ skillful use of questions made his listeners think, even consider things from new perspectives. (Mark 12:35-37; Luke 6:9; 9:20; 20:3, 4) We can be thankful that he also answered questions. His answers illuminate truths that we might not otherwise have known or understood.—Mark 7:17-23; 9:11-13; 10:10-12; 12:18-27.
2 At Matthew 24:3, we find one of the most important questions Jesus ever answered. With the end of his earthly life near, Jesus had just warned that Jerusalem’s temple would be destroyed, marking the end of the Jewish system. Matthew’s account adds: “While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: ‘Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [“coming,” King James Version] and of the conclusion of the system of things?’”—Matthew 24:3.
3 Millions of Bible readers have wondered, ‘Why did the disciples ask that question, and how should Jesus’ reply affect me?’ In his reply Jesus spoke of the appearance of leaves showing that summer “is near.” (Matthew 24:32, 33) Hence, many churches teach that the apostles were asking for a sign of Jesus’ “coming,” the sign proving that his return was imminent. They believe that the “coming” will be the point when he takes Christians to heaven and then brings the end of the world. Do you believe that this is correct?
4 Instead of the rendering “coming,” some Bible versions, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, use the word “presence.” Could it be that what the disciples asked about and what Jesus said in reply differ from what is taught in churches? What really was asked? And what answer did Jesus give?
What Were They Asking?
5 In view of what Jesus said about the temple, the disciples likely were thinking of the Jewish arrangement when they asked for ‘a sign of his presence [or, “coming”] and the conclusion of the system of things [literally, “age”].’—Compare “world” at 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Galatians 1:4, KJ.
6 At this point the apostles had but a limited grasp of Jesus’ teachings. They had earlier imagined that “the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” (Luke 19:11; Matthew 16:21-23; Mark 10:35-40) And even after the discussion on the Mount of Olives, but prior to being anointed with holy spirit, they asked if Jesus was restoring the Kingdom to Israel then.—Acts 1:6.
7 Yet, they did know that he would leave, for he had recently said: “The light will be among you a little while longer. Walk while you have the light.” (John 12:35; Luke 19:12-27) So they might well have wondered, ‘If Jesus is going to leave, how will we recognize his return?’ When he appeared as the Messiah, most did not recognize him. And over a year later, questions persisted about whether he would fulfill all that the Messiah was to do. (Matthew 11:2, 3) So the apostles had reason to inquire about the future. But, again, were they asking for a sign that he would soon come or for something different?
8 Imagine that you were a bird listening to the conversation on the Mount of Olives. (Compare Ecclesiastes 10:20.) Probably you would have heard Jesus and the apostles speaking in Hebrew. (Mark 14:70; John 5:2; 19:17, 20; Acts 21:40) Yet, they likely also knew the Greek language.
What Matthew Wrote—In Greek
9 Sources back to the second century C.E. ind
icate that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Evidently he later wrote it in Greek. Many manuscripts in Greek have come down to our time and have served as the basis for translating his Gospel into today’s languages. What did Matthew write in Greek about that conversation on the Mount of Olives? What did he write about the “coming” or “presence” that the disciples asked about and that Jesus commented on?10 In the first 23 chapters of Matthew, over 80 times we find a common Greek verb for “come,” which is er′kho·mai. It often conveys the thought of approaching or drawing near, as at John 1:47: “Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him.” Depending on usage, the verb er′kho·mai can mean “arrive,” “go,” “get to,” “reach,” or “be on one’s way.” (Matthew 2:8, 11; 8:28; John 4:25, 27, 45; 20:4, 8; Acts 8:40; 13:51) But at Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39, Matthew used a different word, a noun found nowhere else in the Gospels: pa·rou·si′a. Since God inspired the writing of the Bible, why did he move Matthew to choose this Greek word in these verses when penning his Gospel in Greek? What does it mean, and why should we want to know?
11 Pointedly, pa·rou·si′a means “presence.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says: “PAROUSIA, . . . lit[erally], a presence, para, with, and ousia, being (from eimi, to be), denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. For instance, in a papyrus letter a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property.” Other lexicons explain that pa·rou·si′a denotes ‘the visit of a ruler.’ Hence, it is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward. Interestingly, that is how Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used pa·rou·si′a.
12 The meaning “presence” is clearly borne out by ancient literature, yet Christians are particularly interested in how God’s Word uses pa·rou·si′a. The answer is the same—presence. We see that from examples in Paul’s letters. For instance, he wrote to the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation.” He also spoke of abiding with them that they might exult “through [his] presence [pa·rou·si′a] again with [them].” (Philippians 1:25, 26; 2:12) Other versions read “my being with you again” (Weymouth; New International Version); “when I am with you again” (Jerusalem Bible; New English Bible); and “when you once more have me among you.” (Twentieth Century New Testament) At 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11, Paul contrasted “his presence in person” with being “absent.” In these examples he plainly was not speaking of his approach or arrival; he used pa·rou·si′a in the sense of being present. (Compare 1 Corinthians 16:17.) What, though, about references to Jesus’ pa·rou·si′a? Are they with the sense of his “coming,” or do they indicate an extended presence?
13 Spirit-anointed Christians in Paul’s day were interested in Jesus’ pa·rou·si′a. But Paul warned them not to be ‘shaken from their reason.’ First there must appear “the man of lawlessness,” which has proved to be the clergy of Christendom. Paul wrote that “the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3, 9) Plainly, the pa·rou·si′a, or presence, of “the man of lawlessness” was not just a momentary arrival; it would extend over time, during which lying signs would be produced. Why is this significant?
14 Consider the verse immediately before that: “The lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence.” Just as the presence of “the man of lawlessness” would be over a period of time, Jesus’ presence would extend for some time and would climax in the destruction of that lawless “son of destruction.”—2 Thessalonians 2:8.
Hebrew-Language Aspects
15 As noted, Matthew evidently wrote his Gospel first in the Hebrew language. So, what Hebrew word did he use at Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39? Versions of Matthew translated into modern Hebrew have a form of the verb boh’, both in the apostles’ question and in Jesus’ reply. This could lead to readings such as: “What will be the sign of your [boh’] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” and, “As the days of Noah were, so the [boh’] of the Son of man will be.” What does boh’ mean?
16 Though having various senses, the Hebrew verb boh’ basically means “come.” The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament says: ‘Occurring 2,532 times, boh’ is one of the most frequently used verbs in the Hebrew Scriptures and is at the head of verbs expressing motion.’ (Genesis 7:1, 13; Exodus 12:25; 28:35; 2 Samuel 19:30; 2 Kings 10:21; Psalm 65:2; Isaiah 1:23; Ezekiel 11:16; Daniel 9:13; Amos 8:11) Had Jesus and the apostles used a word with such a range of meanings, the sense might be debatable. But did they?
17 Bear in mind that modern Hebrew versions are translations that may not present exactly what Matthew penned in Hebrew. The fact is that Jesus could well have used a word other than boh’, one that fitted the sense of pa·rou·si′a. We see this from the 1995 book Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, by Professor George Howard. The book focused on a 14th-century polemic against Christianity by the Jewish physician Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. That document set out a Hebrew text of Matthew’s Gospel. There is evidence that rather than being translated from Latin or Greek in Shem-Tob’s time, this text of Matthew was very old and was originally composed in Hebrew. It thus may bring us closer to what was said on the Mount of Olives.
18 At Matthew 24:3, 27, 39, Shem-Tob’s Matthew does not use the verb boh’. Instead, it uses the related noun bi·’ah′. That noun appears in the Hebrew Scriptures only at Ezekiel 8:5, where it means “entranceway.” Instead of expressing the action of coming, bi·’ah′ there refers to the start of a building; when you are in the entryway or on the threshold, you are in the building. Also, non-Biblical religious documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls often use bi·’ah′ regarding the arrival or commencement of priestly courses. (See 1 Chronicles 24:3-19; Luke 1:5, 8, 23.) And a 1986 translation into Hebrew of the ancient Syriac (or, Aramaic) Peshitta uses bi·’ah′ at Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39. So there is evidence that in ancient times the noun bi·’ah′ may have had a sense that differed somewhat from the verb boh’ used in the Bible. Why is this of interest?
19 The apostles in their question and Jesus in his reply may have used this noun bi·’ah.′ Even if the apostles had in mind simply the idea of Jesus’ future arrival, Christ may have used bi·’ah′ to allow for more than what they were thinking. Jesus could have been pointing to his arrival to commence a new office; his arrival would be the start of his new role. This would match the sense of pa·rou·si′a, which Matthew subsequently used. Such a use of bi·’ah′ would, understandably, have to support what Jehovah’s Witnesses have long taught, that the composite “sign” Jesus gave was to reflect that he was present.
Awaiting the Climax of His Presence
20 Our study of Jesus’ presence should have a direct bearing on our life and our expectations. Jesus urged his followers to stay alert. He provided a sign so that his presence could be recognized, though most would take no note: “As the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah ente
red into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”—Matthew 24:37-39.21 During the days of Noah, most people of that generation just carried on with their normal affairs. Jesus foretold that it would be the same with “the presence of the Son of man.” The people around Noah might have felt that nothing would happen. You know differently. Those days, which spread over time, led to a climax, “the flood came and swept them all away.” Luke presents a similar account in which Jesus compared “the days of Noah” with “the days of the Son of man.” Jesus admonished: “The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.”—Luke 17:26-30.
22 All of this takes on special meaning for us because we are living at a time when we recognize the events that Jesus foretold—wars, earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages, and persecution of his disciples. (Matthew 24:7-9; Luke 21:10-12) Such have been in evidence since the history-changing conflict significantly named World War I, though most people treat these as normal parts of history. True Christians, however, sense the meaning of these momentous events, just as alert people understand from the leafing of a fig tree that summer is near. Jesus advised: “In this way you also, when you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near.”—Luke 21:31.
23 Jesus directed much of his reply on the Mount of Olives to his followers. They were the ones to share in the lifesaving work of preaching the good news in all the earth before the end would come. They would be the ones who could discern “the disgusting thing that causes desolation . . . standing in a holy place.” They would be the ones to respond by “fleeing” before the great tribulation. And they would be the ones particularly affected by the added words: “Unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.” (Matthew 24:9, 14-22) But just what do those sobering words mean, and why can it be said that they provide a basis for us to have increased happiness, confidence, and zeal now? The following study of Matthew 24:22 will provide the answers.
[Footnotes]
Examples from Josephus: At Mount Sinai lightning and thunder “declared God to be there present [pa·rou·si′a].” The miraculous manifestation in the tabernacle “showed the presence [pa·rou·si′a] of God.” By showing Elisha’s servant the encircling chariots, God made “manifest to his servant his power and presence [pa·rou·si′a].” When Roman official Petronius tried to appease the Jews, Josephus claimed that ‘God did show his presence [pa·rou·si′a] to Petronius’ by sending rain. Josephus did not apply pa·rou·si′a to a mere approach or momentary arrival. It meant an ongoing, even invisible, presence. (Exodus 20:18-21; 25:22; Leviticus 16:2; 2 Kings 6:15-17)—Compare Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, chapter 5, paragraph 2 [80]; chapter 8, paragraph 5 [203]; Book 9, chapter 4, paragraph 3 [55]; Book 18, chapter 8, paragraph 6 [284].
In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, E. W. Bullinger points out that pa·rou·si′a means ‘the being or becoming present, hence, presence, arrival; a coming which includes the idea of a permanent dwelling from that coming onwards.’
One evidence is that it contains the Hebrew expression “The Name,” written out or abbreviated, 19 times. Professor Howard writes: “The reading of the Divine Name in a Christian document quoted by a Jewish polemist is remarkable. If this were a Hebrew translation of a Greek or Latin Christian document, one would expect to find adonai [Lord] in the text, not a symbol for the ineffable divine name YHWH. . . . For him to have added the ineffable name is inexplicable. The evidence strongly suggests that Shem-Tob received his Matthew with the Divine Name already within the text and that he probably preserved it rather than run the risk of being guilty of removing it.” The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References uses Shem-Tob’s Matthew (J2) as support for using the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
And briefly, T8, if you didn't want to read that:
At Matthew 24:37 the Greek word pa·rou·si′a is used. Literally it means a “being alongside.” Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968) gives “presence, of persons,” as its first definition of pa·rou·si′a. The sense of the word is clearly indicated at Philippians 2:12, where Paul contrasts his presence (pa·rou·si′a) with his absence (a·pou·si′a). On the other hand, in Matthew 24:30, which tells of the “Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” as Jehovah’s executioner at the war of Armageddon, the Greek word er·kho′me·non is used. Some translators use ‘coming’ for both Greek words, but those that are more careful convey the difference between the two.This is also an interesting article:
Similarly, with reference to Jesus Christ’s taking up his kingly power, the first-century Bible writers make a distinction between his coming and his presence. Christ Jesus’ presence in kingly power would be felt and recognized many years before his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) Christ’s invisible presence (Greek, pa·rou·si′a) would precede this coming (Greek, er′kho·mai) to execute judgment against a rebellious and wicked generation.
Pa·rou·si′a—What Does It Mean?
The Greek word pa·rou·si′a literally means a “being alongside” and “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states: “[Parousia] denotes esp[ecially] active presence.” And concerning the presence of Christ Jesus, the book The Parousia states: “The Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men.”
Commenting on Jesus’ prophetic words in answer to the questions asked by the apostles on the Mount of Olives, Professor A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament writes that Jesus was “using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world . . . or consummation of the age.” What were these questions, and how did Jesus answer?
The Sign of Christ’s Presence
As recorded at Matthew 24:3, the apostles asked: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” In his answer, Jesus gave the disciples a sign that would be visible proof of his invisible presence in Kingdom power. The complete sign included unprecedented wars, widespread food shortages, devastating earthquakes, pestilences, and an increase in crime and fear. Christ’s presence would be a time of global turmoil and anxiety. Human governments and world leaders would be unable to cope successfully with a collapsing system.—Matthew 24:7, 12; Luke 21:11.
Quote Who knows, maybe the HoY will be like the JWs in one hundred years, that is if this world is till going? And the followers will just sigh and say, “oh you ridicule this prophecy, but can't you see that it happened invisibly?” While all did not happen that was expected, I'm not sure what
you think they expected of Jesus?
‘The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return’” was a pamphlet that was published in 1877. Russell had some 50,000 copies of it printed and distributed.
In that pamphlet, he wrote:
“We believe the scriptures to teach, that, at His coming and for a time after He has come, He will remain invisible; afterward manifesting or showing Himself in judgments and various forms, so that ‘every eye shall see Him.’”
” In support of this, he discussed such texts as Acts 1:11 (‘he will come in the same manner as you have beheld him go’—that is, unobserved by the world) and John 14:19 (“a little longer and the world will behold me no more”).Brother Russell also referred to the fact that The Emphatic Diaglott, which had first been published in complete form in 1864 with an interlinear word-for-word English translation, gave evidence that the Greek expression pa·rou·si′a meant “presence.” In analyzing the Bible’s use of that term, Russell explained in this pamphlet: “The Greek word generally used in referring to the second advent—Parousia, frequently translated coming—invariably signifies personal presence, as having come, arrived and never signifies to be on the way, as we use the word coming.”
Anyway, this is getting way too long.
david
Hi david.
Copied from another topic and slightly edited too, but probably belongs here. Or maybe it belongs in that topic about Christians and war, but I couldn't find that one, so maybe you could bump it to the front if you know where it is.
Quote is below:
Quote Hi david. I don't think (as you say) that any Christian would have fought in the time you mention because they would have been fighting for the Roman Empire/Beast.
But the Israelites fought against their enemies.
So how do we reconcile this?
Does God give victory to armies like he did with Israel?
Did God give the allies the victory in WWII?
Did God give Israel the victory in the 6 day war? If you say no, then you would at least have to admit that it was a miraculous victory.I wouldn't be so quick to judge because you may be judging God.
Remember that if you are a believer and your country is on an evil spree for power, then in good conscience you shouldn't join in that mission, such as Christians fighting for the conquests of Rome. But if evil came to destroy your country and your country asked you to defend your country then is that evil?
Should we judge those who gave their lives up for their country, so people like you and me could live in safety and the freedom to worship God? Is not laying your life down for your fellow man the greatest gift of love?
If there was no resistance to Hitler then would not Europe be part way into the Third Reich now?
Quote (david @ Mar. 08 2008,10:00) Quote It's not up to us to make rules and say God never allows his children to go to war. If that were the case, then King David wasn't God's child. –t8
Who exactly are you comparing King David to today? Who can you compare to him? The situation is obviously much different today.
Quote Does God give victory to armies like he did with Israel? –t8
T8, the Israelites where supposed to be a nation that was serving God. They were God's people. (When they were faithful, they did well, when they weren't they did badly.)
Today, the situation is different. Is there one nation who is made up of God's people, or are God's people spread all over the planet in every nation?
The answer is the later. Therefore, for people claiming to be Christian to go to war for their countries would mean “Christian” killing “Christian.”
Back then, that was not the situation. They were one nation, and in one nation.Quote Remember that if you are a believer and your country is on an evil spree for power, then in good conscience you shouldn't join in that mission. But if evil came to destroy your country and your country asked you to defend your country then is that evil? this is my whole point T8. What does the Bible say about who is the ruler of the world? What does it say about Satan offering Jesus all the kingdoms of the world as a “temptation”?
T8, every country believes it is right. Every country believes the “others” are wrong. Because of the thinking you stated above, because people think that way, we have had massive amounts of bloodshed. T8, I believe a Christian should be defending God's government, his kingdom, preaching this kingdom, pointing to it as the only hope. While God has allowed human governments (superior authorities) to rule for our benefit (so there is not chaos) the BIBLE indicates that they are all under the influence of “the ruler of the world,” Satan. Does it seem to you that it is a Christians place (who is to be “no part of the world”) to defend that world? The world is soon to pass away. I suggest aligning yourself with God's kingdom.
david what you really mean is aligning myself with the JWs.You also make reference to Ron or Armstrong as not preaching to the whole world, and again I think you are subtlety saying that the JWs are the true Church because they have preached their gospel to the world. But your faith in the JWs and Watchtower shouldn't be on this point. I think you will find many cults have preached their gospel to the world. Mormons for one.
Now back to war.
Your conclusion is that when Adolph Hitler tried to take over Europe that if all the countries were Christian they would have let him do it. Also your statement also seems to indicate that Israel is also of the devil because it too is a nation. And the 6 day war in your view would have no miracle of God because God doesn't fight for Israel.
If you argue that Israel is the exception, then maybe it is possible that there could be other nations that are more aligned to God or are used in God's plan. God did say that he was going to bless another nation (Gentiles) even if it is to make Israel jealous.
I think your doctrine (without you being aware) maybe judging God as evil. For if God has used or raised up the USA , Israel, UK, or whatever for a purpose, then you are really saying that it was all the Devil.
Quote I think you will find many cults have preached their gospel to the world. Mormons for one. I think a bit more research would be good, t8. Only 1 out of 200 Mormons are engaged in the ministry. True, that 1 out of 200 goes hard core for a couple years, and then, they're done.
You won't find them in countries preaching where it is illegal to do so. JW's are currently preaching in 30 countries where this is the case.
Unlike the 1 out of 200, ALL JW's witness about Jehovah, his son and his kingdom. They are all preachers of the good news. We don't just send out a few to other countries.
And, I believe the mormon's aren't as spread out in their preaching as you may think.Quote Your conclusion is that when Adolph Hitler tried to take over Europe that if all the countries were Christian they would have let him do it.
My Bible based belief doesn't really allow for this scenerio, where “all the countries were Christian” or where all people in all the countries actually live by Bible standards.
Nowhere are we given any idea that every person in one country would be God's servants. While we must live in the world, as Paul said, but we are not of the world. And so while things like governments exist for example, they will be destroyed by God's kingdom. So why be a part of something that God has determined to destroy?Quote Also your statement also seems to indicate that Israel is also of the devil because it too is a nation.
Except, if we're talking about the Isreal of the past while it was faithful, it was not really a part of the world…it was separate, distinct, with it's laws of God separating it from other nations.)
It's not my “statement.” “All the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”Quote If you argue that Israel is the exception, then maybe it is possible that there could be other nations that are more aligned to God or are used in God's plan.
When one country starts marching around other countries with jars in their hands, and those other countries fall, I'll believe. But, as it turns out, they all use bullets.Quote I think your doctrine (without you being aware) maybe judging God as evil. For if God has used or raised up the USA , Israel, UK, or whatever for a purpose, then you are really saying that it was all the Devil.
I think this will clarify: The Bible is right when it says Satan is the ruler of the world and all that. God is “allowing” this to take place–to show us that we need his rule. And God knew what would happen and knew what different nations would do and how they would act, under satan's influence.
But Jesus words were pretty clear, about satan and all the kingdoms of the world.Hi david,
You confuse the international dominion of the hearts and minds of natural men by the god of this worldwith those authorities God has placed over us and whom we are obliged to obey. 1Peter 2 13f
Christ never despised or oppsed the illegal occupation of Israel by Rome.
He even upheld the authority given to the Pharisees.
You do not understand God given authority and prefer your own Watchtower kingdom perhaps?
Hi David:
Relative to being born again, just read the following scriptue, and I thought it might interest you:
Quote John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power F2 to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Quote You confuse the international dominion of the hearts and minds of natural men by the god of this world with those authorities God has placed over us and whom we are obliged to obey. 1Peter 2 13f
Christ never despised or oppsed the illegal occupation of Israel by Rome.
He even upheld the authority given to the Pharisees.
You do not understand God given authority
No Nick, I do understand it. We are of course to obey the relative authorities, but when they conflict with or want us to do something that God condemns, which will you listen to? You say we are “obliged to obey” them. We are only obliged to obey them so far as they don't ask us to act against God's will.
Pop quiz: Who said this: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men”?
The only authority any man or nation has only exists because God allows it.
So when a command of men conflicts with Christian thinking, who do you think we should follow?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
