Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?

Comment by hezekiah1 on 2013-04-12 20:55:20

Thanks Meleti for a well researched post.
I am more than a little surprised there are so many inconsistencies in this article. They are very straightforward points from the scriptures. It would seem that we have a real hesitancy to leave some long held ideas behind.
I am really looking forward to discussion on these articles.

Comment by Steve on 2013-04-13 00:00:42

Meleti,
I'd like to make a few comments on your post and the article. On paragraph 6, I must disagree with your conclusions. If it isn't a dual fulfillment I'm more inclined to see it fulfilled in 70 with the events leading up to it.
While you raise some objections, I don't feel these are valid. For example, older commentaries by the likes of John Gill and Adam Clarke seem to give the answers to when the events transpired. Consider them:
Gill - "Which wars, the gloss says, will be between the nations of the world, and Israel. Here wars may mean the commotions, insurrections, and seditions, against the Romans, and their governors; and the intestine slaughters committed among them, some time before the siege of Jerusalem, and the destruction of it. Under Cureanus the Roman governor, a sedition was raised on the day of the passover, in which twenty thousand perished; after that, in another tumult, ten thousand were destroyed by cut-throats: in Ascalon two thousand more, in Ptolemais two thousand, at Alexandria fifty thousand, at Damascus ten thousand, and elsewhere in great numbers. The Jews were also put into great consternation, upon hearing the design of the Roman emperor, to put up his image in their temple:"
Clarke - "There was a famine foretold by Agabus, (Acts 11:28), which is mentioned by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Eusebius; which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar, and was so severe at Jerusalem that Josephus says (Ant. b. xx. c. 2). many died for lack of food. Pestilences are the usual attendants of famines: as the scarcity and badness of provisions generally produce epidemic disorders."
And
"Earthquakes, in divers places - If we take the word ??????? from ???? to shake, in the first sense, then it means particularly those popular commotions and insurrections which have already been noted; and this I think to be the true meaning of the word: but if we confine it to earthquakes, there were several in those times to which our Lord refers; particularly one at Crete in the reign of Claudius, one at Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos. See Grotius. One at Rome, mentioned by Tacitus; and one at Laodicea in the reign of Nero, in which the city was overthrown, as were likewise Hierapolis and Colosse. See Tacit. Annal. lib. xii. and lib. xiv. One at Campania, mentioned by Seneca; and one at Rome, in the reign of Galba, mentioned by Suetonius in the life of that emperor. Add to all these, a dreadful one in Judea, mentioned by Josephus (War, b. iv. c. 4). accompanied by a dreadful tempest, violent winds, vehement showers, and continual lightnings and thunders; which led many to believe that these things portended some uncommon calamity."
With just these points in view I don't see any reason we couldn't see an early fulfillment. Now if it is dual, you raise some important points that require addressing. But that is another matter and beyond the scrope of this discussion, at least at this point. Regardless, however, you're correct in that they need to backup their claims, not simply assert them. However, in this series of articles there are so many claims that cannot be backed up, if they started backing up some and not others, those they didn't backup that can't be would stand out even more!
Now this leads into an important point that stands out to me but they apparently missed. If this had a first-century fulfillment and it was a demonstration of the signs of Jesus' ongoing presence (assuming the parousia is distinct from the erchomai [coming]), Jesus must have already been present in the first century.
In paragraph 6 there is a glaring issue. I have often found that as they attempt to make a dual fulfillment of things that applied to Israel, they never apply it to themselves when it is in the negative, and so the same here. Whereas the original disgusting thing in the holy place was in a true holy place, the temple, the modern version of that is in only what is perceived by many to be holy, not what actually is holy, the church. How could Jesus ever be calling something a holy place that isn't actually holy? It truly makes no sense.
Finally, I'd say that in many ways that disconnected things from 1914, but in what is to come they locked themselves into the 1914 teaching stronger than ever in my opinion.
Steve

• Reply by apollos0falexandria on 2013-04-13 08:39:14

  Hi Steve
  I must say I am slightly torn on the dual fulfillment, single fulfillment, or partial dual fulfillment question. It seems possible to reconstruct history to fit, but we do have to do some “fitting”. It doesn't just stand out in general history as a precise fulfillment. That having been said I do think it's always important to try to view scriptures through the eyes of the audience, and to that end I agree there is a decent case to acknowledge that the people of the day may have seen those events as matching Jesus' words. It seems to me that Luke's account lends itself much more to how the first century audience needed to hear it, whereas Matthew's is more for us.
  Your comments on the holy place are most interesting to me, since many years ago before we believed this, I was actually arguing the case that the “holy place” represented Christendom when we believed that it must be the U.N. Standing in the place of God's Kingdom. So I actually believe that this is one that we've got right in recent years. Your argument seems to be that the Jewish temple actually was a holy place from God's standpoint in 66 C.E. However Jesus had already said “Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU.” (Matt 23:38) True worship could no longer be achieved by following Judaism, and surely that would include all its accompanying tools of worship. Yes, the Christians continued to visit the temple, but only to spread the gospel because that's where their target audience was.
  The true temple was now made up of anointed Christians.
  (1 Corinthians 3:16) Do YOU not know that YOU people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU?
  (2 Corinthians 6:16) And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.”
  Therefore it could only be from the standpoint of men that the physical temple remained a “holy place”, since from God's standpoint it had been replaced.
  The temple should have remained a “holy place”, but it was because of the practices of the people that true worship could no longer be associated with it. And so it is with the established churches of Christendom. They claim to represent God and Christ Jesus, but the reality is very different on the whole. Even so there is wheat growing among the weeds – the true holy place continues to be made up of genuine Christians (not any organization). That's my perspective anyway.
  I'd be interested to hear your take on what the “holy place” is today (or will be at the time of fulfillment).
  I do agree with you that we are even more dependent on 1914 than before.
  Apollos

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-13 10:13:27

    Apollos, you and Steve have got me thinking. I too had trouble with the idea of the "holy place" being Jerusalem and Christendom, though that understanding made much more sense than our previous one. However, in attacking Jerusalem, the Romans were threatening the spiritual temple. In attacking apostate Christendom, the UN will likewise be attacking true Christians, as they--like the Romans--will be making on distinction between true and false worship. They will want to wipe it all out. So an argument can be made that the holy place refers to true worshippers of Jehovah God, the spiritual temple then and now. There is a single "holy place" which has existed since 33 C.E. and it is attacked twice by the disgusting thing.

  • Reply by Steve on 2013-04-14 15:37:42

    There are various opinions on Matthew 24, including the partial preterist view that finds all of Matthew 24 fulfilled in the first century, and only final judgment in Matthew 25 in the end times. Addittedly, there is an appeal to this perspective to me because it flows from the very beginning of the context, but that is not without difficulties also.
    I don't see how we can remove the temple context from the prophecy, given that if we start in verse 1 that is what is directly in view.
    Matthew 23:38 does bring up some interesting questions, but I wonder if the specific qualification "to you" is not here important. It was abandoned to the unfaithful. The temple was not just a place for preaching, but also for worship. I say this because many faithful Jewish Christians continued to serve in the temple in accordance with the law (cf. Acts 21:21ff). So that Jewish Christians who did worship in the temple in accordance with the law knew Paul did not forbid it, he performed the purification ritual and and had a sacrificial offering. Though Paul often wrote against the requirements of the law, he never forbid it. Instead, he said it was not necessary and those insisting upon it were in the wrong. So here he was demonstrating that he did not himself forbid obeying the law.
    I would say, as you seem, that the church is today the holy place, the temple. However, in Matthew 24 Jesus mentions fleeing from Judea, showing a literal fulfillment in the land.
    I suspect Meleti is correct as he commented that the text is showing not to look at these things to have increased, but to continue as usual. Though the items mentioned in the commentaries I cited would have been ongoing, they should not be interpreted as a "this it it" type of thing. If you saw people dying around you in a battle, felt an earthquake, etc, one would not start thinking the end had come.
    Steve

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-13 10:05:11

  I appreciate your extensive research, Steve. I'm learning of things I had no idea of previously.
  My main point was that the article provides no support for the allegation that there was a parallel fulfillment from 33 to 66 C.E. In all the years I've been reading the magazine, I've never seen historical proof presented to support this claim. There have been some attempts, but citing a war here and a famine there is not proof, as there is no era in history where there haven't been wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.
  In addition, if our interpretation is to hold, there would have to be a marked increase in all these things--wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes--within the first decade following Christ's death. I say that because he said such things would be a "beginning" of pangs of distress and the entire length of their "last days" was a scant 33 years.
  Actually, I'm now of the persuasion that this part of his answer wasn't to provide us with a way to know when the last days started, but rather to protect us from being deceived by our own desire to see the end come. There have been several points in history where Christians were misled to believing they were in the end times. Take the Black Death which killed between 75 and 200 million people and made the Spanish Influenza seem like a bad cold. It occurred during the beginning of the Hundred Year's war. A case can be made for a fulfillment of Jesus words in the first half of the 19th Century as well. There were more wars from 1810 to 1860 then occurred from 1910 to 1960.
  Actually, if you want to play the statistics game then a strict reading of the number of wars, pestilences, and famines shows us that the beginnings of pangs of distress occurred from 1960 to 2010. As for earthquakes, their number has not increased, but the number of people affected by them has, also during the last 50 years.
  So, for argument's sake, let's assume that Jesus was telling us that when we see a marked increase in wars, famines, earthquakes and pestilences, that we are seeing the beginning of the end. That would mean we are part of the generation that will see all these things. (Mt. 24:34) Well, the generation of 1914 is dead. So if the First and Second World Wars, and the Spanish Influenza were not the foretold "beginning of pangs of distress", then we've got some serious trouble heading our way.
  Yet another reason why I think his words were a warning for us not to be deceived. Unfortunately, as a people, we didn't heed it.
  We've touched on this subject in the post "Wars and Reports of Wars--A Red Herring?"

Comment by Harrison Webster on 2013-04-13 10:04:42

I am saddened that instead of clarifying matters, the articles seem to make things harder to accept, I was hoping for more faith-strengthening scriptural information that would help me to press forward to the new system.
It seems to me that scant effort has been made to make the new teachings things we can trust as "inspired expressions" that we can test, and no explanation as to how we are to view decades of our going door to door with a different message that we proclaimed to be the truth.
Most of my Theocratic Library is now made up of redundant material.
Brothers and sisters, I am beginning to feel a little depressed and unsure, if all I have taught and believed for decades is now no longer truth, how can I test and measure whether these new adjustments are in fact truth ?
Should I teach them as such, or will they change in a year or two ?
Perhaps I should be patient and wait until we have discussed these matters more, and until we cover them as a congregation, Perhaps things will be clearer then. I hope so.

• Reply by mdnwa on 2013-04-13 12:36:18

  Harrison
  You state basically what I've been feeling since December. Just recently I've been fighting with myself on the very points you bring up and other things that has not given me the confidence I think most of us need on certain teachings. I say fighting because certain doubts some feel as a lack of faith but how can that be since I REALLY want to make sure I'm always teaching truth not only since Jehovah holds me accountable for false teachings but also so I can respond to others in confidence since we preach we have accurate knowledge.
  However, recently it's more and more harder to preach many things where people understand since eventually we come to several "new light" moments where people do think for a org that is accurate we get a lot wrong or a "just trust our GB" than me being able to show in the bible certain things we take as truths..
  While I agree with people on this blog that told me just saying well, let me just stop going and rely only on myself is not the way since we need others of like faith to help us I also though am left confused and somewhat concerned about our future. My only hope is that Jehovah reads my heart and helps direct me even in situations I do not understand.

Comment by J Watson on 2013-04-13 14:08:23

Dear Meleti,
I am a sister in the U.K, having attended meetings since 1961, babtised 1966 and being an avid student not only of the Bible and J W's, but also of as many other religions as I could. Bible prophecy always fascinated me, although it was sometimes hard to see how some things could be made to fit, as you may say.
My understanding of the prophecies concerning the last days is as follows.
The prophecy starts with the disciples asking Jesus, 'what will be sign of your presence, and of the conclusion of the system of things?'.
Jesus had just been telling them that the temple would be destroyed with not a stone left upon a stone, etc., so this question of theirs was in their minds more to do with the end of the Jewish system of things than any future event in our day.
As he sometimes did, Jesus gave an answer that was more than just a reply to the simple question asked, it was a prophecy which related to a future time also, otherwise why include it in Bible canon, to be preserved down until our day?
After outlining the beginings of pangs of distress, which includes wars, nations rising against nation, pestilences, earthquakes, false messiah's AND the preaching of the good news of the kingdom, etc he tells us there will be a Great Tribulation.....
In other places the Bible tells us that Christ 'COMES' again in kingly power to judge and execute judgement on an ungodly society that wages war against him and Jehovah by trying to destroy his people on earth.
Since the run-up to the great tribulation includes persecution of his people and the preaching work, Christ would need to be with his people to educate, instruct, organise, encourage and protect them until the end. Since the churches of Christendom have since the end of the first century been interested only in their own glory and their own message, when Christ came to find persons to commission with the undertaking of the work, none of Christendom's religions were looking in the right direction, as it were, only a few people that called themselves 'Bible Students', and who were willing to literally give their all for the Lord's work saw the seriousness of the times .
Hence the need for the 'coming' of Christ to be preceded by a 'Presence' or Parousia .during which time the warning work would be done, people of the world would be informed of who Jehovah is, and his purpose, and what is about to take place. The coming destruction of the ungodly and how to escape it to become part of the new paradise earth.
This same undertaking was executed in the time of the apostles, from the time of christ's commissioning of them, till Jerusalem was destroyed in AD70. after this time, only the apostle John is recorded as active, and the man of lawlessness starts to take over, down to the day when he is to be exposed as such by the witnessing work of God's servants in the time of Christ's presence.
Personally, for me the date that Christ stands up to rule in the midst of his enemies still stands good for 1914, as the arguments against this date, are no better than the arguments for it, a couple of years earlier, makes little difference, even 20 years earlier would not present a problem to me, prophecy relating to what happens on earth after this time is another issue, however, and the fact that Jesus stands up in heaven in the midst of his enemies, cleansing first the heavens in readiness for the first resurrection, then turning his attention to the earth to take out of it a people for god's name and purpose, namely all those willing to submit to his rulership.
It is an interesting fact that the majority of JW's, like myself were greatly encouraged and excited by the expounding of prophecy in the various publications released by JW's over the early years, however inaccurate they may have been, there was a lot that they got right, in fact, a great deal they got right! (I still remember what it was like to be a member of christendom)
Parables teach principles, therefore parables relating to the last day's prophecies will be difficult to apply as prophecies in themselves,
In the days of the apostles, anyone who waited in Jerusalem untill the pointed stakes went up was chancing their arm, they would have to get out immediately, in our day, anyone lingering until the UN decides to take action against religion will be taking a chance, it may well be too late.
So WHEN did the Parousia begin? Jesus has always been king to his own, down through history there have always been persons trying to obey God as ruler rather than men, does the presence HAVE to begin at the exact end of the gentile times?
Jesus reference to the disgusting thing that causes desolation is a quote from Daniel, and the apostles would therefore have understood Daniel to be speaking of the temple, and the armies of the godless, or pagan enemy.
If this prophecy has a more specific fulfillment than just the fact that Christendom looks to politics to bring about the promised new order, peace etc, then I think there will be no mistaking it when it happens! We will know when the cry of 'Peace and security ' takes place, because there will be sudden destruction after it.
There can be little doubt that there has been divine help where the preaching work has been concerned, otherwise the chief enemy would have sabotaged it before it even got started, ...how much do we REALLY need to know? We actually probably know just as much as we need to know right now to survive into the new system, that being ... how to have a clean conscience, a good relationship with Jehovah god, and his son Jesus Christ.That is not something we learned from Christendom, nor did we learn it by ourselves.

• Reply by apollos0falexandria on 2013-04-14 07:08:48

  Hi J Watson
  I appreciated reading your comments. You have obviously given the matter more thought than some - in particular your point about why the 'parousia' must mean an end-times invisible presence, whether or not 1914 is an exact date. Your reasoning seemed to hinge on the necessity for Jesus to be invisibly “alongside” his followers during these critical years leading up to the end of the system of things. My burning question therefore is what do you think Jesus meant by “And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things” - the dramatic statement by which Matthew sees fit to conclude his gospel?
  If the answer is that he was “with” Christians as promised for c.1900 years, but had to be “even more so with them” in some sense during the final years, is there some scriptural basis for concluding this?
  The part of the disciples' question that concerns the parousia was “what will be the sign (s?meion) of your presence”. The first thing that Jesus does is warn against being mislead by people who would declare things based upon “the beginning of pangs of distress.”
  (Matthew 24:4-6) And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU; 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 YOU are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that YOU are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.
  If we are not careful then we could misinterpret the warning as being the sign itself.
  The FIRST time that Jesus uses the term "sign" (s?meion) in his response is:
  (Matthew 24:30) And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven ...
  If you are thinking “what's the use of the sign if his coming is already in progress?” I understand, because I thought the same way myself at one point. But that is why his followers were to be continually “on the watch” and to “prove themselves ready”. That would apply to a Christian in the 3rd, 10th or 16th century, just as it applies to a Christian in the 21st century. When they truly observed Jesus words, his true followers would not be looking for a “sign”. That is what the wicked generation of of his day kept asking for.
  I urge you to read Matt 24:23-28 and think about how each way of viewing this fits the passage.
  Yes, there would be wars, food shortages, earthquakes. Yes, they were a beginning of pangs of distress. No, they were not the sign. No, we should not follow people who say that they are proof that Christ is present. Yes, we should always prove ourselves ready.
  When Christ is present, all will know (for better or worse individually), and his millennial reign will begin.
  Also, I would be interested to hear more about the great deal of prophecies that were correctly interpreted in the early years (and beyond). I have not reached the same conclusion, but as always am open to persuasion. If such a thing could be strongly argued then I agree that it would hold a considerable amount of weight.
  Apollos

  • Reply by J W on 2013-04-15 15:41:30

    hello Apollos,
    interesting comment, - 'When Christ is present, all will know ....... and his millenial reign will begin.'
    Are we to understand that you believe the parousia, arrival and subsequent presence, - is yet to come? If so, - I can see why, but yes, from Jesus words at Matt 28:20, it is clear that he would be with any genuine Christians from that time on. However, as far as any organised religion disemminating God's message to both the sheep and the world is concerned, can you suggest any that can stand up under the scrutiny of Matt 7: 15-23?
    If Christ's disciples today are to heed the counsel of Hebrews 10: 24/25... not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, there would have to be sufficient numbers of true Christians in the time of the end not only to fulfil the preaching work spoken of at Matt 24:14, but also to be gathered at the fulfilment of Matt 24:31.
    Where are they???
    My expression, 'there was a great deal they got right' ...was referring not as much to prophecy, as it was to doctrine, especially in those early days, -comparing or rather contrasting what the Bible Students believed with what the churches of Christendom had been teaching for centuries, and have continued to teach,..
    It is true, individuals among JWs in the past have been very keen to try and find interpretations and fulfillments of prophecy before the time was ready, even as many J W's do today, (and not just those at head office!) We are after all, imperfect humans, and if even angels are desirous of understanding the workings out of these things, (1 Peter 1:12), is it to be wondered at that we are any less keenly interested. Yes, I know it may be better not to teach such things as absolute truths, and mistakes have been made, - but the operation of the Holy Spirit within us in our day is very subtle, and our own imperfect spirit can often drown it out in our eagerness to progress in our Christian understanding, - but then considering many of Jehovah's pre-Christian servants, how many actually never made mistakes of one kind or another?
    Yet Jehovah has not yet given up on any of us, - and his messages continue to go out, without the help of the stones crying out!
    (By the way, there is VERY good evidence in support of 1914 being the end of the 2520 years, that is to say, that Jerusalem's destruction was 607, not 587, but that is something, I believe, that belongs on another thread.)
    This is a testing time, and worse will yet come, the only anchor we have is our relationship with Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, how much we love them is proven by our love for our brothers, despite their weaknesses, you know the content of 1 John 4 better than I, I expect. Jesus Christ is head of our congregations, my trust is in him, true Christians are to be known for the love they have, are they not, - don't remember any scripture that says they would be known for interpretation of prophecy. ( thank you for your patience!)

    • Reply by Alec Holmes on 2013-04-15 17:56:17

      You know, the apostles were imperfect yet nothing they said in the bible contradicts itself neither does the holy spirit allow them to teach anything that later is to proved wrong.

    • Reply by mdnwa on 2013-04-15 18:23:37

      JW
      Excellent points regardless of what side of the fence on this discussion ones fall on, I think I actually needed your perspective. Two points that stood out are how as an org we've learned for the most part (and it's a continuing process) that giving predictions or trying to say we understand prophecies 100% even though well intentioned is not recommended (including as you mentioned us as Christians non GB members as well). We've got it so wrong before and by doing those things only gives people/ Satan ways to mock a group of mostly sincere Christians unnecessarily. Also the part that if even angels try to peak into the deeper understandings that we who are lesser than angels would also do so if even more so on a imperfect level. I sometimes see so many blogs or articles online about this prophecy or that time frame in the bible and why our viewpoint is right and think Jehovah must shake his head thinking why are they focused so much on things not important or for them to even understand yet? The things we NEED to be clear about that our lives depend on for a eternal future are plainly outlined in the bible where no one can say they need "inspiration". Those are the things I will now focus more on as oppose to trying to get dates and times exactly right since why does that take priority over the weightier matters of the bible?
      A friend and I discussed just two days ago the point that no matter what mistakes or errors the org makes there is absolutely no possible way for everyone to be on the same page. We may all be in the same faith but without inspiration from Jehovah there are A LOT in the bible when it comes to prophecies and times we are only guessing at best, anyone who says what they believe they 100% get everything right are only fooling themselves unless they are inspired. The org while not perfect, and I agree with many even not on this blog that we need to step back from overboard on certain issues or making certain teachings as matter of fact even if well intentioned, does seem to have its members best interest at heart and has educated against several false teachings. In my humble opinion there is more good than wrong so as the apostles said who are we to go to? If there is cleaning that needs to be done I will now leave that to Jehovah since as many mistakes I've made I definitely cannot point the finger at anyone.
      The more and more I run across people like you it does make me feel better about my choice to hang in there. I always thought it was just me that saw some things I just did not feel comfortable with it was frustrating since I thought I was an apostate or the only one so I must be evil somehow but have found out just like apostles and other servants of old we can not 100% agree or understand internally but can still be faithful as a whole. What are my options... study myself which the bible does not encourage? Find a new religion, which makes just as much if not more MAJOR mistakes or errors? No, I will stick with the best alternative we have on earth right now and trust that Jehovah will guide my steps and heart.

    • Reply by apollos0falexandria on 2013-04-16 13:19:29

      Yes, I do believe that the parousia, arrival and subsequent presence is yet to come. I am fully convinced of that.
      Matt 7:15-23 is referring to individuals, not organized religion. I accept that an organization that promotes the good fruits that Jesus talks about would be a good place to practice Christianity. As I've previously made clear, I do believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have got many things right as far as this is concerned. However, if someone were to continue to practice the moral elements of the original Mosaic law to the best of their ability then they would produce good fruits also. This would not mean that such a person had grasped the key elements of Christianity that go beyond that.
      I hear what you say about doctrine. Probably the one that we can claim really went against the common flow in the late 19th century was Russell's rejection of hellfire. However it must be noted that he was not the first to reject it during that period. His alternative views on soul and trinity were also not unique or original. Balance that with his belief that prophetic dates could be interpreted through pyramidology and other connections with Egyptian religious ideas, and not everything looks quite so rosy.
      On that particular note, you have claimed VERY good evidence in support of the significance of 1914. I agree with you that it probably belongs on another thread. I should also say that I am genuinely interested in what you would present, as it does appear that you are a thinking person. From my point of view I can assure you that some solid evidence for 1914 would alleviate some complications from my life, and furthermore that I would review it in the hope that you are absolutely correct. Since our latest new doctrines continue to rely on 1914 as a foundation, I would genuinely prefer to find that I have missed something along the way.
      To that end it would be very interesting to present both sides of the argument on this subject. We could arrange to create an article giving fair voice to each side, and then readers could weigh in with their own comments. Perhaps Meleti would be able to facilitate such an exchange if you are willing.
      Apollos

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-16 13:37:38

        A very appealing proposal. It would be of great benefit to have both sides argued out so that all can see the reasoning for and against. If you are interested in "picking up the glove" J W, we could arrange a format that would present every element of the teaching as a single topic. Each topic would be argued, pros and cons, and then we could move on to the next element. We could start with the topic of 607.
        What proof is there that 607 is an accurate date marking the exile of the Jews to Babylon?
        If you are interested, J W, then let me know by email and I'll set it up. Email me at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com

        • Reply by J W on 2013-04-16 18:46:04

          Dear Meleti, and Apollos,
          have sent you email confirming acceptance.

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-04-16 21:51:07

            Hi JW,
            Got the email accepting. I'll follow up tomorrow with details. Thanks,
            Meleti

        • Reply by apollos0falexandria on 2013-04-16 18:55:23

          Hi J W, It looks like it's just as well we're moving it to another thread. I can't even reply directly to your acceptance as the column has gotten too small. The email will have gone to Meleti, so I'll wait to hear how we might present this. All the best for now, and I look forward to the discussion. Apollos

        • Reply by Steve on 2013-04-17 00:35:58

          Meleti,
          I would just say that even more than the 607 issue, I think the interpretation of Daniel 4 and Jesus' statement concerning the gentile times are even more telling. We can argue all day long about dating, but the interpretation of those passages is much more straight forward.
          Just my 2 cents.
          Steve

• Reply by mark on 2013-09-09 07:14:41

  Hello J Waston
  The apostles ask Jesus a question. Matthew 24 3 Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
  The Watchtower Society explains that Jesus answers them by saying something like “Well guys, when you see wars, an increase in wickedness and sickness etc...thats when I have arrived.And I will be with you( invisibly) until the conclusion of the system of things, until Armageddon!Oh by the way ive appointed a faithful slave to tell you what to do, so that you will survive the day of Gods wrath!(excuse me if I sound flippant,I don’t have much time to go into great detail)
  I think Jesus is clearly saying to his disciples. That he could not tell them a specific time or date for his arrival, but could let them know the signs of his nearness prior to his sudden return.So the signs are of his nearness not actual presence!So Jesus is not here yet!
  Matthew 24 33 In the same way, when you see all these things, you can know his return is very near, right at the door.
  The purpose of this was prepare them, for things that must take place.He warns them against false teachers, false christ and even a false return!He warns us that people will teach that he is here when he isn’t. Not that when he arrives people don’t believe it! By that time its too late!
  Jesus clearly says that he would be with them until the conclusion of the system of things(in a spiritual sense).He also promised them to send a helper in the Holy Spirit. There is no reason to believe that this has not been the case for the last 2000 years!
  Jesus instructs his disciples to be faithful and act discreetly, sensible, intelligently regarding the events that lead up to his arrival.So as not to be unsettled.
  A good example of an apostle being sensible and wise regarding the return of our Lord.We can read the letters to the Thessalonians where Paul is sensibly dispelling any false reports and rumours about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.Here we can appreciate Jesus clear instructions being applied by the apostle in his letter to his brothers and sisters!
  1 Thessalonian 5 1-2 1Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
  11.Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
  23May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  2 Thessalonian 2 1-2 1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
  The general gist coming from Paul is not to be alarmed there is nothing more to write about.
  The problem is that the Society for the most part can only apply these scriptures to anointed christians.Which apparently are in the process of being gathered.Maybe?
  This is where the confusion starts.There is plenty of scripture which is addressed to anointed christians which deals with their gathering at the day of his coming(Jesus). The society need to fill in the gaps for the other sheep, because the new testament was written to those with the one hope!So now Jehovahs Witnesses are waiting for further instruction.A last minute life saving message from the governing body perhaps?This is how its been for the last100 years for JWs .Its left Jehovahs Witnesses more or less reliant on what the Watchtower prints and not scripture!

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-09 07:37:00

    Hi Mark
    If you haven't already done so, you might be interested to read my full exchange with J Watson over the matter of 1914 here: http://meletivivlon.com/discussion/1914-2/apollos-vs-jw/
    I agree with all the points you made. Understanding what Jesus meant by the sign in relation to his parousia is crucial to avoiding the mistake that the Apostle Paul warned Christians against in 2 Thes 2:1,2
    Apollos

    • Reply by Mark watts on 2013-09-09 10:02:12

      Thanks Apollos
      Missed that, will have a look

    • Reply by Jude on 2013-09-09 10:36:31

      That scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 is very powerful in exposing the errors in our current belief of what christ's presence is.
      Verse 1 links the presence of Jesus with the gathering of the anointed to christ - a gathering that takes place AFTER the great tribulation according to Matthew 24:29-31. Yes, this scripture shows that christs presence starts with his coming after the great tribulation.
      Verse 2 uses another synonymous term - "the day of Jehovah". Christ's presence, Christ's coming and the day of Jehovah, all refer to the same time period of christ's climactic coming after the great tribulation. And there are other scriptures that indicate this.
      2 Peter chapter 3 is another example. At 2 Peter 3:3,4 Peter writes about ridiculers living in "the last days" - during christ's presence, according to our beliefs - asking where is the promised presence. If our belief is correct, how could the apostle Peter have been so blind to the irony of the ridiculers question?
      Are we to believe that the apostle Peter could not see the irony in persons living DURING christ's presence and still asking where is his presence? For he does not go on to expose their error of not knowing that christ's presence starts invisibly and runs for a century or more before the end comes, no. Instead he goes on to draw parallels with the flood of Noah's day, and to speak about the "day of Jehovah"!
      It is obvious that Peter believed christ's presence to be the climactic "day of Jehovah" wherein christ comes as executioner! This is clearly seen by what is implied in verses 9,10 where he says Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise - the "PROMISED presence" the ridiculers were speaking about - because he is patient and does not want any to be destroyed - because the promised presence, when it does finally start, brings destruction for the unrepentant. It is so obvious that Peter beleived christ's presence starts at the day of Jehovah. Or are we to believe Peter didn't understand the nature of christ's presence even as the ridiculers didn't, and Jehovah allowed him to record, in scritpure, an implicit understanding of christ's presence that is erroneous so as to mislead us?
      Finally, consider Matthew 24:36-42. Jesus starts off by saying conerning that day or hour no one knows. The day or hour of what? "For (because) just as the days of Noah were, so the PRESENCE of the son of man will be". Yes, Jesus flow of thought is actually saying no one knows the day or hour of his PRESENCE, and is using the days of Noah to illustrate that point. How do the days of Noah illustrate the point? Verse 38 and 39 gives the answer - but it's difficult to see it if you're reading it in the NWT. Jesus makes the point that people in Noah's day went about normal daily activities - eating and drinking, marrying - up until the day Noah went into the Ark and the flood came . . . because they DID NOT KNOW when the flood was coming! (See the literal translation in the Kingdom Interlinear.) The NWT says "they took no note" as if to imply they refused to pay heed to some sign or Noah's preaching. But looking at the context of verse 36 and verse 42, that is clearly not the point that Jesus was making. In fact, Jesus even draws a parallel with people in Noah's day going about daily activities because of not knowing the timing of the flood, with people going about daily activities at the time of his own coming:
      "Then two men will be IN THE FIELD: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; 41 two women will be GRINDING AT THE HAND MILL: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned." - Matthew 24:40,41
      More importantly "they took no note" is not an accurate translation of the Greek word used. Every other English translation that I've looked at says "the knew not" or "they did not know" or similar. None say "they took no note" because that is not what the Greek actually says. The overiding theme in that whole paragraph - Matthew 24:36-42 is that no one knows when his PRESENCE or coming will be - just as the people in Noah's day did not know the timing of the flood and went about daily activities up until Noah entered in the ark and the flood came - and this is why his followers are to keep on the watch.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-09 14:36:48

        Hi Jude
        Absolutely right. The NWT rendering of "not they knew" (Interlinear) as "they took no note" was a key point in my article here in case you missed it: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/06/12/parousia-and-the-days-of-noah/
        The whole context is about the unexpected nature of the parousia, just as you say.
        Apollos

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-09 18:12:27

        Rereading my own comment I realized that "absolutely right" is a bit presumptuous. What I mean is that I completely agree that your reading of the scriptures makes sense. I never want to claim that my (or your) interpretation of them is absolutely right in a dogmatic sense. We already know where that leads to.
        Apollos

• Reply by Mark watts on 2013-09-09 11:11:53

  Forgive me J Watson I incorrectly spelt your surname(Waston)

Comment by crazyguy on 2013-04-13 20:31:34

I would just like to mention that's there are plenty of scriptures that seem to indicate Jesus was given his kingdom directly after or soon after he was resurrected. Acts 1:11 Rev. and other scriptures seems to indicate that when he comes we will all know it.
There is only 1 scripture at Mt.24:3 that says or indicates a presence, and that word in Greek actually means 'along side' not hes here up there somewhere but we can't see or feel or anything we just have to take someones or the bibles word for it.
last but not least i have confirmed in their own writings two different ways that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE not to mention Jer. chapter 25
So if 1914 is invalid and our understanding of Presence is wrong then Houston we have a problem, with our teachings

• Reply by Alec Holmes on 2013-04-13 20:44:09

  I concur, this website has shown extensive arguments about why the 1914 doctrine is flawed.
  Since Jesus did not come back in 1914, doubts are cast on the timing of what went on in heaven from 1914-1919.
  As a matter of fact, the whole foundation for the authority of the governing body as the faithful and discreet slave is shown to be built upon sand when we realize the truth about 1914 and subsequently 1919.

Comment by silas on 2013-09-09 06:16:06

Friends,
I have very much enjoyed the discussion so far. I just want to add a few comments
One about Mat 24:14 Part of the sign of the last days.
Another that has to do with Christs "coming in a cloud"..
Firstly Mathew 24:14
(Matthew 24:13, 14) . . .. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.
The footnote under Preached says..Or, “be heralded.” Gr., ke·ry·khthe′se·tai; Lat., prae·di·ca′bi·tur. Compare Da 5:29 ftn, “Heralded.”
Also in Mark 13:10 (Also, in all the nations the good news has to be preached first.) The same footnote appears..
The scriptural references to both texts in our reference bible refer the word preaching (or as per the foot note Heralded) to Revelation 14:6, 7 "6 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare as glad tidings to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people, 7 saying in a loud voice: “FEAR God and give him glory, because the hour of the judgment by him has arrived, and so worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.”"
Notice here that the wording of the three scriptures is similar. All refer to a HERALDING of the good news.
As Jehovah's Witnesses Matt 24:14 has always been one of the first texts we teach our students to remember and refer to it as a sign that we live in the last days. The sign that as an organisation we are preaching the good news to distant parts of the world.
But along with this, over the years, questions have come up such as?
Will everyone on earth receive a witness before the end comes? What about many in Muslim nations where Jehovah's witnesses do not exist or in China etc.? How will this work be accomplished?
Hence the urgency of the Organisation in recent years to open new fields, open new missionary schools and school programs designed to send out more pioneers, special pioneers and missionaries.
While all this is good, and by no means am I suggesting we shouldn't preach.Is Matt 24:14 simply referring to the heralded message by an angel in Midheaven, that is within the reach of ALL to hear and understand: as outlined in Revelation 14:6,7 ? Or is it referring to any and all attempts to declare the good news, including our world wide preaching campaign and the declaration made by the Angel flying in mid heaven?
Then comes the scripture at Matthew 10:23  "When they persecute YOU in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to YOU, YOU will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives."
*** gt chap. 50 Preparation to Face Persecution *** Had this to say about this scripture:
"So when saying that his disciples would not complete their circuit of preaching “until the Son of man arrives,” Jesus was prophetically telling us that his disciples would not complete the circuit of the entire inhabited earth with the preaching about God’s established Kingdom before the glorified King Jesus Christ would arrive as Jehovah’s executional officer at Armageddon."
What then will happen to a large part of the worlds population that does not receive the good news from the comely feet of Christian messengers?
This is why I am of the opinion that the Angel of Rev14:6 flying in mid heaven is what is being referred to in Matt 24:14 and that the last days are yet ahead.
I am sure my thoughts on the above will awaken many comments. I welcome them with an open mind.
As to the second point. Matt 24:30
In paragraph 15 of our study watchtower on the weekend, this scripture is used to point out that our understanding of Christs coming has changed from what was an invisible "presence" in 1914, 1918 to a future "coming" date during the great tribulation.
However this scripture has also been used in the past to refer to the invisible rule of Christ as king of the kingdom since 1914. His invisible presence. (Refer Reasoning book pages 342 par3 to Page 343 par 3)
Which is it to be? We cannot use the same scripture and point to two different dates. If we are now using this scripture to point to a future date then 1914 +1918 along with Christ's invisible presence must be discarded.
As an added point, the New World Translation Committee went to great lengths to explain one simple point. You can find this in Appendix 5b at the back of the large reference bible under the heading "Christs Presence (Parousia)". Please read it when you have time. Particularly paragraph 3 on the second page.
Briefly The point they make here is about when we speak of "coming" and "Presence" ; The gist of it is....One must precede the other. You must first come and then you are present. You cannot be present and then come.
Makes sense you say? Of course it does. However now we find that with the new understanding Christ "comes" at a future date during the great tribulation, however he has been "present" for almost 100 years. They contradict their own words as found in that appendix.
Another Contradiction is that we have always been taught that the sign of Christ presence and of the conclusion of the system of things is ONE composite sign, Where all aspects of the sign appear together. However, now there appears to be Two differing signs not concurrent with each other. The sign of the son of man mentioned in Matt 24:30 is part of the overall sign of the last days. We take all the preceding verses and apply them as of 1914, but this part of the overall composite sign is future dated to within the great tribulation. Doesn't make sense. Now we have two parts to the Sign and at different times.
All this shows that there are no true Biblical Scholars within the Watchtower Society. Teachings are messy at best and sometimes ill thought out and presented.
How could they possibly expect us to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine.
Sorry about this being a long post. I had more but will have to leave it for later..

• Reply by Kyp on 2013-09-09 10:22:57

  Dear Silas,
  A very good comment from you.
  All God has left for us is the Holy Bible, so why being stuck to one possible interpretation and damning everyone that doesn't stuck to it together with us until the leadership says it otherwise? No friends, that's not the meaning of the gospel, not the meaning of following Christ, isn't it? So I like your good, Bible based reasoning, thank you brother.
  Kyp

• Reply by truth on 2013-09-16 06:46:24

  Again, while i wll aggree wt u my brother, that the Angel of Rev 14:16 has a direct part in accomplishment of math24:14 , yet,u 4got to tell us the time period when this Angel wll likely begin his anouncement since u do not believe that He is now doing so through the organised preaching campain of JW today and thus,u concluded that 'the last days had not began'.
  My question is: what does the bible mean by "the last days"(not day)?. When did or perhaps will it begin? How and when will the Angel begin this proclamation? How will ppl know or hear the proclamation? Is the Angel gonna use humans or is he gonna shout from the sky personally? Is it just an Angel or many or all the Anges? What is the purpose of the commision to preach as in mathew24:14-is it not to make disciples for christ and then warn the wicked? Ok, is the Angel going to do just preaching of warning alone or is he gonna teach and conduct bible studies in order to make them learn the truth and thus became disciples of christ?
  Also consider: math28:19,20. "go make disciples of PEOPLE of ALL the NATIONS". All the nations? Was it any Angel he told to GO? Since is his disciples,now did jesus meant that his disciples will preach to individaul persons in ALL individaul NATIONS and yet he told them that 'they will not complete the circult of their then teretary? "then the end will come".did jesus meant that the end must wait for the goodnews to get to all individual nations?NO.
  He continued:"i am wit YOU (not any Angel) till the last days?no "till the conclusion of the system of things". So even at any point in the future u may hav in mind to place the 'last days',we will still be there not any physical Angel,to be directed and used by the Angelic forces pictured by the heralding Angel in accomlishing what math24:14 says as we hav started doing.
  Also, Acts 1:8. "yOU wl be witnesses of me......to the most(ends) distanced part of the earth". Is he here talking abt individual nations or the scope of the work? Even then, what made up 'the most distanced part of the earth is not the same today and may not be the same tomorrow. Again, remember, Jehovah has a definite time for all things, when his time comes to bring an end, will he pospond it because some individual in some individual nations who hav refused and hav threatened and baned the message nd hav not been forced by the message bearers to hear?.Rev14:16 is heralding the message but,the purpose as explained by other verses is to make disciples for christ and teach ppl to observe christ commandment,this will go on "ALL the TIME(days)".so the heralding is not just some sort of anouncement with little or no followup on interested ones to teach them,but it is even as we have been doing now.thus, in "all the nations",as also in,"people of all the nations,is refering to the scope of the work at hand. For all who might be ignorant, God is their ultimate judge, so "let God be found true though every man be found a lier (including you and i) is of my openion.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-16 08:42:46

    We are interested in exchanging scriptural research on this forum; research and insights which are upbuilding, instructive, thought-provoking and challenging. However, we should strive to do this always with humility and deep respect.
    Respect for others; respect for ourselves; even respect for our message can be demonstrated in many ways. An important Bible truth deserves to be well presented. "As apples of gold in silver carvings is a word spoken [or written] at the right time for it." (Prov. 25:11) However, if that "word" is indecipherable, then how much good can it really do? If our readers have to struggle to understand our grammar and sentence syntax; if they have to work at not being distracted from our message by excessive and careless misspellings, how can we expect them to respect what we have to say?
    You open with "i wll aggree wt u"--five words, all misspelled. It seems like something hastily dashed off a smart phone touch screen with spell checker switched off. Texting shorthand has its place in the messaging world, but it is not the way to reach hearts and minds. I would urge you, if you wish to continue contributing to this forum, to please avail yourself of any one of many free word processors out there that come loaded with both spell and grammar checkers. These won't catch everything, but will surely be a vast improvement.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-16 07:39:13

  This is partly a reply to Silas and also to the other comment by "truth".
  One point that Silas is making, on which I agree, is that nothing indicates that 1914 is a delineated start of "the last days".
  But we have to remember that the term "last days" itself is not specifically linked with the preaching or disciple making work anywhere in scripture. Matthew chapter 24 does not use the term. Neither does Rev 14:6.
  So what is meant by "the last days" in the context of Acts 2:17 and 2 Tim 3:1 could simply be the entire Christian era from the first century down to the end. It could also be a short period of time at the end, which may be future as Silas suggests, or it could be that we are currently in it. But either way there is nothing to link this term with a supposed period that began in October 1914.
  I think the point that "truth" misses in his comment is that Silas is not suggesting that there is no requirement on Christians to preach, but rather that by bundling a bunch of unrelated scriptures together we keep ending up with contradictions that cannot be resolved. Anyway I know that Silas can argue this point for himself. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but that was my understanding from reading the comment, and I completely agree.
  Apollos

  • Reply by truth on 2013-09-16 14:38:01

    it seems you are not really sure of what the bible mean by the term "last days"? (Please focus on my point not my English yet i will try to improved)
    first, according to the reasoning book,its first hand definition is:"...the concluding time period leading up to a divinely appointed execution that marks the end of a system of things".
    That is the general defination. People in time past have before a destruction,lived in its last days,now a destruction is before us,when can we say that the scripture shows that the last days of this our own system of things began? In that 2tim paul says "in the last days",does that in any way prove there was a last days then? Yes,of jewish system which began likely in 33-70 CE, that can be decern in verse 13, how condition is to change because of the effect of the last days which Act 2:17 is talking about which begin to fulfilled in 33 CE,but paul point to this last days while that present last days had already started,this is to show that some signs he related their is even for the greater last days that is still in future as per then, so what does the bible indicate that will mark this last days which we will use to know that yes it has begin? Let me leave it for next time.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-16 15:01:32

      You have supposed that Paul was trying to show that "the greater last days" as you put it was still in the future from his perspective. However, this is not substantiated from the context of his writing. It was a letter to his brother and fellow Christian Timothy. 2 Tim 3:14 shows that the warning Paul gave would indeed be something that Timothy himself should be on guard against. It was not just something that would occur nearly 2000 years in the future.
      That Paul was saying that these things would occur throughout the entire Christian era, and therefore all Christians would have to be on guard against them, is consistent with this passage and also with Acts 2:17.
      I don't dispute that at the conclusions of both the Jewish and the present systems of things that the symptoms may have become more pronounced. The point is whether one can define a particular years as the start of the "last days" as defined in scripture, and I don't see any evidence for that.
      Apollos

Comment by truth on 2013-09-13 10:16:25

i think many people here are seeking for attention. The whole truth is that you are doing more harm to urself than good.hunestly,i will like to address so,e self thought here,but thats will be next time

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-13 10:26:33

  I'm not entirely clear on what you are saying. My guess is that you are not a native English speaker. If that is the case, might I suggest you get someone to translate your comment into clear and understandable English. We welcome all sincere truth seekers, but I personally am reluctant to reply until I'm sure of what the writer really means.

• Reply by truth on 2013-09-17 08:30:57

  WHEN DID THE LAST DAYS OF THIS SYSTEN OF THINGS BEGAN?
  i appreciate your comment Appolos, yes, there should be a definite point in time denoted by the bible and decernable through history as to when the last days of this present system of things should begin,isn't it? But is there such point in time that both the scripture and history support?.
  WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SHOW?
  What is the total length of the last days of this system of things? Learning how long it will last will help us know when it attually began since as jehovah's people,we already know when it will end-Armagedon. I say 'began', because i believe completly that it had began since. Looking at this from this angle, Rev 12:12 says"........because the Devil has come down to YOU,having great anger knowing he has A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME". Therefore, the length of this last days corresponds to satan's short period of time. The short period of time alloted for satan do not mean that at the end of it he will be destroyed but that he will be abysed. But the point is that his influence over this 'system of things' will end at the end of the short period of time,i.e at the end of the last days of this same 'system of things', thus both will end at Harmagedon.
  thus,knowing WHEN the 'Devil came down to US' will give us the beginning of his 'short period of time' in the conclusion of this system of things and thus, the begining of the last days of this system of things, isn't it?
  WHEN DID THE DEVIL 'COME DOWN TO US'?
  to find the answer, remeber that before this, satan has access to the earth and yet has not been restricted from his access to spirit realm,-job 2:1,2.
  But the acount of revelation gave us light when he was finally removed,restricted from heaven and confined completly on eartly visinity, now all his attention is totally focused on earth alone, when this happened, should we not expect a surge or sharp increase in any evil things that might have been happening?,an increase 'from bad to whorst indeed!-2tim 2:13.
  So when evidiently did this casting out happened according to bible?. Rev 12:9"....and his Angels were hurl down with him (10) and i hear a voice in heaven saying "now have come the....the kingdom of our God and of his Christ".
  What is the point? Remember the question: WHEN was satan castdown and confined on earth? According to this acount, it was the same Time period that God's kingdom and that of 'his Christ come' or was exterblished and Christ enthroned, the same time period Christ started to play the role of king on Davidic throne.
  Some might dis agree with that, arguing that satan was not cast out from heaven after Christ ascention thinking that it has hd since, but thats not true, all we need to know is when did revelation 12 begin to fulfiled,before or after Christ death?
  Verse 11 supplies the answer: "and they-the brothers mentioned at verse 10 (i.e the remaining on earth of the womans's seed) conquered him", why? "because of the blood of the lamb". For the blood of the lamb must had been poured out which anabled them to conquer. What is the point? That this account begin to fulfiled not before Christ death but after his ascention including the kingdom entrusted to him.
  To this time ,we have traced the beginning of the last days i.e, the same time period satan was cast out off heaven when his short period of time in this system began, the same time period Christ assumed his role as Davidic king. Yet, to pinpoint accuratly the year or time period in human histry that the last days of this system began, we must first know, which year did Christ enthronement took place thus, the begining of the fulfilemen of revelation 12? Then we will answer more question regarding time period the bible and history point to. We will look at it from different angle in my next comment. If we can find out the time period Christ was enthroned, then we have gotten when satan was cast down, thus, thw begining of the last days of this system of things.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-17 13:23:39

    I can certainly anticipate your next comment. You will already find my reply to it, if you examine my discussion with J Watson here.
    But here's the thing. If your faith depends upon 1914 being the enthronement of Christ Jesus and 1919 being the appointment of God's human channel, then I do not wish to personally dissuade you. I still think that it is better to have faith based upon something flawed, than to lose faith altogether. And I truly think that is a danger for Christians who have been misled. There are many who have lost their faith in God once they lost their faith in JW doctrine. That is very sad.
    There will be people who think that my viewpoint is intellectually deficient - that I am promoting the idea of blind faith. But I am not. Please read my words carefully.
    I still think that it is better to have faith based upon something flawed, than to lose faith altogether.
    I am conceding what I believe to be the best of two alternatives, if (and only if) these are the only options available. The better option is to have faith based upon something solidly based upon God's Word. A 1914 parousia is not based upon God's Word. But if that's what it takes for a person to have faith in God then I say go for it, rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    Apollos

    • Reply by Chris on 2013-09-17 18:23:46

      The great difficulty many of us face, is that once we 'know' that what we have been taught is based on organizational lies and misleading scriptures, we cannot go back. (compare James 4:17)
      I am sure many will gain Jehovah's favor based on their heart condition and application of bible principles, not perfect knowledge of scriptural intricacies. The burden of judgement will fall on those who reject the Bible's authority to determine right from wrong and impose their own authority. Which is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees and will reject similar 'men of lawlessness' in our time.
      I have spoken to my wife at length about the conflicts in WT doctrine, but sadly it always reaches the point where disagreeing with the Org. is a bridge too far for her.
      And in some way it is a kindness to let her continue to gain comfort from the meetings and association because she would be lost without these things. For my part I cannot go to meetings anymore because I find myself getting aggravated by the bitter taste of the spiritual food these men serve. Even the beautiful scriptural truths, which are a product of no man and are free for all to read, are tainted by their brand of seasoning and leave me feeling unrefreshed.
      I would rather stay at home and read the Bible.

Comment by Chris on 2013-09-17 19:09:39

And on a similar vein (at least I think so) from everything I have read I find it easy to overlook the errors of Bro. Russell based on his obvious genuine love for Jehovah, the Scriptures and his treatment of others, but do not regard 'Judge' Rutherford as anything more than an intellectual pretender, egotist and abuser of the flock. A flaw which some of the GB members have been renowned for over the years, according to many ex Bethelites.

Comment by truth on 2013-09-19 09:23:56

This is a continuation but conclution of my comment about the start of the last day of this system of things, which i and appolos were discoursing.
I exterblished this point in earlier comments.
1. The last days of any system, is always before the destruction of that system.
2. The first centuary Christains lived in the last days of jerusalem destruction which evidiently began in 33CE( Acts2:17).
3. Appostle paul wrote 2timothy 3, where he mentioned "in the last days", while the last days of jerusalem's destruction had already began,making his word to have more future implications.if he was not refering to a future last days, he should have said " In this last days instead of "in the last days".
4. The lenght of the last days of this system of things corresponds to the length of Satans 'short period of time'in this same system of things,thus, both began and will end at the same time-Armagedon. Rev12:12.
5.To know when the last days of this system began we have to know first when satan was hurled down to the earth, thus the begining of the short period of time.
6. Satan and his Demons was hurled down at the same time period God's kingdom and the authority(legal right to rule) of his Christ went into effect, 'come',i.e exterblished in heaven-Rev 12:9,10.thus, the start of the Short period of time.
7. Thus, the last days began when Christ's ATHOURITY as the king of God's kingdom began. When he was enthrone as the rghtful king of God's kingdom.
If we can pinpoint when Christ was enthroned, then we have gotten the beginning of the last days of this present system of things.
WHEN WAS CHRIST ENTHRONED AS THE ONE HAVING THE 'LEGAL RIGHT' TO DEVIDIC THRONE?
Many of us here are familiar that witnesses strongly believe in the biblical Chronology that points to 1914CE as the enthronement of christ, and having seen that some are doubtful though aware of the chronologies, this comment will not mention any year since you already know of the year but will leave you where you will be able to draw your own conclution. The reason is that, the main question at hand here is: Are we living in the last days or is it still in future?
In a short form now, see the point:
We all know that jesus Christ is the legal one to Davidic throne, he is the lowliest one of mankind mentioned at Daniel 4:17 and in ezikiel 21:26,27, thus both Daniel 4 and Ezikiel 21 involves the Christ and when he will be 'set up'to rule as king in Davidic throne forever. But by then, the Davidic throne, represented by the tree stump was bond or restricted By God through the gentile nations- of which Nebuchadnezzar symbolised,-untill 'seven times' will come to an end.
With out doing any calculation about the seven times, we can still know the time period it came to an end. How? By examining by ourselves the time period jesus received the promised kingdom. How?
First, before he was born the Angel emphasis that 'God will give him the throne of David his father-luk 2:32,33.
The question is: was the kingdom giving him while on earth (evidiently 2-33CE)? I know we all will say know.ok.
Then we have to look for the answer in another time period.
Was it giving to him immidiatly he ascended(at 33CE or at 34-36CE)?
We have to reason in the scripture now. The prophecy of Daniel about the 70 weeks show that after his death and resurrection, "he must keep the covenant in force for one week"Dan9:27. Thus if he died in 33 CE, God will terminate the jewish covant in 36CE so the Davidic throne has not went into effect even till 70CE.
What role then was jesus playing from 33CE up? The answer can be seen here:
psalms 110:1 Jehovah gave hime a role, "sit at my right hand UNtILL i place your enemies as a stool to your feet".how do we know that this verse begins to fulfill immidiatly Jesus ascend? Peter, in Acts 2:31,32 shows that it fulfilement began at jesus' ascention. What is this role of 'siting'? The same Acts 2:33 says that he 'received the promised holy spirit...he poured to his disciples', he was interested in his new founded congrigation and that is what God granted him the authority to begin taking care of(colo 1:13,18).
Why did God say jesus should sit and continue to take care of his congrigation "untill"? That denote that after the time period represented by "untill", then jesus will be granted another new role in conjuction with the one he had,isn't it?
Peter qouted only the first role jesus began in 33CE but left open the second role. So what is it? Ps110:2. As the period represented by "Untill" ends, satan and his demons were made a footstool to Christ as they were removed from heaven to earth (isa 66:1. Rev12:9).
Then comes the order,"Go rule or subduing in the midst of your enemies (satan and his demons),then the cry, "now have come, the...kingdom of God and the authority of his Christ". Rev 12:10.
therefore, it is after the period of time represented by UNTILL came to an end was jesus granted the kingly power as the legal one,the lowliest one of makind that Daniel 4 spoked of that will be set up at the end of the seven times.
He word, in the "midst of your enemies"implies that this ruling will take place as the enemies are still alive not at the coming of Christ to destroy them.
Let us ask: the UNtILL, from 33CE to its end will bring us to when? In accord with the hormony of the bible verses we have examined,it will bring us at the end of the seven times-the gentile's times.
If you disagree that 1914CE is the end of the gentiles times,the seven times, then please, calculate the length of the UNTILL from 33CE and tell us WHEN it wil bring you to,that is when Christ was enthroned-thus, the begining of the last days of this present system of things.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-19 10:17:55

  You are choosing to ignore a critical point that I made in relation to 2 Tim 3.
  You insist that Paul must have been talking about a period still 2000 years in the future, otherwise according to you he would have explicitly worded it to indicate that they were already in that period.
  Let me ask you this? Who was Paul writing to? At the end of v5 he gives an instruction “... and from these turn away”. Who is he giving this instruction to?
  The answer quite obviously is Timothy. Now who is Timothy to “turn away” from? Again quite obviously it is those people who are described in v2-5a.
  So how can you possibly claim that Paul was not talking about his present time period (or at least one that was imminent enough for Timothy to have experienced it), but rather that he must have been talking about a fixed time period a long way into the future?
  Apollos

  • Reply by truth on 2013-09-19 15:13:54

    Apolos bro, i have never in anyway disagreed that 2tim3 does not have an application during when it was written. In my initial comment, i said that the account of second timothy was written while the last days of that system had already begon,that means, while it has an application then but the context show that paul's word will have greater meaning in the future since there will be a greater last days to come.
    In this my last comment i showed that contextually, paul's word have more future implications that will be more crtical than in first centuary, 'from bad as it was in first centuary, to whost today'.infact, contextually we can see that paul's word while having some implication then, is meant for the future. Since he said "But know this" instead of 'you are aware of this', this mean he want to tell timothy something that will happen in the future that timothy do not know. again he said, "in the last days" instead of, 'in this last days'. Thus, while there have always been bad things, but in the last days it will advance from bad to whost (verse 13). I dont think there have been any other last days after jerusalem destruction when things advanced from bad to whost accept starting from the world wars.
    So are you saying that since the prophecy was made c.200 yrs ago that it has no relevant today? Remember,"for all the things that were written in afore time were written for our instruction"...'so that we might have hope'.
    HOW DOES 2tIMOTHY 3 RELATE TO OTHER SCRIPTURES TO SHOW WHEN THE LAST DAYS OF THIS SYSTEM BEGAN?
    As for the relation between 2timOTHY 3 and other scripture that point to when the last days began
    In math24:3 the appostles asked jesus signs of 3 events: 1.when will these things be (jerusalem destruction) 2. What will be the Sign of his presence 3. And of the "conclution of the system(ages)of thing'. Jesus gave the sign of the 3 questions( i divided them into 3).
    The signs include the one of the "conclution (or last days or period) of the system of things. Appostle paul also gave signs in that account of timothy 3. While Jesus called the beginning of these signs "pang of distress"(verse 8), paul called it "critical(perilous) time had to deal with". Again, while talking about period before Harmagedon, paul used the same "pang of distress" and say that people will be talking of peace and security while in reality it have been taken away from the earth- 1thess 5:1-3. This harmonisis with the appocalyps in Rev 6:3-7, the signs in this account(revelation) also harmonises with jesus signs about the conclution(last days) of the system of things.
    These signs of nations fighting themselves and persecuting God's people(math 24:9) harmonises with ps 2:1,2. It is a sign that christ has been installed as king- ps 2:6-which the disciples called Christ parousia -math 24:3. As discoursed earlier, Rev 12:9,10 shows that this installement took place the same time period satan was hurled down from heaven. In any angle of the scripture you begins, you will see that 2tim 3,harmonises with other scriptures to indicate when the last days of this present system of things attually began, it is undisprovable.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-19 16:15:30

      And I am not saying that 2 Tim 3 doesn't have application for Christians today. I am merely countering your argument that Paul's choice of words automatically lead us to conclude that he wanted to reader to infer a second period in history delineated by particular start and end dates.
      All true Christians who have ever lived need to be on guard against the "wicked men and imposters" who would advance from bad to worse (2 Tim 3:13). In your world view do you think that someone hit the reset button in the year 71 A.D. and all of a sudden the congregation was no longer exposed to such threats, and would not be again until the year 1914 A.D.? It's obviously preposterous to think that way. No, the purpose of the passage is not about chronology, it is about getting Christians to be on their guard because things would deteriorate all the way down to the second presence of Jesus Christ.
      Even the term "last days" doesn't generally get used to define a specific chronology. If I wrote about the "last days of Hitler" would you immediately be demanding that I define a start date for that, or would you just understand that I am talking about an undefined period leading up to his demise?
      Apollos

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-19 16:32:40

      Are you suggesting that you can provide scriptural proof to show the date when Satan was cast down?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-19 10:50:34

  Now I will also address your interpretation of Ps 110:1,2.
  You believe that “Sit at my right hand until ...” denotes a “waiting period that ran from 33C.E. to 1914C.E. Is that correct?
  There are three questions that need to be answered from scripture:
  1) When did the period begin?
  2) When did (or will) the period end?
  3) What role is Jesus playing during this period?
  It seems that we can agree on the answer to #1, based on Acts 2:33-36. The “sitting at God's right hand” must have begun in 33C.E.
  But what about the end? According to the scripture the period in question runs until Jesus' enemies are placed as a stool for his feet. And they are placed there by God.
  There is another scripture that talks of God putting all enemies under the feet of his reigning Son.
  (1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.
  This scripture very directly answers both questions 2 & 3. The sitting at God's right hand is identified with kingship, and it continues until the job is done – right to the end of the thousand years.
  Based on these scriptures 1914 cannot be the end of a waiting period and the beginning of a “parousia”. He was already King right from the first century. What we await in terms of his presence is the millennial reign itself.
  Our current series of Watchtower studies has finally conceded that we have consistently misinterpreted the “coming” of Jesus (Gr. Erchomai), and that it is actually a future event. This is what most regular Christians have always believed, and we are just catching up because we have been hampered by false chronology that never belonged to us anyway (Acts 1:7).
  What possible basis is left for believing that the presence began a century ago?

  • Reply by truth on 2013-09-19 16:25:22

    let me correct you Appolos. The watchtower did not say 'we misinterpreted jesus comming'. Jw have always differentiate between Christ comming(elkomai) and his presence(parousia) placing his coming in the future while his paroucia began in 1914 even as you can see it in reasoning book.it is the last four coming (pragraph 16,17 of second acticle) that were before thought to apply to his presence,read carefully please.
    About your 3 questions, i have answered all in my previous comments. When the waiting period began, the role jesus played during the waiting period and when it ended.
    Ps 110:1 has a seperate fulfilement of which peter quoted without mentioning the verse 2 and he explained the role jesus began playing even as we can see at Acts 2:33, he also usee "untill". I ask a question you have refused to answer. We all know, jesus have always been the designated king to Davidic throne, but as ps 110:2 proved, the command or authority "Go rule in the midst of your enemies" was not giving him UNTILL, the enemies were removed. Is it not after they were footstooled that the UNTILL end? It is from this order to Go subduing or rule that he will "continue to rule UNTiLL 'all'(human, spirits and death)enemies are subdued or deffited.
    I asked: if he began ruling on Davidic throne already in 33CE in the midst of his enemies that are still not foostooled, why the order again after the end of the UNTiLL in verse 2?
    You made a mistake, 1Cor 15:24-28 you cited is not talking about the event in this our present system of things, but what will happen after Harmagedon, infact, at the end(15:24) of the thousand years after the final text of that comming systen of things. Yet one point is clear: starting from when the enemies(Satan and his denons) refered in ps110:1 are hurled down or made subject to christ, and the order GO is made, he will rule untill into the one thousand year of turning his attention to the Earth is completed and all enemies-human, spirits and death-are subjected or removed from the earth which he had turned his attention during the thousand years.
    Appostle paul himselve differenciated the two system of things: 1. This system of things during which the anoited Christains are to be raise to unit with christ "during this his presence"15:20-24-the same presence they were asking him the sign of in math 24:3.
    2. "Next" system (15:24) after Harmagedon to the final text of which christ will have 'broken all the works of the Devil'. Read carefully and do not misinterprete the scriptures bro.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-19 16:54:27

      "Jw have always differentiate between Christ comming(elkomai) and his presence(parousia) placing his coming in the future while his paroucia began in 1914"

      
      Let me correct you in turn. Keep working your way back on the Watchtower Library and you will find that even the "coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" in Matt 24:30 was claimed to have already occurred.
      We have gradually been forced to relinquish our doctrine piece by piece as it becomes more obvious that it just doesn't work. This latest batch that you refer to (it's article 1 by the way), is just another in a line of concessions. We would obviously have given them all up at once and settled for the exceedingly obvious understanding that the King will soon come to begin his presence, but to do that we have to finally let go of 1914, and that would bury 1919, and that would undermine any authority that remains.
      Apollos

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-22 08:12:47

    I need to slightly modify a statement I made above. Since the comment has received a reply I will do it by way of a further comment rather than an edit.
    I stated that 1 Cor 15:25,26 very directly answers both questions 2 & 3. Actually it really only directly answers #2, and gives us further information about #3.
    We are told that Jesus "must rule as king until" the end of this period, since both here and in Psalm 110:1,2 the end of the period is marked by God having put all enemies under his feet. However I acknowledge that it does allow for the possibility that the kingship does not run the full length of that period.
    It doesn't make a difference to my argument, since this was primarily against the assertion that the period ends in 1914, but I thought it best to clarify anyway. Whether the Apostle Paul had in mind that Jesus was already king, or whether he is here only referring to the direct kingly reign over the whole earth during the 1000 years, either way rules out that the "until" of Psalm 110:1 reached its expiration in 1914.
    Apollos

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-19 09:54:32

I was about to remove this comment in light of my direction to you in my previous comment, but I thought it best to give you one more chance.
You've laid down seven premise points upon which your argument is based, but a false premise will only lead to false conclusions. This is the fallacy of "circular reasoning". First, prove your premise, then make your point.
Example: 4. "The lenght (sic) of the last days of this system of things corresponds to the length of Satans ' (sic) short period of time'in (sic) this same system of things,thus, (sic) both began and will end at the same time-Armageddon."
You must first prove that the start of the last days corresponds to Satan's being ousted from heaven. Do this from Scripture. Show a connection between the last days of 2 Tim. 3:1-7 and Rev. 12:9.
If you cannot do that, then all the remaining arguments based on that unproven premise are moot. So please prove this point before continuing, otherwise I will have to discontinue this discussion thread.

Comment by truth on 2013-09-20 06:45:10

"the king will soon come to beging his presence"by you.
The king will soon come i agree but his presence (parosia) 'being alongside'you said to begin. By this you contadict youself. Earlier, you have tried to prove that he began ruling since 33CE and not 1914, thus that his presence in kingly power began then i.e that he had being alongside since 33CE but now his presence is to begin when he comes.
When we even talk about his being aloneside,is it not in relation to his assuming the Davidic throne which account of Ezikiel 21:26,27 said that will remain vacant (no one present on it) till the end of the gentile's time and the legal one became present on it?
Christ coming is to to assume another role as Jehovah's executioner.you remember, i showed you from the scripture that from 33CE he assumed a role of the head of the congrigation, then at the end of the UNTIL, he assumed another role of the king of Davidic kingdom and begin ruling in the midst of his enemies and during his coming he will assume another role as Jehovah's executioner to dash the enemies to pieses.
Saying that his presence in kingdom power had not began but will only start at is coming is tantamount to rejecting Daniel 2:44 that 'the kingdom will be exterblish "in the days of these kings" and ps 110:2 that Christ will rule in the midst of his enemies but as you know, his coming will mean total destruction and restriction of this enemies he had been ruling in their midst.
To help you more to understand the difference between the two events-his presence and coming- look at math 24:37-9. Jesus compared his 'presence' to the 'days before the flood'.
The flood period is divided into two. 1.24:38, "for as they were in those days BEFORE the flood". 2.vesr 39, "...untill the flood CAME".
Just as the days Before the flood is began before the attual flood came and is different with many years so will the presece of christ differen with many years before his attaul coming. Yes! The days Before the flood preceded the day the flood came and are not the same event.
The flood came to execute God's judgement upon law difiling people but the days before the flood,saw the building od the ark as a sign to the unlookers yet they may have said the similar thing as you are saying today-the presece is still far off-then they went on misusing their time of goodwill.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-09-20 08:19:02

  Keep in mind that "being alongside" is not a Bible term. It is a partial definition of "parousia".
  We need to stick to the scriptures to see the simple truth. Jesus promised to be "with" his disciples "all the days until the conclusion of the system of things" (Matt 28:20). So in this sense he has been alongside us since 33 C.E. But we know that is not the "erchomai" or "parousia" referred to in scripture since those would occur at the conclusion of the system of things (Matt 24). Christians are also warned not to listen to premature declarations that they have occurred (2 Thes 2:1,2).
  It is by trying to enforce a third mode of "being alongside" that things start to get ugly. This is what has led to us claiming in the past that Jesus has already "come". We are trying to dig ourselves out of that hole but we don't want to give up the supposed importance of 1919.
  As for Dan 2:44 read it carefully and count exactly how many kingdoms are mentioned. They are numbered in scripture, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Once you have the highest number (which is four by the way), ask yourself which kingdom it was. Then tell me what "in the days of those kings" really means in relation to the setup of God's Kingdom.
  With regard to the interpretation and translation of Matt 24:36-39 you can read my article here for a full response.
  Apollos

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-20 08:49:49

  Again, you are making many unsupported assertions, but are not answering the question I put to you yesterday. "Are you suggesting that you can provide scriptural proof to show the date when Satan was cast down?" To that allow me to add, "If yes, then please provide the scriptural proof."

  • Reply by truth on 2013-09-20 10:23:05

    Meleti, the answer to your question is afirmatively Yes!
    I have proved it over and over here,go back and read please. Last time you asked if there is any relation between 2tim3 to other scriptures that counld prove if the last days in that account is synonimous to the conclution of this system, that i had done. And in the 7 point i laid out initialy, i proved that satan and his demons were hurled down from heaven the same time period God's kingdom and the authority of his Christ went into effect, that you can read here: Rev 12:9,10, ps 110:1,2.
    Then i went ahead to show that if we can pinpoint when Christ began to rule, then we have gotten when satan was hurrled down or made as a footstooled (earth-isai 66:1) to Christ feet.
    I related that the account of Daniel 4 also mentioned when christ will be "setup"and that seven times must pass over the tree stump(Davidic throne, the root of jessey that will sprout again at the hand of jesus). This account is about the same thing Rev 12:9,10 and ps 110:1,2 is refering to, namely, the restoration and exterblishment of God's kingdom at the hand of the Legal one which will not occure UNTIlL THE SEVEN TIMES is ended and UNTILL THE ENEMIES(satan and the demons) ARE MADE AS FOOT STOOL OR HURLED TO THE EATH.you know the chronology using the seven times period, but i left the discoursion in a stage where every bias mind about 1914 will draw his or her own conclution.I proved that ps 110:1 says that Christ will not start to play the role of the king on Davidic throne from 33CE, but he will sit and while taking care of his congrigation he will wait "UNTILL" the enemies are throne down to the earth, then verse 2 says he will be ordered to GO and begin ruling in their midst.
    Then i said that if you dont agree with the chronological calculation of the seven gentiles times, then calculate the length of the UNTILL which will still give you the time the enemies was footstooled or hurled down,thus when Christ was ordered GO SUBDUING. I completly have decerm myself that the seven times ends in 1914CE and that is the same year Christ was ordered to GO RULE,and satan and his demons subdued or hurled down but if you disagree then calculate the lenght of the UNTILL and tell us when it will end-that is when Jesus was enthroned and satan hurled down.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-20 11:09:39

      I beg to differ. You have not "proved it over and over". You have asserted it over and over is all. This site contains numerous articles by both Apollos and myself, together with thoughtful, well-researched comments, all proving from scripture as well as historical sources that 1914 is of no significance at all. These do not contain assertions, because we do not value the opinions of men masquerading as divine truth.
      >>"Last time you asked if there is any relation between 2tim3 to other scriptures that counld prove if the last days in that account is synonimous to the conclution of this system, that i had done."
      No you haven't. You have asserted that, but you have not proven that. Apollos made some sound arguments based on Scripture and you haven't answered any of them. How are we to believe your argument if you only ignore anything that disagrees with you and then restate your belief as fact?
      >>"in the 7 point i laid out initialy, i proved that satan and his demons were hurled down from heaven the same time period God’s kingdom and the authority of his Christ went into effect, that you can read here: Rev 12:9,10, ps 110:1,2."
      Apollos has already shown you from Scripture that this does not apply to 1914 at all, yet you ignore his reasoning and the scriptures he quotes as support and simply restate your position. Ps. 110:1,2 occurred in 33 C.E. according to Peter. He was speaking under inspiration, so I'm going to accept his word here. (Acts 2:33, 34) Peter references King David in his remark. That is when Jesus sat on the Davidic throne. You say that he only ruled over the Christian congregation then. So you agree he ruled over the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16) So did David. Of course, Jesus' rulership is greater than David's. Eventually, he will rule the world. That starts when he comes as the warrior king depicted in Revelation. That happens just before Armageddon. Nothing happened in 1914 to indicate that the Warrior king had arrived.
      There is nothing in Scripture pointing to a second enthronement. Rev. 12:9,10 doesn't talk about any enthronement at all. You're just assuming it does. You are also assuming that the casting down of Satan was a fulfillment of "Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." Apollos explained that using scriptural references. The reasoning made sense because it fit with what the scriptures actually said. Yet, you have ignored his explanation, and simply restated your position. I can understand Apollos' reasoning because I can reason it out from the scriptures he's quoted. Your reasoning is based on your opinion. Would you have me accept your opinion?
      How do I know that "Until..." refers to Satan being ousted and not something else? You say it does, but the Bible doesn't say it does. So how am I to believe what you state? After all, Satan isn't the only enemy Jesus has and Ps. 110:1 seems to be talking about all of his enemies, not just one.
      You see? On the one hand we have scriptural reasoning and on the other we have human opinion and speculation. Which would you expect a sincere reader to accept?

      • Reply by truth on 2013-09-21 17:50:52

        your reasonings are laughable, it is said that birds of the same fadder flock together, you and Appolos have the same goal and that is why YOU rejects all scriptural evidiences provided and still claim there is no evidience provided. I underwent this little discoursion with you people to text how you are mature in understanding the deep things of Jehovah, but am sory to say am disappointed,because their is no true reasoning with YOU. I do not know if you both are still active servants of Jehovah,but i do not hate you at all, while i will discontinue this unneccesary argument which we both are never going to rich a consesuss, i will also state that you have presented nothing so far in all your acticle i have seen here to disprove Bible chronology regarding 1914, infact, in many ways, you end up for it. I have done research myself as much as you may have,from different biblical angle but the bible completly harmonises regarding Christ presence and his enthronement in 1914. Am not saying you must believe it, after all,YOU are standing by your faith. So i leave you both with good heart. As i said initially, i have bible students to take care of than to waste my time in needless arguments. Now, i must turn down the foolish and ignorant questioning,knowing the only produce fight and divition or sects among God's people. Agape.

        • Reply by Kyp on 2013-09-22 07:24:03

          Well, when I compare your reasoning to Meleti's and Apollo's - then it is yours which is pretty poor and based on assumptions, not on plain bible teachings. Sorry, but I'm just a honest watcher

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-09-22 20:07:20

          Thank you Kyp for that independent viewpoint. We have allowed this seemingly profitless discussion to proceed thinking that it might provide an object lesson in what seems to be the characteristic method that those supporting the 1914 doctrine use when dealing with a contrary viewpoint. I don't agree that this question qualifies under Paul's direction to Timothy as "foolish and ignorant" since it is a pivotal doctrine of our Organization. However, I do lament the lack of serious supporters who are willing to carry the banner of the Organization and present us with a logical, reasonably stated argument in its behalf. What we have seen so far are those who, when unable to show from scriptural support for their position, must resort to common logical fallacies in an effort to appear not to lose the argument. Among these are:
          The straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting the opposing arguments
          Circular reasoning: Satan was cast down in 1914 because World War I started then, and since World War I started in 1914, that's when Satan must have been cast down.
          Argument of repetition: Just keep restating one's position.
          Begging the question: Providing the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
          Red herring fallacy: Raising new questions to avoid answering valid challenges for which one has no response.
          Ad hominem fallacy: Attacking the arguer instead of the argument. "Your reasonings are laughable."
          Appeal to authority: 1914 must be true because that is what the God's appointed channel of communication teaches.
          It might be instructive to go back over this particular discussion in an effort to identify these and other fallacies of logic with a view to training one's mind to recognize such tactics for the next time one encounters them.

        • Reply by Chris on 2013-09-22 23:50:06

          truth- In contrast with the scriptural admonition to always be ready to provide an answer for our beliefs, you only seem capable of running away from the scriptures when they are presented to you.
          After many years of reading commentaries from various sources, I have always found that people who make no genuine effort to spell, or provide a reasonable degree of grammar in what they write, are often equally flawed in their reasoning ability.
          In this day and age spell-checker is only a click away.
          You may benefit from using it, truth