Interested in a Serious Religious Debate? Part 2

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I thought I start this thread up again because there were several question that were asked and I didn’t get a chance to address them before the thread was locked(I didn’t know they did such a thing).

Back in Action asked several questions which seemed sincere and seemed like he really wanted to know the answers so he could be more informed.

He asked two questions.

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.

I answered the first question at this link:

BackInAction then asked the following:
In regards to the scripture you cited (in regards to the blood), do you believe they were planning this for blood transfusions or were they talking about drinking and using blood for other (non-medical) reasons? Even at the last supper, Jesus said “take this and drink it, this is my blood which I give up for you” (paraphrased). Doesn’t this suggest that since he is sacrificing himself, it would be okay for others to do the same? (such as a father donating blood to his son)?

That’s another good question. Jesus told his disciples at that if one doesn’t drink his blood and eat his flesh then they can’t remain in union with him. He said this at John 6:50-60:

50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

In those verses Jesus compares bread to his flesh. He emphasizes bread because the Jews knew about bread due to the fact that God provided bread from heaven in the form of manna to their forefathers. Even though Jesus says his flesh and blood is real food and drink he means this in a symbolic way because partaking of the symbolic food and drink is the only way to become Jesus’ spiritual brother in heaven.

At the last supper mentioned in the gospel Jesus has a loaf of bread and a cup of wine and he explains that the bread represent his body and the wine represents his blood.
Matthew 26:26-29:
26 As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of YOU; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

Jesus did not remove any flesh from his body nor did he prick himself and fill the cup of his 12 apostles so they could drink his blood. Both the literal bread and wine represented the symbolic flesh and blood of Jesus and people who drink the wine and eat the bread are the ones who have a special relationship with Jesus. They have the privledge of going to heaven and ruling with Jesus’ in his father’s Kingdom.

So taking blood into ones body either through the mouth or intravenously is different from what Jesus symbolic blood represented. This is another factor that I didn’t mention previously as to why blood is important to God. Taking in blood to save someones life devalues Jesus’ blood that was poured out to cleanse all mankind of sin and enable the opportunity of everlasting life. So we won’t do it.

A doctor giving a blood transfustion does not in and of itself cause the doctor to be in a disapproved stated with God. So no we don’t think that doctors who give blood transfusions are condemned on account of that. I can also understand from your perspective that if you were faced with a situation of either dying instead of breaking a Biblical command or accept a blood transfusion to live that you would rather take the blood transfusion.

As for you second question about 1914. I will explain that in the next post and why understanding the Bible prophecy literal means your life.

(By the way we are not encouraged to sue if a doctor wants to give a blood transfusion and a JW refuses as BodyGuard pointed out. I don’t know the situation BodyGuard is talking about so I can’t comment on it as to whether any negligence was involved or if the Jehovah’s Witness who refused the blood transfusion and decided to sue was jsut using bad judgement in wanting to take legal action).

2

Great reply - and very concise explanation. I do recall though from my perusals of Watchtower that there was and still remained some serious debate within JW about this issue - along the lines of a nearly 50/50 split within the church. Was this ever resolved internally?

3

[quote]mse2us wrote:
I thought I start this thread up again because there were several question that were asked and I didn’t get a chance to address them before the thread was locked(I didn’t know they did such a thing).

Back in Action asked several questions which seemed sincere and seemed like he really wanted to know the answers so he could be more informed.

He asked two questions.

  1. Why don’t JWs want blood transfusions? I understand they cite scripture, but I still don’t understand why it’s such a big deal. One of my friends growing up needed a bone marrow transplant. Without it, she would have died (she had Leukima). Would you truly reject such a treatment?

  2. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.

I answered the first question at this link:

BackInAction then asked the following:
In regards to the scripture you cited (in regards to the blood), do you believe they were planning this for blood transfusions or were they talking about drinking and using blood for other (non-medical) reasons? Even at the last supper, Jesus said “take this and drink it, this is my blood which I give up for you” (paraphrased). Doesn’t this suggest that since he is sacrificing himself, it would be okay for others to do the same? (such as a father donating blood to his son)?

That’s another good question. Jesus told his disciples at that if one doesn’t drink his blood and eat his flesh then they can’t remain in union with him. He said this at John 6:50-60:

50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

In those verses Jesus compares bread to his flesh. He emphasizes bread because the Jews knew about bread due to the fact that God provided bread from heaven in the form of manna to their forefathers. Even though Jesus says his flesh and blood is real food and drink he means this in a symbolic way because partaking of the symbolic food and drink is the only way to become Jesus’ spiritual brother in heaven.

At the last supper mentioned in the gospel Jesus has a loaf of bread and a cup of wine and he explains that the bread represent his body and the wine represents his blood.
Matthew 26:26-29:
26 As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of YOU; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

Jesus did not remove any flesh from his body nor did he prick himself and fill the cup of his 12 apostles so they could drink his blood. Both the literal bread and wine represented the symbolic flesh and blood of Jesus and people who drink the wine and eat the bread are the ones who have a special relationship with Jesus. They have the privledge of going to heaven and ruling with Jesus’ in his father’s Kingdom.

So taking blood into ones body either through the mouth or intravenously is different from what Jesus symbolic blood represented. This is another factor that I didn’t mention previously as to why blood is important to God. Taking in blood to save someones life devalues Jesus’ blood that was poured out to cleanse all mankind of sin and enable the opportunity of everlasting life. So we won’t do it.

A doctor giving a blood transfustion does not in and of itself cause the doctor to be in a disapproved stated with God. So no we don’t think that doctors who give blood transfusions are condemned on account of that. I can also understand from your perspective that if you were faced with a situation of either dying instead of breaking a Biblical command or accept a blood transfusion to live that you would rather take the blood transfusion.

As for you second question about 1914. I will explain that in the next post and why understanding the Bible prophecy literal means your life.

(By the way we are not encouraged to sue if a doctor wants to give a blood transfusion and a JW refuses as BodyGuard pointed out. I don’t know the situation BodyGuard is talking about so I can’t comment on it as to whether any negligence was involved or if the Jehovah’s Witness who refused the blood transfusion and decided to sue was jsut using bad judgement in wanting to take legal action).

[/quote]

Thanks for the response!!

4

The second question BackInAction asked:

  1. What’s so important about October 1914? I keep seeing references to this date, but am not sure what exactly transpired on that year according to JWs beliefs.

In the late 1800 Jehovah’s Witness or Bible Students as they were called back then looked to the year 1914 as a year of great significance. In the 1800’s there were a number of religious men who had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about “the times of the Gentiles” and the prophet Daniel’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for “seven times.” This prophecy is in Daniel 4:10-17 and it shows a tree that has been chopped down and a band of iron is put around it so that it would not grow. An angel then says let “seven times” pass over it. Tree’s are sometimes used in the Bible to represent rulership as seen at Ezekiel 17:22-24 and 31:2-5.

As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled. Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation - the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. These kings were unique because God anointed or chose these kings to sit on the thrown and these kings represented God’s rulership. So the Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 was a symbol of God’s rulership. So chopping down a symbolic tree represented how God’s rulership as expressed through the kings at Jeruselum would be interrupted. But the vision also said that the trampling would be temporary - seven times. Many people in the 1800’s tried to figure out how the tree being banded or prevented to grow for “seven times” related to Jerusalem being trampled by the nations and how long was “seven times.” As early as 1823 A non-JW named John A Brown was able to calculate that the seven times was 2520 days. He did this by applying a scripture at Revelation 12:6,14 which shows that three and a half times (a time=1, times=2, half time=1/2) is equal to a thousand two hundred and sixty days so “seven times” would last twice as long or for 2520 days. The problem was that he or no one else knew when in history to apply 2520 days. The founders of my religion along with other non-JW’s got together and they figured out that the start of the Gentile times began with the removal of King Zedekiah mentioned at Ezekial 21:25-27 which states:
“25 'O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.”

That is a prophecy that points to a king of Israel, who God rejects, who loses the kingship. Another anointed king is not put on the thrown "until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs. This is the start of the Gentile times when Jeruselum is trampled on mentioned at Luke 21:24 and when the tree which symbolizes God’s rulerhip expressed through the kings of Jeruselum is chopped down prevented from growing for “seven times.” Jesus is the one who "rightfully belongs so the trampling ends and the copper band is removed when Jesus is made king in heaven.

The trampling begins in 607 B.C.E. when Babylon conquers Jerusalum and king Zedekiah is taken into captivity. Zedekiah is the last king in the line of David to sit on God’s thrown and God’s thrown become vacant There are other kings that become king in Israel after the Israelites are freed from Babylon but none are in the line of David. However, Jesus is a descendant of David so he has the legal right to the thrown. There is a lot of debate as to when Babylon conquered Jerusalem and many historians say this happened in 586 B.C.E. instead of 607 B.C.E. But there is a simple way to tell who is right: historians or Bible chronology. I get to that later.

Once people figured out when in history to apply the “seven times” or 2520 days from 607 B.C.E. they quickly realized that the nations did not stop trampling Jerusalem 2520 days after it’s fall. So they quickly realized that this prophecy covers a much longer time. They then applied the scriptures at Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34 which state “a day for a year” and that 2520 days became 2520 years. When you add 2520 years to 607 B.C.E and not include year zero because there was not a year zero you arrive at 1914 A.D. So in the late 1800’s the group of Bible students looked to 1914 as a significant date in Bible prophecy but they did not know exactly what to expect.

So we believe that the prophecy above points to when Jesus is given the vacant thrown of his forefather David and when he becomes king over God’s heavenly kingdom. This is just one piece of the whole puzzle that points to 1914 but just this alone would not be enough evidence even for me. Fortunately, there is a lot more.

Once Jesus became king in heaven the Bible states that significant changes on earth would occur. Revelation 12:7-12 shows a war breaking out in heaven and Michael who is Jesus in his heavenly position along with his angels battles Satan and his angels and Michael kicks Satan along with his angels out of heaven and throws them down to earth. Notice what verse 12(NIV): "Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them? But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." Isaiah 55:20 and Revelation 17:15 shows that sea and water means people. So when Satan got kicked out of heaven the earth got noticeable worse. Many historians contend that the 20th century was unlike any other century before and more people died during the 20th century than all other centuries combined. Also, notice what verse 10 states: “Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.” So once Satan is kicked out of heaven an angel officially announces God’s kingdom as coming into power and Jesus as the king. This is another piece of evidence that shows Jesus became king in 1914 but both of what I mentioned above still is not enough Biblical proof. There is still more.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse is the next piece of evidence. Most people don’t know who these four riders represent. Revelation 6 shows that the first rider is on a white horse, arrayed in white, with a crown, has a bow and goes forth conquering and completing his conquest. This rider is none other than Jesus Christ as the newly crowned king. But he is also riding with 3 seemingly evil riders. A red horse and the rider has a sword and “takes peace away from the earth so they should slaughter one another.” A black horse and the rider has a pair of scales and a voice is heard begging for food. And a pale horse whose name is Death and Hades. Verse 8 of chapter 6 explains what each of the three seemingly 3 evil riders represent: “And authority was given them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with a long sword and with food shortage and with deadly plague and by the wild beasts of the earth.” Now how can we know for sure that the rider on the white horse is Jesus. Besides being arrayed in white which represents righteousness, on a white horse with a crown, Revelation 19:11-16 identifies the rider on the white horse as Jesus. Now why would Jesus in his role as king ride with 3 seemingly evil riders? It’s because when Jesus became king in heaven he kicked Satan and his demons out and to the earth. Satan in his fury would bring WOE or trouble upon the people of the earth. And evidence of this is a war that occurred that had never happened prior to that. World War 1 in 1914 here about 90 percent of the earth’s nations were involved and over 20 million people died and since then the 20th century was plagued by war. Some researchers estimate that more than 100 million people have died as a result of war since 1914 - this is the rider on the red horse. Food shortages. The World Heath Organization estimates that malnutrition is involved in the deaths of 5 million children each year despite the fact that food production has increased - this is the rider on the black horse. Deadly plague or pestilence. Despite medical advances, old and new diseases plague us with no cure in sight for many and the thing that has been in the news of late is the fact that diseases that once had cures are starting to become more powerful and resistant to drugs that once cured them - this is the pale horse.

I just hit the preview button and this is way too long but there is still more Biblical evidence that points to the year 1914 as being when Jesus became king in heaven and when the last day or conclusion of the system of things started. The Last Days is something I really want to talk about and show how Jesus becoming king in heaven is the start of the last days and explain how the last days we’re living in today parallels with the Last Days of the Jewish system of things that came to an end in 70 C.E. So again the prophecy of 2520 years being applied to the date of 607 B.C.E. and arriving at 1914 shows when the king in the line of David would be given the Davidic thrown; Satan being kicked out of heaven and thrown to the earth and an angel announcing that God’s kingdom has come into power with Jesus as the king; Satan in his fury causing woe to the people of the earth and war, famine and pestilence are some of the results of this fury. And this being symbolized with the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse war, famine and pestilence who ride with Jesus when he became king, is still not all of the Biblical evidence. I will finish the rest Saturday afternoon.

5

Stated,

“… Revelation 6 shows that the first rider is on a white horse, arrayed in white, with a crown, has a bow and goes forth conquering and completing his conquest. This rider is none other than Jesus Christ as the newly crowned king…”

The Bible does not say who was riding on the white horse. Commentators have suggested a variety of possibilities. Chief among them are:

  1. Christ himself. Christ, however, is at this point the Lamb breaking the seals. In Revelation 19:11-13 Christ is indeed pictured on a white horse, but all the details are different. The color of the horse is the only thing they have in common.

The phrase “there was given” is used rather often in the book of Revelation. It is used to indicate God’s permission for evil powers to carry out their nefarious work (Rev. 9:1,3,5, with regard to the beast, the Antichrist; and Rev. 13:5,7, with regard to his false prophet). The last three horsemen are definitely evil, and it seems a bit unlikely that Christ would be presented as one of the four horsemen in such a company.

  1. The “prince that shall come” (Dan. 9:26), that is, the Antichrist, the counterfeit Christ. In the term antichrist the anti in the Greek really means “instead of” or “in place of.” Thus, the beast will not call himself the Antichrist. He will either claim to be the real Christ; or else he will say that Buddah, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and others were all forerunners; and he is the final fulfillment of all that has gone before. He will also be the one who personifies the anti-Christian political and religious ideologies which will characterize the great end-time apostasy. Thus, it is possible that this rider is the antichrist, and some have seen the bow without arrows as a symbol of temporary victory. This would also fit with the fact that no one will be able to make war successfully with the beast (Rev. 13:4). He will even make war with the saints and overcome them (Rev. 13:7).

Something to think about.

6

As I stated in my last post Jesus becoming king in heaven is the start of the last days or the conclusion of the system of things. The three horsemen of the apocalypse that Jesus symbolically rides with at the start of his kingship are 3 of the signs that Jesus told his disciple would be signs of his “presence” and the “conclusion of the system of things.” Before I get into that I have to explain why some Bibles use the word presence when most use the word “coming.” I hate to do this but the Greek word used for “coming” is “parousia” which literally means being alongside.
Many translations vary their renderings of this word. While translating parousia as “presence” in some texts, they more frequently render it as “coming.” This has been the basis for the expression “second coming” or "second advent (adventus [“advent” or "coming] being the Latin Vulgate translation of parousia at Mt 24:3) with regard to Christ Jesus. While Jesusâ?? presence of necessity implies his arrival at the place where he is present, the translation of parousia by “coming” places all the emphasis on the arrival and obscures the subsequent presence that follows the arrival. Though allowing for both â??arrivalâ?? and â??presenceâ?? as translations of parousia, lexicographers generally acknowledge that the presence of the person is the principal idea conveyed by the word.

Vineâ??s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 1, pp. 208, 209) states: “PAROUSIA . . . denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. For instance, in a papyrus letter [written in Greek] a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. . . . When used of the return of Christ, at the Rapture of the Church, it signifies, not merely His momentary coming for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world.” Liddell and Scottâ??s Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that parousia is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the “visit of a royal or official personage.”

Jesus’ arrival and presence is more accurate than just coming. Many people think that Jesus’ coming or return will be when armageddon actually starts but this is not the case. When Jesus arrives on the vacant thrown of David this is when his presence or parousia starts and Jesus told his disciples at Matthew 24:3-7 that there would be signs to identify his presence and the conclusion of the system of things. So signs would be needed for his disciples to discern when this presence started and once these signs were identifiable then this would mark the conclusion of the system of things. The signs would occur over a period of time and that is one reason why Jesus’ presence extends over a period of time. Let me just put together the scriptures that I’ve already stated to show why this would be a period of time.

When Jesus is made King in heaven his first act was to kick Satan out of heaven. Once he does that Revelation 12:10 states that a voice from heaven is heard officially announcing that God’s kingdom has come to pass and the authority or kingship of Jesus starts because Satan is kicked out of heaven. Once this happens Jesus on a white horse with a crown symbolically rides with a rider of war, a rider of famine and a rider of pestilence which all affect the earth in a bad way. Why is that? It’s because Satan has been cast down to earth and in his fury he is causing WOE to the people of earth. So Jesus kingship is marked by bad things happening on earth due to Satan and this would happen over a period of time.

Further proof that Jesus presence would be a period of time is because what he says at Matthew
So when Jesus’ disciples ask him the signs of his coming or presence Jesus gives them signs to look for such as war, earthquakes, pestilence and food shortages which again show that his presence or coming is going to be a period of years where these signs take place. At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus compares his presence or coming with the days and years leading up to the flood event. It took Noah about 50 years to build the ark so Jesus is saying that his presence

7

Just so everyone knows this prophecy as stated above by the Jehovah’s Witnesses was made after 1914. The original Jehovah’s Witness Prophecy by the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness was that Christ would return in 1914 and the battle of Armogedden would happen in 1914. When this did not happen, and after the death of the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the new leaders changed the prophecy to mean that Jesus would reign in Heaven in 1914.

The definition of prophecy from God means that it has to be 100% correct. If one item is incorrect then the prophet is not from God. We see in Deut 18:22

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This is nothing more than a warning to all that follow a false prophet.

8

As I stated in my last post Jesus becoming king in heaven is the start of the last days or the conclusion of the system of things. The three horsemen of the apocalypse that Jesus symbolically rides with at the start of his kingship are 3 of the signs that Jesus told his disciple would be signs of his “presence” and the “conclusion of the system of things.” Before I get into that I have to explain why some Bibles use the word presence when most use the word “coming.” I hate to do this but the Greek word used for “coming” is “parousia” which literally means being alongside.
Many translations vary their renderings of this word. While translating parousia as “presence” in some texts, they more frequently render it as “coming.” This has been the basis for the expression “second coming” or "second advent (adventus [“advent” or "coming] being the Latin Vulgate translation of parousia at Mt 24:3) with regard to Christ Jesus. While Jesusâ?? presence of necessity implies his arrival at the place where he is present, the translation of parousia by “coming” places all the emphasis on the arrival and obscures the subsequent presence that follows the arrival. Though allowing for both “arrival” and “presence” as translations of parousia, lexicographers generally acknowledge that the presence of the person is the principal idea conveyed by the word.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 1, pp. 208, 209) states: “PAROUSIA . . . denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. For instance, in a papyrus letter [written in Greek] a lady speaks of the necessity of her parousia in a place in order to attend to matters relating to her property there. . . . When used of the return of Christ, at the Rapture of the Church, it signifies, not merely His momentary coming for His saints, but His presence with them from that moment until His revelation and manifestation to the world.” Liddell and Scottâ??s Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that parousia is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the “visit of a royal or official personage.”

Jesus’ arrival and presence is more accurate than just coming. Many people think that Jesus’ coming or return will be when armageddon actually starts but this is not the case. When Jesus arrives on the vacant thrown of David this is when his presence or parousia starts and Jesus told his disciples at Matthew 24:3-7 that there would be signs to identify his presence and the conclusion of the system of things. So signs would be needed for his disciples to discern when this presence started and once these signs were identifiable then this would mark the conclusion of the system of things. The signs would occur over a period of time and that is one reason why Jesus’ presence extends over a period of time. Let me just put together the scriptures that I’ve already stated to show why this would be a period of time.

When Jesus is made King in heaven his first act was to kick Satan out of heaven. Once he does that Revelation 12:10 states that a voice from heaven is heard officially announcing that God’s kingdom has come to pass and the authority or kingship of Jesus starts because Satan is kicked out of heaven. Once this happens Jesus on a white horse with a crown symbolically rides with a rider of war, a rider of famine and a rider of pestilence which all affect the earth in a bad way. Why is that? It’s because Satan has been cast down to earth and in his fury he is causing WOE to the people of earth. So Jesus kingship is marked by bad things happening on earth due to Satan and this would happen over a period of time.

Further proof that Jesus presence would be a period of time is because what he says at Matthew 24:37-39. Here he compares the days during his presence with the days leading up to the flood - not the flood event itself. If his presence or coming was the actual armegeddon event then Jesus would have compared his presence or coming to the actual flood event instead of the days leading up to the flood event. It took Noah and his family about 50 years to build the ark and gather the animals so Jesus’ presence is compared to these years before the flood event. And Jesus says during his presence people would take no note of the signs until it was too late.

The last piece of Biblical proof is at Matthew 25:31 where it states that Jesus arrives and sits down on his thrown and he will turn his attention to the nations and do a separating work where he separates the sheep from the goats. This work is going to happen over time and being able to discern the signs that were in the last days is key to being either a sheep or a goat.

So understanding that Jesus’ parousia or presence is an invisible presence started when he became king in heaven and that it is going to be extended over a period of years and signs would be needed to identify this period of time that would mark the last days or the conclusion of the system of things is essential to surviving Armageddon. This began in 1914.

BackInAction the last days or the conclusion of the system of things is the part that I think you’ll be most interested in. Most of the information I mentioned up to this point might not mean much to you since your an agnostic and you are unsure about the Bible. There was one conclusion of the system of things or last days that Jesus pointed to and gave signs to his disciples to identify when they were in it and what is disciples needed to do to survive the coming destruction. History shows that this happened in 70 C.E. when the Jewish system of things was destroyed by the Romans under General Titus.

The signs Jesus told his disciples to look for were signs that applied during the Jews time and much later during the time of Jesus; presence in 1914 but they both would point to a conclusion of a system of things. At Matthew 24:2 Jesus said: 2 In response he said to them: â??Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.â?? 3 While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: â??Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?â??

In verse two when Jesus states that a stone would not be left upon a stone he is referring to the destruction of the Jewish temple. His disciples then approach him and ask him about two events and the conclusion of the system of things of both events. They ask him when would temple would be destroyed and the sign of his presence and when would the system of things would conclude. The signs he goes onto mention occurred in the time of Jesus’ disciples and they are occurring today. At Matthew 24:7-14 says that nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom, earthquakes and food shortages. Luke 21:10 also mentions pestilence. All of these things happened on a small scale between the time of 33 C.E and 70 C.E. Due to space constraints I can’t mention all of the examples of when these signs took place when the Jews were under Roman occupation between 33 C.E. and 70 C.E. But there is one significant sign Jesus told his disciples to look for to know that the desolation of Jerusalem was near. Luke 21:20-22 states: Furthermore, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled

So Jesus is saying once his disciples see Jerusalem surrounded by armies her desolation is near and they should immediately flee to the mountains. This was the last sign Jesus’ disciples were to look for.

Earlier at Luke 19:43 Jesus says something something similar:
4"1 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned in this day the things having to do with peace - but now they have been hid from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, 44 and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.”
The difference between these two passages is that in the first one the disciples were to run to the mountains when they saw Jerusalem surrounded but in the second passage Jesus says they will not be able to escape because there will be a fortification of pointed stakes. How did this happen? History shows that in 66 C.E. General Cestus Gallius was sent to Jerusalem to squash a Jewish revolt. He and his troops surrounded Jerusalem but for some unknown reason he had his troops withdraw. At that moment the Christians who remembered the sign Jesus gave about Jerusalem being surrounded 33 years earlier were to run to a nearby city in the mountains. History shows that this is what happened. The Christians left Jerusalem and fled to a city in the mountains. On the other hand, the Jews did not discern the time of being inspected. They actually persued the Roman army as they fled. Four years later in 70 C.E. under General Titus he had the Roman army surround Jerusalem and this time he had his soldiers cut down trees and build a wooden fortification so this time no Jew could escape. The Romans destroyed the city and not only destroyed the temple but they burned it and there was not a stone standing upon a stone. Over one million Jews died and thousand were taken into slavery.

The point in explaining this is to show that secular history can confirm that the destruction of the Jewish system of things occurred exactly how Jesus said it would and if his disciples paid attention to the signs that Jesus said to look for they would have been able to discern that they were living in last days of the Jewish system of things. When they saw Jerusalem surrounded they were to know that the destruction was near and the faithful Christians at that time were able to survive by fleeing Jeruselum. The Jewish last days began with the death of Jesus and ended in 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed. So the last days or conclusion of the Jewish system of things lasted for 67 years. We are currently living in the last days of this system of things and the signs Jesus said to look for at Matthew 24 - war, famine, pestilence, earthquakes are occurring on a worldwide scale. Bible prophecy shows that we have been living in the last days of this system of things for 96 years so we feel that we are living at the end of the last days and Armageddon is just around the corner. There is another sign that Jesus said would occur. It’s at Matthew 24:14 which states: “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations then the end will come.”

This prophecy is currently being fulfilled because we are preaching about the same united kingdom message throughout the whole earth and we are the only group who have identified when the last days started and when Jesus began ruling invisible in heaven as king.

Jesus told the non-believing Pharisee’s at Luke 17:20 that “the kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness.” He then turns to his disciples at verse 24 and says “For even as lighting by its flashing shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven so the son of man will be.”

All of what I’ve written in both post combined are what make the year 1914 so important and it’s so clear to us that it’s as obvious as lighting flashing in the sky.

9

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Great reply - and very concise explanation. I do recall though from my perusals of Watchtower that there was and still remained some serious debate within JW about this issue - along the lines of a nearly 50/50 split within the church. Was this ever resolved internally?[/quote]
Thanks man!! Since I’ve been alive (I was born in 77) I’ve haven’t heard of any issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses in other lands not agreeing on this doctrine. I looked back as far as 1949 and in our journal the Watchtower and the stance was to not accept blood transfusions because of what I explained in my two post. There were several letters I was able to find in 1949 and 1950 where readers wrote in stating that since God did not explicitly forbid blood transfusions in the Bible but forbid eating of blood why not get a blood transfusion to save ones life. The response was that since blood transfusions did not exist when the Bible was written God would not have explicitly forbade blood transfusions. But the principle still applies.

One could look at it this way. If a doctor told a patient to stop drinking alcohol because it is damaging that patient’s health would the patient be following the doctors advice if he decided to put alcohol into his blood intravenously? Of course not. The patient would continue to harm himself if he reasoned that way. That’s one crude analogy that explains the principle of not taking blood into the body in any way.

Jehovah’s Witness believe the same thing all of the world. If one were to go to a village in Congo Africa or a city in the Ukraine we would all believe the same Biblical doctrines. This is the being ONE that Jesus said he and his father was at John 10:30 and this is the ONE that he prayed for his disciple to be at John 17:20-24. That’s a ONENESS in the faith as mentioned at Ephesians 4:13 which states:
“13 until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; 14 in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ.”

At 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul explains what this means:
“10 Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

We have this oneness in faith, we all speak in agreement, there aren’t any divisions and we’re united in same mind and line of thought. Unlike other groups who are of the same religion but may or may not believe in the Trinity or the Hell fire teaching or whether homosexuality is ok or just not to name a few.

We don’t blindly believe what we are taught so that if one were to ask about blood transfusions or why we think Jesus became king in heaven in 1914 the only answer we could give them is “I don’t know but that’s what we’re taught so I believe it.” It’s the exact opposite. When we are taught something like the two examples I just gave it is thoroughly explained using the Bible and any Jehovah’s Witness could explain and show from the bible why we believe it and if they cannot they can do research so they can better explain it.

In my case with the 1914 explanation I firmly believe it not just because of what I wrote in the two LONG post(sorry) but I can clearly see the results of Jesus becoming king in heaven which results in the last days of this system. Revelation 12:7-12 says that after Satan is kicked out of heaven God’s kingdom with Jesus as it’s king is officially announced as coming into power due to Satan being kicked out of heaven and that Woe to the earth and people because Satan was thrown down to the earth with great anger knowing his time is short. I can look with my own eyes and see a defining event in history that never happened before 1914 and started in 1914. Never had there been a war where so many people died and an estimated 90 percent of the worlds nations were involved. And after that date the earth got progressively worst. We see another world war where even more devastating weapons were used and even more people died and look at where we are today. These clear visible signs along with what I explained in my two post strengthen my faith in the 1914 date. One the other hand if a defining event did not happen in 1914 meaning no world war and the years after 1914 were relatively peaceful then it would be harder for me to have faith in the fact that Satan got kicked out of heaven and the earth got worse as a result. I may then question the 1914 date.

Sorry I’m rambling. I bet Irish is like “I ask one question and I get a million words.”

My point is that since we do have this oneness of faith there isn’t a division about the blood transfusion issue. We preach one united kingdom message which is that God’s kingdom is the only hope for mankind that will bring about permanent changes on earth and that the Bible shows we are living in the last days and what the Bible says one must do to make it through the last days.

10

I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.

11

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Just so everyone knows this prophecy as stated above by the Jehovah’s Witnesses was made after 1914. The original Jehovah’s Witness Prophecy by the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness was that Christ would return in 1914 and the battle of Armogedden would happen in 1914. When this did not happen, and after the death of the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the new leaders changed the prophecy to mean that Jesus would reign in Heaven in 1914.

The definition of prophecy from God means that it has to be 100% correct. If one item is incorrect then the prophet is not from God. We see in Deut 18:22

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This is nothing more than a warning to all that follow a false prophet.[/quote]
No your wrong D Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations until the appointed times mentioned at Luke 21:24 being fulfilled in 1914 was discerned in the late 1800 so they knew that 1914 would be a year of significance. I said in my post that the Bible students did not fully understand what this exactly meant and yes they did have it wrong at first. But that does not mean that the fulfillment of Jesus’ statement about Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations until the appointed times did not occur in 1914. Nor does it mean that Jesus did not become king in heaven in 1914.

Nice try D but never did we claim to be prophets or have been given anything through divine intervention such as a prophetic dream. Some pastors actually say that God or Jesus told them or took them to heaven or told them something through a dream so their listeners will believe or do something. Never did we claim that. So the scripture you quoted at Dueturomeny does not apply to us. When that warning was written there were prophets and were going to be many prophets that God used and was going to use to give instruction to his people. When these prophets spoke it was as if God was speaking so if what they said did not come true then one was able to know that they were not true spokesmen of God. We knew back then as we know now that God’s way of communicating with us is through the Bible and prophetic dreams stopped after the apostles died in the first century. So again no D we were not able to discern the significance of 1914 in a prophetic way.

We were able to discern the significance of 1914 through a sincere and careful search of the Bible about several existing prophecies mentioned in the Bible as to when they would be fulfilled. Again we never claimed to have been given anything that is not in the Bible. That’s why in my post I quote scriptures only and not a theological explanation without scripture.

We were wrong as to exactly what happened in 1914 but that does not mean nothing happened in 1914. What I mean is that if we were looking to 1914 and absolutely nothing happened in that year then we would have known that we were completely wrong. But since a worldwide event that never happened before did happened in 1914 we realized that we had to take a closer look at the Bible to see exactly what took place in 1914. Once we did that we were able to discern what I explained in my two post.

The reason why we were wrong initially is due to what I explained in my second post. Most Bibles translate the Greek word parousia as “coming” but as I explained in my second post a more accurate rendering is “presence.” If you can get your hands on an Interliner word-for-word Greek to English translation of the Bible you will see that parousia is translated as “presence” and not “coming.” Since most people associate Jesus’ coming or return as to when Armageddon would start we mistakenly thought that Jesus parousia which most bibles at the time translated as coming was when Armageddon would happen. But once we realized that Jesus’ parousia means presence which means arriving and remaining, we realized that his parousia and his heavenly kingship would be invisible to human eyes that’s why Jesus gave us signs to look for at Matthew 24 so we would know when this would occur. I explained from the Bible in my second post as to why Jesus’ parousia or presence which means arriving and remaining is going to be a number of years or period of time.

Any easy way to know what parousia means is by going to dictionary.com.

and then go to

12

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]
Excellent, Excellent point and this is a distinguishing mark of a true disciple of Jesus. I have a lot to say about this. (It won’t be as long as my other post I promise)

13

Stated,

“…So understanding that Jesus’ parousia or presence is an invisible presence started when he became king in heaven and that it is going to be extended over a period of years and signs would be needed to identify this period of time that would mark the last days or the conclusion of the system of things is essential to surviving Armageddon. This began in 1914…”

Jesus warned aginst those who say Christ has already come or is already present, but true followers of Christ must not believe them (Mat. 24:23).

Jesus warned against false prophets because He foresaw that false teachers would take advantage of the curiosity, intrest, and fears of the people to lead them astray. but Jesus indicated that those who are truly the elect, chosen, faithful, will not be deceived (Mat. 24:24).

Jesus reemphasized His warning (Mat. 24:26) by saying that if anyone says Jesus is already here, Christians must not believe them. The Bible teaches that believers shall literally be snatched up when Jesus comes back for His church (I Thes. 4:17). His followers will be changed “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” (I Cor. 15:52).

Down through the centuries of Church history many have claimed Christ has returned or have set dates for His return.

The coming of Jesus will not suit any of the predictions of false teachers and date-setters because it will be sudden and will bring the gathering of all who are in Christ (I Thes. 4:16-17). No one will have to tell the true believer that Christ has come.

Jesus illustrates the suddenness of His coming first by comparing it to lightning that flashes across the sky from east to west with tremendous speed. So quick will be His return (Mat. 24:27).

Jesus clearly states what He has implied all through this chapter. The disciples wanted to know the time of his coming. The father has not chosen to reveal the time even to the angels (Mat. 24:36).

Clearly, neither believers nor unbelievers will have any advance warning of the day and hour of Christ’s coming to snatch away (rapture) the Church (Mat. 24:42).

The only way to be prepared for the coming of jesus is to maintain a state of readiness at all times. Thus, though the day or the hour cannot be known, His coming is certain (Mat. 24:44), for God is always faithful to His promises (Mat. 24:13). There will be no excuse for those who are caught unprepared.

14

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]

The good news is that the wars in which you referred to, were not religious wars. They aren’t warring as Christians. I think you would have to look at each war on it’s own merits and see what is going on. As a general rule, Christians are called upon to not do harm to Christians or anybody else. At the same time, you do have to defend your home, and your country from people who seek to destroy it. That being said, war should always be a last resort, but you cannot serve people if you let them get dominated and walked all over.
War sucks every time. But I stand by my stance that he best way deal with war, is to end it as quickly as possible which means you hold nothing in reserve. If you feel you needed to go to war, do it well and win as fast as possible. It’s the best scenario for all sides involved. The only thing that should drag out is a formidable enemy not your own politics.

15

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]

The good news is that the wars in which you referred to, were not religious wars. They aren’t warring as Christians. I think you would have to look at each war on it’s own merits and see what is going on. As a general rule, Christians are called upon to not do harm to Christians or anybody else. At the same time, you do have to defend your home, and your country from people who seek to destroy it. That being said, war should always be a last resort, but you cannot serve people if you let them get dominated and walked all over.
War sucks every time. But I stand by my stance that he best way deal with war, is to end it as quickly as possible which means you hold nothing in reserve. If you feel you needed to go to war, do it well and win as fast as possible. It’s the best scenario for all sides involved. The only thing that should drag out is a formidable enemy not your own politics.[/quote]

So are you saying that “the state” is higher in rank than God, so Christians should ignore “thou shalt not kill” even though there are fellow brethren on the other side of the rifle sight?

16

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]
Excellent, Excellent point and this is a distinguishing mark of a true disciple of Jesus. I have a lot to say about this. (It won’t be as long as my other post I promise)[/quote]
"I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves."

Jesus said those words to his disciples at John 13:35 and says this new command of having love among yourselves would be an identifying mark of his disciples.

I knew a religious man who fought in the Vietnam war and while he was in Vietnam he saw a Nazi belt with a big Nazi swastika on the buckle. Inscribed on the buckle were the words “God is on our side” in German.
He said when he saw this he thought to himself “how could God possible be on the side of the Nazi’s?” He said after thinking about it for a couple of seconds he quickly realized that the Nazi’s truly believed that God was on their side because the Catholic clergy class in Germany backed and supported the Nazi regime. He said shortly after seeing this belt buckle he began to wonder who’s side was God really on? He was a Catholic and as Catholic and being a U.S. citizen he was told that God was always on the United States side. But since they were both Catholics he wondered could God be on both sides? He said this began to really bother him because since they were both Christian nations who’s side was God really on? Because of this he began to question his faith and lost interest in religion because he naturally reasoned that God could not be on both sides of a war where both sides of the same religion were killing each other.

This wasn’t the first time I heard an experience like this. All religions and nations pray to God and ask God to help them win a war. And all believe that God is on their side. But does God really give his spirit to all of the nations? Obviously not. Does God support even one of the nations during war? Can a religious group be considered to have love among themselves if they are willing to go to war and kill someone of the same faith or any other person?

Jesus said at John 15:1 IF you keep my commandments you will remain in my love. IF being the main word. So according to this verse Jesus’ love in not unconditional there are conditions you have to meet to remain in Jesus’ love. The verse makes it clear that keeping Jesus’ commandments is necessary to remain in Jesus’ love. If you do not have Jesus’ love then you cannot be one of his disciples. Jesus is talking to his disciples who are followers and have already put their faith in him. He is telling them what they need to do to continue to be his disciples. So the command of having love among yourselves to be identified as Jesus’ disciple must be followed in order to remain in Jesus’ love. It is impossible to have love among yourselves if you are willing to kill people of the same faith. No matter how one spins it and tries to justify going to war if a religious group is willing to kill someone of the same faith that shows that they do not have love among themselves and the group will not remain in God’s love.

Furthermore, Romans 13:8-10 states:
“8 Do not you people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another; for he that loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 For the law code, “You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.”

This is another command which is to love your neighbor as yourself. Again, if you are willing kill someone in a political conflict it’s impossible to love your neighbor as yourself.

The only way to be certain to follow both of those commands of having love among yourselves and loving your neighbor as yourself is by not joining the military for any reason. No religious group is willing to do that. They support war and during times of war they bless the troops and pray for God to be on their side. As a matter of fact most religions install chaplains in the military to pray for and support the troops. Can they really have love among themselves or love their neighbor as themselves?

At Matthew 25:31 it states that when Jesus arrives on his thrown he is going to turn his attention to the nations and do a separating work and put the sheep on his right and goats on this left. Jehovah’s Witnesses want to be considered sheep so to be sure that we would never have a chance to kill another Jehovah’s Witness in another country or anyone for that matter we do not join the military, put any ministers in any of the armed forces or support a war effort in any country. We want that identifying mark of love amongst ourselves and considered Jesus’ true disciples. We would rather go to jail then support or join the military. Because of this we feel that we are fully following Jesus’ commandment to have love amongst ourselves and have that identifying mark of Jesus’ true disciples.

17

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Just so everyone knows this prophecy as stated above by the Jehovah’s Witnesses was made after 1914. The original Jehovah’s Witness Prophecy by the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness was that Christ would return in 1914 and the battle of Armogedden would happen in 1914. When this did not happen, and after the death of the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the new leaders changed the prophecy to mean that Jesus would reign in Heaven in 1914.

The definition of prophecy from God means that it has to be 100% correct. If one item is incorrect then the prophet is not from God. We see in Deut 18:22

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This is nothing more than a warning to all that follow a false prophet.[/quote]
No your wrong D Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations until the appointed times mentioned at Luke 21:24 being fulfilled in 1914 was discerned in the late 1800 so they knew that 1914 would be a year of significance. I said in my post that the Bible students did not fully understand what this exactly meant and yes they did have it wrong at first. But that does not mean that the fulfillment of Jesus’ statement about Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations until the appointed times did not occur in 1914. Nor does it mean that Jesus did not become king in heaven in 1914.

Nice try D but never did we claim to be prophets or have been given anything through divine intervention such as a prophetic dream. Some pastors actually say that God or Jesus told them or took them to heaven or told them something through a dream so their listeners will believe or do something. Never did we claim that. So the scripture you quoted at Dueturomeny does not apply to us. When that warning was written there were prophets and were going to be many prophets that God used and was going to use to give instruction to his people. When these prophets spoke it was as if God was speaking so if what they said did not come true then one was able to know that they were not true spokesmen of God. We knew back then as we know now that God’s way of communicating with us is through the Bible and prophetic dreams stopped after the apostles died in the first century. So again no D we were not able to discern the significance of 1914 in a prophetic way.

We were able to discern the significance of 1914 through a sincere and careful search of the Bible about several existing prophecies mentioned in the Bible as to when they would be fulfilled. Again we never claimed to have been given anything that is not in the Bible. That’s why in my post I quote scriptures only and not a theological explanation without scripture.

We were wrong as to exactly what happened in 1914 but that does not mean nothing happened in 1914. What I mean is that if we were looking to 1914 and absolutely nothing happened in that year then we would have known that we were completely wrong. But since a worldwide event that never happened before did happened in 1914 we realized that we had to take a closer look at the Bible to see exactly what took place in 1914. Once we did that we were able to discern what I explained in my two post.

The reason why we were wrong initially is due to what I explained in my second post. Most Bibles translate the Greek word parousia as “coming” but as I explained in my second post a more accurate rendering is “presence.” If you can get your hands on an Interliner word-for-word Greek to English translation of the Bible you will see that parousia is translated as “presence” and not “coming.” Since most people associate Jesus’ coming or return as to when Armageddon would start we mistakenly thought that Jesus parousia which most bibles at the time translated as coming was when Armageddon would happen. But once we realized that Jesus’ parousia means presence which means arriving and remaining, we realized that his parousia and his heavenly kingship would be invisible to human eyes that’s why Jesus gave us signs to look for at Matthew 24 so we would know when this would occur. I explained from the Bible in my second post as to why Jesus’ parousia or presence which means arriving and remaining is going to be a number of years or period of time.

Any easy way to know what parousia means is by going to dictionary.com.

and then go to

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presence[/quote]

I am not here to argue with you, but I will reiterate the false prophecy predicted by Charles Taze Russell.

In 1876, pastor Russell wrote an interesting article based upon one of the fundamental beliefs Society for the imminent coming of a terrestrial theocratic KINGDOM OF JEHOVAH. This article entitled; ‘Gentile Times: When do they End?’, appeared in the October 1876 issue of Bible Examiner. On page 27 of that issue, referring to the Gospel of Luke 21: 24, the founding president predicted that the “Seven Times will end in A.D. 1914”. However, the expected KINGDOM OF JEHOVAH did not come. None of the events concerning Jerusalem, mentioned in Luke 21: 24 (see the biblical text below) happen in the year 1914. The Society then concluded that the predicted year was to be a turning point in human history and not the end of the “Seven Times” (see details below). Two years later, pastor Russell died.

This is not the only time that the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophesied the second coming of Christ. There are many instinces where you all believed that the second coming would happen in a given year and were Wrong. Below is taken directly from your Watchtower.

IDENTIFYING THE “PROPHET” – “So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?..This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses…Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a ‘prophet’ of God. It is another thing to prove it,” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). (See Deut. 18:21.)

1897 “Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874,” (Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 621).

1899 “…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced,” (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).

1916 “The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ’s Reign, began in 1873,” (The Time Is at Hand, forward, p. ii).

1918 “Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection,” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89).

1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914,” (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).

1923 “Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge,” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).

1925 “The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year,” (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p. 3).

1925 “It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work,” (Watchtower, Sept., 1925, p. 262).

1926 “Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything,” (Watchtower, p. 232).

1931 “There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah’s faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time…and they also learned to quit fixing dates,” (Vindication, p. 338).

1941 “Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord’s provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon,” (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288).

1968 “True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world’, even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The ‘end’ did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God’s truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them,” (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968).

1968 “Why are you looking forward to 1975?” (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494).

I took the above from the link.

M&M the truth really hurts doesn’t it? You might say that you all are still learning. I say how can you believe what you have been taught is correct if all of these false prophecies have come from your leaders. Turn to the truth that has been the same for 2000 years.

18

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Great reply - and very concise explanation. I do recall though from my perusals of Watchtower that there was and still remained some serious debate within JW about this issue - along the lines of a nearly 50/50 split within the church. Was this ever resolved internally?[/quote]
Thanks man!! Since I’ve been alive (I was born in 77) I’ve haven’t heard of any issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses in other lands not agreeing on this doctrine. I looked back as far as 1949 and in our journal the Watchtower and the stance was to not accept blood transfusions because of what I explained in my two post. There were several letters I was able to find in 1949 and 1950 where readers wrote in stating that since God did not explicitly forbid blood transfusions in the Bible but forbid eating of blood why not get a blood transfusion to save ones life. The response was that since blood transfusions did not exist when the Bible was written God would not have explicitly forbade blood transfusions. But the principle still applies.

One could look at it this way. If a doctor told a patient to stop drinking alcohol because it is damaging that patient’s health would the patient be following the doctors advice if he decided to put alcohol into his blood intravenously? Of course not. The patient would continue to harm himself if he reasoned that way. That’s one crude analogy that explains the principle of not taking blood into the body in any way.

Jehovah’s Witness believe the same thing all of the world. If one were to go to a village in Congo Africa or a city in the Ukraine we would all believe the same Biblical doctrines. This is the being ONE that Jesus said he and his father was at John 10:30 and this is the ONE that he prayed for his disciple to be at John 17:20-24. That’s a ONENESS in the faith as mentioned at Ephesians 4:13 which states:
“13 until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; 14 in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ.”

At 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul explains what this means:
“10 Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

We have this oneness in faith, we all speak in agreement, there aren’t any divisions and we’re united in same mind and line of thought. Unlike other groups who are of the same religion but may or may not believe in the Trinity or the Hell fire teaching or whether homosexuality is ok or just not to name a few.

We don’t blindly believe what we are taught so that if one were to ask about blood transfusions or why we think Jesus became king in heaven in 1914 the only answer we could give them is “I don’t know but that’s what we’re taught so I believe it.” It’s the exact opposite. When we are taught something like the two examples I just gave it is thoroughly explained using the Bible and any Jehovah’s Witness could explain and show from the bible why we believe it and if they cannot they can do research so they can better explain it.

In my case with the 1914 explanation I firmly believe it not just because of what I wrote in the two LONG post(sorry) but I can clearly see the results of Jesus becoming king in heaven which results in the last days of this system. Revelation 12:7-12 says that after Satan is kicked out of heaven God’s kingdom with Jesus as it’s king is officially announced as coming into power due to Satan being kicked out of heaven and that Woe to the earth and people because Satan was thrown down to the earth with great anger knowing his time is short. I can look with my own eyes and see a defining event in history that never happened before 1914 and started in 1914. Never had there been a war where so many people died and an estimated 90 percent of the worlds nations were involved. And after that date the earth got progressively worst. We see another world war where even more devastating weapons were used and even more people died and look at where we are today. These clear visible signs along with what I explained in my two post strengthen my faith in the 1914 date. One the other hand if a defining event did not happen in 1914 meaning no world war and the years after 1914 were relatively peaceful then it would be harder for me to have faith in the fact that Satan got kicked out of heaven and the earth got worse as a result. I may then question the 1914 date.

Sorry I’m rambling. I bet Irish is like “I ask one question and I get a million words.”

My point is that since we do have this oneness of faith there isn’t a division about the blood transfusion issue. We preach one united kingdom message which is that God’s kingdom is the only hope for mankind that will bring about permanent changes on earth and that the Bible shows we are living in the last days and what the Bible says one must do to make it through the last days.[/quote]

LOL - thanks mse2us - I am glad to see that you have a clear explanation of the beliefs of the JW’s and I fault no one for defending their faith. Well done.

Obviously, I hold different beliefs than you, and that is to be expected.

Follow on question (and it may have been asked/answered) - how about storing up your own blood for emergencies or using a family member’s blood for the transfusion - as your blood (body) is a product of their’s? - ok so that was two questions - sorry . . .

19

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]

Excellent question and easily answered in three ways:

First - many Christians are pacifists and found ways of serving as medical personnel or aid workers - thus they fulfil their biblical mandates.

Second - A Christian can fight for an evil leader - there is no prohibition on free will and we can all make mistkes.

Third - not everyone who calls themself a Christian is necessarily a Christian - difference in professing and believing . . .

20

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]wimpuskhan wrote:
I have a question for anyone willing to answer. Why is it that many of those who identify themselves as Christians are willing to fight for their country against others who also identify themselves as Christians? For example there were Catholics and other denominations on both warring sides in world war 1 and 2. It was my thought that the followers of Jesus Christ would choose to remain peaceful, especially towards one another.[/quote]

Excellent question and easily answered in three ways:

First - many Christians are pacifists and found ways of serving as medical personnel or aid workers - thus they fulfil their biblical mandates.

Second - A Christian can fight for an evil leader - there is no prohibition on free will and we can all make mistkes.

Third - not everyone who calls themself a Christian is necessarily a Christian - difference in professing and believing . . .[/quote]

If I may, could I add that most Germans were forced to serve near the end of WWII. You have to see that Jesus says to give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and give unto God what is God’s. Most would say that this means taxes, but could it also mean militarily. Paul made tents for the Roman Military, so would he be non-Christian for giving aid to the Military? This is just my $0.02.

Personally I do not see a problem with being Nationalistic per say. The entire nation of Israel has to serve in the military. In the OT all men had to go through training, and take up arms at a moments notice to defend their country. Whether you are serving an evil man or not we must trust that God’s will is being done. God put these leaders into power for a reason. We may not know what the reason was, but it was for a reason.