The "Overlapping Generation" Revisited.

[ARchiv@L]

On 20/6/2017 at 1:42 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

JW Broadcasting and Brother Splane's discussion

not so difficult to find .... now that the "SEARCH" button is available ....

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You are FAMOUS for ad hominum attacks, open, thinly disguised, and heavily disguised

Mr. Tact and Kindness is telling me about attacks?

TTH:

" ... Mr. Tact and Kindness is telling me about attacks? "  from your above quote ....

There is a difference between justified attacks and ad hominum attacks. 

The first is to force TRUTH from obfuscation.

It always makes things clearer ... and if successful, the result is TRUTH.

The second is to hide faulty reason and logic, and obfuscate truth with a diversionary tactic because you are losing the debate, and does not discuss ISSUES ... but the bathing habits and "speech impediments", ( or in this case, the typing impediments ...),  etc., of the debate opponent.

A justified attack HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TACT AND KINDNESS .... nothing at all.

The Japanese Empire, in the 1940's, learned that the HARD way.

 

[JW Insider]

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Now (with respect) don't you overstep either. This refers to " the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".

There's absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in these times and seasons, as long as we try to avoid (with difficulty on occasion) the snare of second guessing Jehovahs timetable.

What else could it be? I think it's almost 100% about trying to second-guess Jehovah's timetable. Closely related to this is the element of pride and hubris in wanting to claim we KNOW something about what Jehovah says is only in his authority to know.

Historically, if one looks carefully at the wording used by the most famous (and/or infamous) end-times Bible chronology promoters of the 19th century (including Miller, Barbour, Russell), then it's easy to see that, to them, this was mostly about who really qualified to be the "faithful and wise servant" (or "faithful and discreet slave"). Even the practice of Miller, but especially Barbour and Russell, to plagiarize the work of others before them without giving credit is a part of this goal to gain a following of persons who would recognize them personally as the ones who were faithful and wise, not "foolish virgins."

The typical style of mock humility among such "scholarly gentlemen" of the 19th century couldn't allow for them to just claim outright that they were "that faithful and wise servant" so they had to let others claim it for them, while they accepted the title. In the meantime, they would call their opinions about chronology as "food at the proper time" and claim that those who stopped accepting their chronology were the "foolish virgins." Finally, of course, after dropping enough hints, people would address them as "the faithful and wise servant" or often just "that servant."

[JW Insider]

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

And we can also be very interested in those "times and seasons that the Father has not placed in, or has released from, "his own jurisdiction". (There is ample evidence of this in the Hebrew Scriptures).

We know the reason why some portion of the "times and seasons" in the Hebrew Scriptures were "released" from "his own jurisdiction." You mentioned it when you quoted 1 Peter 1:10-11. It pointed to the time when Jesus would appear, suffer, be glorified, and therefore the time of salvation.

would be available through the suffering of Christ, and the glory that would follow.

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Also by Peter at 1Pet.1:10-11: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search.  They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.."

Therefore, Christians KNEW that they were currently in the day of salvation:

(Romans 13:11-13) 11 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime,. . .

(2 Corinthians 6:1, 2) 6 Working together with him, we also urge you not to accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose. 2 For he says: “In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you.” Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation.

(Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.

From this point on (after Jesus had been given ALL authority in heaven and on earth - Matt 28:18), they trusted that Jehovah had the future times and seasons in his own jurisdiction, and only needed to know that they should keep always on the watch precisely because they could not know the times and seasons. That's why keeping on the watch was always about conduct and faith and never about trying to look into chronology.

As you are probably aware, the problem isn't just with the need to create a two-lifespan generation, but everything about the 1914 theory is problematic from a Scriptural point of view:

• All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13)
• Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand and already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25)
• Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5)
• Jesus said that the parousia would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was not visible. (Matt 24:23-26)
• Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42)
• Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, any translation except NWT in this case)
• The synteleia (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20)
• Jesus was already called King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14)
• Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18)
• The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27)
• The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26)
• The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3)
• The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14)
• The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

I'll move this point to a new thread, because it appears that it could easily create off-topic discussions.

 

[Evacuated]

You know something @JWInsider? Your arguments here  have great similarity to the views of one of my return visits, who is actually a clergyman. He is a born-again, evangelical Baptist and is able to reference these views to quite a variety of other "scholars" of a similar persuasion.

I thank you for verifying the accuracy of my cited scriptures at least.

There isn't much more to say really, other than to echo the rather sad refrain of the two Rogers, a British songwriting duo from the 60's : (slight euphemism here): "You've got your faith, I've got mine".

I'm outa here! 

[PeterR]

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You know something @JWInsider? Your arguments here  have great similarity to the views of one of my return visits,

Perhaps someone is trying to tell you something Eoin.

Someone has shown you how all the scriptures fit together harmoniously. You appear to reject it only because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions, and because you don't like the source.

It's worth noting that those who accept a clear reading of these scriptures believe just like you do that Jesus has received his Kingship and authority, and are awaiting his return to fully exercise that authority. The only thing we differ on as far as that's concerned is when he received the authority. But the Bible is pretty clear on that.

In the light of Matt 28:18 and related scriptures, what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?

We'll leave that as a rhetorical question since it sends this conversation off-topic.

 

 

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?

Rev.12:12

[PeterR]

15 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Rev.12:12

Sure. So Satan is cast down. Again our difference is probably only over timing, although your minimalist answer means I'm only making an educated guess.

I presume you believe that Satan was cast down AFTER WW1 started, and yet I'm guessing you use Rev 12:12 to support the idea that earthquakes, disease and war increased significantly as a result of his casting down after a particular date in the 20th century which falls after the Great War started..

Is that correct? If so how do you support your understanding of the timing?

 

 

[PeterR]

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

... who is actually a clergyman ...

BTW - do you realize that many references to scholars and commentators in JW publications are references to the work of clergymen?

[Evacuated]

4 minutes ago, PeterR said:

If so how do you support your understanding of the timing?

This the other topic bit. I just answered the question "what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?"

3 minutes ago, PeterR said:

BTW - do you realize that many references to scholars and commentators in JW publications are references to the work of clergymen?

Strange question that. But in case you are asking it genuinely, Yes.

And my clergyman acquaintance has shared a few of his insights on Scripture with me, as he has a respect for God's Word too. That's why we continue to have a constructive dialogue.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I don't know why people don't just GET IT!

JESUS MADE IT SO SIMPLE TO THE PEOPLE HE SPOKE TO!

yI yI yI yI yiyiyi !

[PeterR]

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This the other topic bit. I just answered the question "what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?"

Alright. So then if that's the totality of it your answer seems to be that he threw down Satan sometime around 1914. That would seem to square with the Appendix B1 of the revised NWT where this is the limit of the claim.

When the rNWT was released I was surprised that it made no mention of Jesus becoming king in 1914 when giving the timeline of "The Message of the Bible". I was long taught to believe that a 1914 enthronement was one of the most important events in history. But both you and the writing committee seem to be implying that a rethink may be called for in that department. And if so, I welcome it.

 

Quote

Strange question that. But in case you are asking it genuinely, Yes.

And my clergyman acquaintance has shared a few of his insights on Scripture with me, as he has a respect for God's Word too. That's why we continue to have a constructive dialogue.

Yes, it was a genuine question. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it really sounded to me like you were downplaying JWInsider's explanation because it was shared with a Baptist minister.

Now that I reread your post I admit that I was reading that into it, and you weren't explicitly saying that. So I apologize if I misunderstood.

Personally, if I see a clear pattern in scripture through personal study, and then I come across other Christians who have independently reached similar conclusions through personal study, I tend to take note. I believe most JWs would dismiss a source like your return visit on the basis that it's "us" with truth, and "them" who need to be taught.

So the point that I was making is that our literature calls on "them" for support when it seems to fit. If you've already appreciated that it's a potential two-way street with your return visit then good for you. Iron may indeed sharpen iron.

Then again "You've got your faith, I've got mine. I'm outa here!" didn't quite sound like you were ready for an interchange.