Saying "Peace and Security!" before sudden destruction. (1Th 5:3) What does it mean?

[TrueTomHarley]

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

when you post the article, don't get PURPORTS and PORPOISES mixed up.

The article will be different than you imagine. It will start - and maybe finish - its own thread.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The article will be different than you imagine. It will start - and maybe finish - its own thread.

Like one Porpoise said to another .. "I am waiting with baited breath!"

 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Perhaps, if certain people would stop trying to influence a topic with words such as “Parousia” to really understand history and its implications? There would be no need to explain, presumptuous, hypothetical’s, by others.

The topic is 1 Thess 5:3: ". . . Peace and Security . . ." and it didn't seem wrong to bring in the context of that same verse which obviously starts in the prior paragraph (according to the NWT) which starts in 4:13 and reaches right up to 5:1 which includes "... we the living who survive to the presence [Parousia] of the Lord."

In fact, the points I have been making are shared in the book "The Parousia in the New Testament" by A. L. Moore. Not to embarrass you, but this is the same book from which you clipped the image. (See below.) In that book, Moore speaks of the Parousia as synonymous with "the End" (page 111) and "the final Day of the Lord" on page 136. Note also, from the book, that the context of this portion of First Thessalonians is about:

• ". . . the status of living Christians at the moment of the Parousia. . . . speaking about the fact that neither group will have advantage over the other. . . . between those alive at the Parousia and those dead . . . . speaking of the time of the Parousia's arrival, he does go on to discuss this in 5;i-ii [1 Thess 5:1-11] and there he affirms explicitly that the Parousia will come suddenly and all must watch. . . . since the date of the End is unknown, all are enjoined to watchful, obedient discipleship.

So, curiously, you are saying that "if certain people would stop trying to influence a topic with . . . . [Biblical context] . . . . to really understand history and its implications? There would be no need to explain, presumptuous, hypothetical's, by others" Unfortunately, what you inadvertently admit here has become very true of some subjects. The Biblical context does indeed help us to really understand history and its implications. In fact as the book you presented shows, Paul is here in 1 Thessalonians agreeing with Jesus when Moore indicates: ". . . this letter distinctly emphasises that 'the end is not yet'." Just as Jesus said, wars and rumors of wars were an indication that the end is not yet, in answer to a question about whether the disciples might be given a sign of the end. In other words, don't be fooled (misled) into thinking that wars are a sign of the Parousia (Christ's Judgment Visitation) or the Synteleia (the Final End of All Things).

There must have been a reason that Jesus told us not to be fooled into thinking that great wars would be a sign of the Parousia. Jesus must have been aware that we would be tempted into thinking that they would be. Throughout history, there were surely going to be times when people in many places would perceive continuing, worsening conditions. Now and then there would be a war that was so bad that it would be considered a time when a new generation of wickedness had begun. It would surely be a time when Jesus must come by 1918 at the latest, or 1925, or within 'not years, but months' around the WWII period, or the mid-1970's, or before the end of the twentieth century; or within the outer limits of the current generation of aging Governing Body members. Jesus must have known how tempting and easy it would be to be fooled by thinking that wars and rumors of wars would be a sign of the Parousia. Otherwise, there would be no reason to warn us "Do not be misled, you are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars, nation will rise up against nation and kingdom against kingdom, but the end is not yet." Wars would take place, as Jesus said, but we would be just as likely to fooled by peace, too. People would be marrying and eating and drinking and saying that things were going on just as they always have been since the world's beginning. And the Parousia would come upon them just as the parousia (judgment event) came suddenly upon Noah's generation, or the days of Lot when Sodom was suddently destroyed, as if without warning.

I don't know anything about the last book you included, as if it could help us to "really understand history and its implications." The book you presented in this context, "Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(Con)Textually" is by Tat-Siong Benny Liew and is described like this in Google Books:

• This volume moves literary criticism of the Gospels further into the socio-political struggle for liberation - particularly, into the realm of colonial/postcolonial discourse. Taking seriously the thought that Mark's Gospel was written under Roman colonization, and using "inter(con)textuality" as an underlying theory, it examines the relation between Mark's story of Jesus and colonial politics, especially Mark's emphasis on the parousia and his constructions of colonial subjects. It argues that Mark's apocalyptic simultaneously resists and reinscribes colonial ideology in terms of three subject-positions and subject-matters: authority, agency, and gender. Juxtaposing apocalyptic and politics, dissidence and duplication as well as Chinese American narratives and the Markan text, this volume seeks to rethink our struggle for social change and the relationship between cultural politics and Gospel studies.

Perhaps you can explain why you included it.

 

 

[Witness]

The significance of the Hebrew word “shalom” – “The relation between man and God is made complete; the disparity is removed: this is "shalom" = "peace." Jewish Encyclopedia

“The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight is what the Hebrew prophets call shalom. We call it peace but it means far more than mere peace of mind or a cease-fire between enemies. In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness and delight – a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.”  From “Shalom, The Real Utopia”

Paul, a Hebrew, spoke in Hebrew on occasions, as well as Jesus speaking to him in Hebrew.  Acts 21:40; 22:1,2; 2 Cor 11:2; 26:14

When he wrote 1 Thess 5:1-3, he was most likely referring to “shalom” in the Hebrew sense of the word. 

Strong’s G1515 for the Greek word,  “peace” in 1 Thess 5 – “apparently from a primary verb eiro (to join)” 

 

“But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. ² For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. ³ For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.”  1 Thess 5:1-3

Would Paul be concerned with Satan’s worldly interests abroad and its definition of peace and security?  He is talking to his anointed (“elect”) brethren in Christ under the New Covenant promise.  1 Thess 2:1,2  This prophesy concerns the anointed today who represent the New “woman” covenant that Satan attacks in Revelation 12:1, a “woman” who is about to “give birth”. Rev 12:2-4 Once the New Covenant has given birth, God’s Kingdom arrives. 

JWs apply 1 Thess 5:1-3 to the world of politics, forgetting that the remnant of God’s anointed ones already reside under a (false) sense of “shalom” with God, through the organization.   

"Still, as a people, “the chosen ones” and their loyal companions will physically survive the end of apostate Christendom by taking refuge in Jehovah and his mountainlike organization." 
"We find refuge today in the spiritual security enjoyed by God’s people as a whole." 
"Through “the faithful and discreet slave” and elders in the congregation, we are alerted to trends in the world that could endanger that security." (w11 1/15 pp. 3-7)

These words are spoken confidently, as if salvation is guaranteed by staying with the organization – a “spiritual paradise”. 

The “labor pains” resound through each anointed “remaining ones of the woman’s seed” (Rev 12:17), when they awake to this  fake aura of “peace and security” they live under.   They “give birth” when they are sealed into the “heavens” and become evidence of the heavenly promise New Covenant. One’s name can be written “in heaven” while still on the earth, and once the required number of “144,000” is sealed, God’s Kingdom is born.  Gal 4:19; Luke 10:20; Isa 4:3; Heb 12:23; Rev 12:10,11; 7:4

The cry of peace and security is the threatening climate Satan has fabricated to stop the birth of the Kingdom which is described in the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ, "which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.” Rev 1:1   It affects them, not those in the world who don't have a part they play in the coming Kingdom; this is why Jesus said “For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.”  

 All JWs appear to be “awake” by looking for the Kingdom to arrive from signs in  Satan’s world; when in fact it “arrives” through the those who submit to suffering as Christ’s did, and accept refinement from Satan’s falsehoods.  Matt 16:21-27; Mal 3:1-3; Rev 3:18,19;2:2-5;3:3; 2 Cor 11:2

To believe that Satan doesn’t infiltrate a system/government (with a “Governing” Body) within the systems of his world, is folly.  He will use his own devices to create the cry of peace and security, all for the purpose of killing off those in Christ who are to be his Bride - the "priests and kings" with him, as well as any who also believe his deception. As JWs keep searching the horizon for fulfillment of 1 Thess 5, they will not see the well disguised trap called “peace and security” they presently reside in and where the rest of the “woman’s seed” have been gathered.  Rev 20:8

 ‘Thus says the Lord God: “On that day it shall come to pass that thoughts will arise in your mind, and you will make an evil plan: ¹¹ You will say, ‘I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates’

“Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “On that day when My people Israel dwell safely, will you not know it?”  Ezek 38:11,14

Amos 5:8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Witness]

4 hours ago, Witness said:

 It affects them, not those in the world who don't have a part they play in the coming Kingdom;

For clarification's sake, I am not saying Christ did not die for all men.  The Kingdom of God is open to anyone who choose to follow Christ and heed his teachings; but the establishment/administration of this Kingdom involves the anointed priesthood, who must be found with "no deceit", pure and blameless, in order to join their brethren who are God's Temple.  Rev 14:5; Phil 1:2; 1 Cor 3:16,17

 

"For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God,  while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,  and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you.  Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! 2 Cor 9:12-15

[Evacuated]

Has anybody compared Jer.8:11 in this debate?

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Has anybody compared Jer.8:11 in this debate?

Not yet. What did you have in mind?

To me, it's a useful comparison, and I think there are many parallels and similar lessons. The context is similar in some ways and not so much in other ways. In both cases, however, there is a sense that things can continue as they are (Jeremiah) as they have been all along with no sign of a "Parousia" (Peter) and this is a false hope that there never will be a Babylon-on-Jerusalem judgment event (Jeremiah) or a Final Parousia judgment event (Peter).

• (2 Peter 3:3) First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”

In Jeremiah 8, the families of Jerusalem are also holding fast to a deception. Similarly to the people who go on eating and drinking and marrying and claiming that things are going along as always they also "keep returning to the popular course." (v6) In Jeremiah's case, however, he was also up against the "governing body" of Jerusalem who presented a scenario very different from that of Jeremiah. Some were saying "we are wise, and we have the law of Jehovah." (v8). In the previous chapter there was a similar idea. Those close to the Temple were sure that this alone was enough to save them and they put their trust in the fact that they were close to the Temple and that they represented the Temple:

• (Jeremiah 7:4-7) 4 Do not put your trust in deceptive words and say, ‘This is the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah!’ 5 For if you truly reform your ways and actions; if you truly uphold justice between a man and his neighbor; 6 if you do not oppress foreign residents, orphans, and widows; if you do not shed innocent blood in this place; and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm; 7 then I will allow you to keep residing in this place. . .

But those who thought they were wise were actually using their position to promote falsehood (v8) and this fraud was going to catch up with them. Their claim of peace was wishful thinking. It was their own sinful practices that they thought they were getting away with -- their injustice, sin, idolatry etc.

• (Jeremiah 8:3-22) 3 “And the remnant of this evil family who survive will choose death over life in all the places where I disperse them,” declares Jehovah of armies. 4 “And you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Will they fall and not get up again? If one would turn back, will the other not also turn back?  5 Why is this people, Jerusalem, unfaithful with an enduring unfaithfulness? They hold fast to deception; They refuse to turn back.  6 I paid attention and kept listening, but the way they spoke was not right. Not a man repented over his wickedness or asked, ‘What have I done?’ Each one keeps returning to the popular course, like a horse dashing into the battle.  7 Even the stork in the sky knows its seasons; The turtledove and the swift and the thrush keep to the time of their return. But my own people do not understand the judgment of Jehovah.”’  8 ‘How can you say: “We are wise, and we have the law of Jehovah”? For in fact, the lying stylus of the scribes has been used only for falsehood.  9 The wise have been put to shame. They have become terrified and will be caught. Look! They have rejected the word of Jehovah, And what wisdom do they have? 10 So I will give their wives to other men, Their fields to other owners; For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain; From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud. 11 And they try to heal the breakdown of the daughter of my people lightly, saying, “There is peace! There is peace!” When there is no peace. 12 Do they feel ashamed of the detestable things they have done? They feel no shame at all! They do not even know how to feel humiliated! So they will fall among the fallen. When I bring punishment on them they will stumble,’ says Jehovah. 13 ‘When I gather them, I will bring them to their end,’ declares Jehovah. ‘There will be no grapes left on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, and the leaves will wither. And what I gave to them will be lost to them.’” 14 “Why are we sitting here? Let us gather together and enter the fortified cities and perish there. For Jehovah our God will do away with us, And he gives us poisoned water to drink, Because we have sinned against Jehovah. 15 There was a hope for peace, but nothing good came, For a time of healing, but there is terror! 16 From Dan is heard the snorting of his horses. At the sound of the neighing of his stallions, The whole land quakes. They come in and devour the land and everything in it, The city and its inhabitants.” 17 “For here I am sending in serpents among you, Poisonous snakes that cannot be charmed, And they will certainly bite you,” declares Jehovah. 18 My grief is incurable; My heart is sick. 19 From a distant land there is a cry for help From the daughter of my people: “Is Jehovah not in Zion? Or is her king not in her?” “Why have they offended me with their graven images, With their worthless foreign gods?” 20 “The harvest has passed, the summer has ended, But we have not been saved!” 21 I am shattered over the breakdown of the daughter of my people; I am dejected. Horror has seized me. 22 Is there no balsam in Gilʹe·ad? Or is there no healer there? Why has the daughter of my people not been restored to health?

So, I think there are some lessons here that are applicable in general. There are people trying to fool themselves in order to follow their own selfish desires, when it should be obvious that wickedness cannot go unpunished forever. I get the sense that Jeremiah is more about internal squabbles among various factions of Judean inhabitants and their priests and rulers who don't want to listen to the specific counsel of Jehovah through Jeremiah. These others are relying on their own words and reasoning and asking others to listen to them due to their positions of authority. They are making claims of peace that have nothing to do with reality. The kings of the North (Jeremiah 1:15) are already shaking up the entire country starting with "Dan" (representing the farthest major point in the north). (Jeremiah 8:16). So peace in this case is just a lie in the midst of terror.

As far as some other differences go, I get the impression that Paul is paralleling the talk of peace and security in 1 Thessalonians with anyone (Christian, Jewish, or outsider) being truly fooled by changing trends in the conditions so that at least some people truly think there really is safety because they really feel no threat. (In Jeremiah's case, I think he is referring to more of a willful attempt to hide the obvious terror by telling lies about the prospects for peace.)

As an aside, I have also noticed some interesting parallels in Jeremiah 8 to some things that Jesus mentioned in the Olivet sermon, but I can't figure if they could have been on purpose. The LXX of Jeremiah is quite different from the MT, and might offer some insight. 

• (Matthew 24:32) 32 “Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near.
• (Jeremiah 8:13,20) ‘When I gather them, I will bring them to their end,’ declares Jehovah. ‘There will be no grapes left on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, and the leaves will wither. And what I gave to them will be lost to them.’” . . .20 “The harvest has passed, the summer has ended, But we have not been saved!”

There is even a sense of Jeremiah lamenting over Jerusalem here in a way that's similar to Jesus at the end of Matthew 23. "My heart is sick....Is there no balsam in Gilead?" Even up to a very similar warning:

• (Jeremiah 9:11) 11 I will make Jerusalem piles of stones,. . .

These could be purely coincidental however based on the similarity of the situation.

 

[JW Insider]

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

I don’t understand, why you find it a “need” to suggest some kind of delusional embarrassment.

I said "not to cause you any embarrassment" because I'd like to see you avoid these same embarrassing situations you have gotten yourself into before. There have been many times when you evidently thought you were being an opposer and it turned out that the very material you were quoting to try to prove your opposition really supported the same evidence I was proposing. This has been especially true when you oppose Biblical evidence being presented by pasting long quotations from books with scholarly sounding titles and wording. I know that you typically don't appear embarrassed, because sometimes you would just claim that you hadn't believed the material you were presenting in the first place, or you distance yourself from the material in some way after it's pointed out to you. But sometimes you have just "doubled down" with even more material that you apparently thought was oppositional material, but which ALSO turned out to support what I was saying. So, in this case, I was not concerned that you were suffering from any embarrassment, but some of your readers might have thought that I was pointing out this particular situation just to embarrass you.

One thing that you do that makes me a bit concerned that you are embarrassed is that you sometimes resort to being extremely vague about what your own point is, even though you quote these lengthy, responses. I've said before on several occasions that I have appreciated the sources you quote because they are often sources I have never heard of before and yet they completely support what I was saying and unfortunately, often completely undermine the point you evidently quoted them for. So what I noticed is that you sometimes just offer the quote without any explanation as to why, leaving me guessing as to whether you actually changed your mind about the point you had been trying to present.

But then the final point that makes me think you might realize the embarrassment of these types of interactions is the idea that you can now just take a picture of a book title with NO commentary. With you, this has implied that there is something about the book that supports the points you have made or something in the book that opposes a point someone else has made.

It's almost as if you are hoping that someone will notice that you produced a scholarly-sounding or academic-sounding title, but then are also hoping that no one will call your bluff. In this case, when I called your bluff you predictably distanced yourself from the content of the book. For example, you can say that "any book is a good read." As you now say:

 

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

Any BOOK is a “good” read, or didn’t you learn that from “Angels and Women: Mrs. J.G. Smith”

..and...

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

However, I do remember telling you all that I don’t “endorse” any books, but use them to broaden the prospects of dogmatic views!

I expect you will do something similar after presenting the cover of a book to Cos in another thread, to which he responded.

On 10/4/2017 at 7:46 AM, Cos said:

Have you read Gordon Fee’s book “God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul”? Or is it just the cover that you like?

 

Unless you didn’t know Gordon D. Fee is a Trinitarian

By just throwing out pictures of book covers in response to someone, the implication is that you might have read those books or know something about them, or that you might think that these books somehow support your view. But so often, now, you don't even attempt to say why, and people start to read into your reasons for that vagueness. So I see it as a kind of "projection" when you now bring up the idea of only pretending that you know a book:

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

The rest of your personal spin on the books is once again evident with the knowledge you don’t have, why I added these books with your last statement. Yet, you go on at length to pretend you do, with your OWN presumption, which is precisely my point.

Really? This makes sense to you? You pretended that a book supported your view when it didn't as a way to show that I had put a personal spin on the books and pretended that I knew about them? It sounds like you are saying that you wanted to be dishonest to prove that I was being presumptuous. I don't see how that would work under any circumstances. Also, it seems like a dishonest projection to say that I pretended to have knowledge of the books, when my very words about one of them was:

On 10/4/2017 at 7:38 AM, JW Insider said:

I don't know anything about the last book you included

If your point was to use dishonesty in presenting a book under false pretenses just to see if I would pretend to know about it, then clearly you failed in your purpose. To me, it would seem that the one being pretentious is the one pretending, not the one who admits that "I don't know anything about the last book you included."

You also made some relevant points in your post. I'd like to address those in a separate post.

[JW Insider]

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

As of yet, I find it interesting the lack of understanding, with what is, was and shall be, as far as Jesus presence.

I think that this first sentence means that I don't understand Jesus' presence. I'll obviously agree that I don't understand everything about it, and I'll gladly admit that you could easily be holding some key that will address this lack. My position on Biblical topics is that we don't fully understand it all unless Bible statements about the topic are clear. We can only claim to know what the Bible says about a topic, when what is said is unequivocal, and we can only infer additional things to the extent that they make sense from the perspective of all scripture.

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

You are stuck in a notion of one single word, “presence” as though the concept can’t infer, while “scripture” with the RIGHT UNDERSTANDING is referring to Jesus return as an invisible presence?

From this I think you mean that it's because I am limiting my understanding of "presence" in a way that won't allow it to be understood correctly as an "invisible presence." I think this is also basically saying then what the first sentence says: that I don't understand Jesus presence. OK. I'm listening.

On 10/4/2017 at 9:42 AM, AllenSmith said:

It doesn’t “mean” that we won’t be able to see or feel his presence without optics. When did people “SEE” Jesus or GOD in the Old Testament? When did people “SEE” God in the New Testament. When will people “SEE” Jesus and God in the “heavenly Kingdom”.

Can you see the WIND?

I think this means that Jesus presence can be "seen" in different ways, perhaps through the outworking of an obvious physical manifestation that is not a direct "optical" view. We don't see the wind, per se, but we see swaying trees. The Israelites didn't "see" God with their eyes but saw a cloud that represented his presence. In the Watchtower we have this same view put forth that we don't see Jesus on his throne, but we see the unmistakable work of the heavenly Kingdom in transforming lives, the increasing number of publishers, the building of more and bigger Assembly Halls, Kingdom Halls, Branch buildings, increasing number of languages translated on our website, etc. 

What you probably don't realize is that I already agree that most of these things can be evidence of Christ's presence among us. The Watch Tower Society and all the related organizational entities are definitely blessed to the extent that we focus on our ministry, spread the Word, and support one another in love for the entire brotherhood. I have never argued that Jesus is not present, and I have never argued that the increase, at least in quality if not also in numbers, is a result of Jehovah's blessing on our properly motivated activities.

We should accept this because Jesus said he would be present with us until the "Synteleia" - that is, "the final end of all things together."

• (Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion [Synteleia] of the system of things.”

If Jesus is present with us until the Synteleia, and he is now "present" then we know this is an "invisible" presence. As you implied above, it's invisible even though we can see manifestations of it. This is what Jesus was saying earlier in the same book of Matthew:

• (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

Obviously, I have no problem with an "invisible presence." It's well supported by Scripture.

But when Jesus says that this "invisible presence" will last until the "Synteleia" then there must be something a bit different about what to expect when this "Synteleia" has arrived. The Watchtower says that the Synteleia and the Parousia refer to the same time period. This is why I have recently included the word "Parousia" in discussions of the final judgment event. If Jesus promised to be invisibly present until the Synteleia, and we say he is still invisibly present, then we should look into the possibility that the Synteleia has not started yet.  And if it's the same as the Parousia, then we should look into the possibility that the Parousia has not started yet.

When we do look at the words in all their Biblical contexts carefully, we easily see that one of the major differences between the Parousia and the invisible presence is that Jesus said the Parousia will be unmistakably visible. Now I still agree that "visible" and "seeing" can have a range of meaning in the Bible and in language generally. So I'm not concerned that "every eye will see him" has the exact same meaning as so many religions have given it. What I'm more concerned about is why Jesus went to so much trouble to distinguish the Parousia as something visible when compared to the invisible presence he spoke of in Matthew 28:20 and 18:20.

In the context of Matthew 24, for example, we see Jesus warning the disciples that there will be many people saying that Jesus has returned but you just can't see him right now, because he's off in another place, or in some "inner chambers." And how do we know that Jesus was really contrasting the claim of wide visibility with the the misleading idea that he might be "present" but invisible? Because his very next words claimed that the Parousia would shine like lightning.

Now I know it's possible to pick apart these two ideas and separate them so that they have nothing to do with each other. But so far no one has been able to make sense of the two ideas together, the way Jesus presented them. The word "For" at the beginning of verse 27 tells me that we should look to the way Jesus presented it, and not just look for ways to dismiss the way Jesus presented it.

• (Matthew 24:23-27) 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. . . .  26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

This happens to be a point that the book you quoted appears to agree with, at least in the place you quoted above. Note that it says:

• We should also think of the Parousia as a transformational event—Christ coming out Of hiding so as to be visibly present among his people. At this time in history, he is invisibly present with his people by means of his Spirit. The parousia will mean that the invisible one will become visible. The way Christ will become visible is by a transformation of this present universe as we know it, present physical reality will in some way disappear and the formerly hidden heavenly dimension, where Christ and God dwell, will be revealed" (Beale 2003:138). As such, the hidden Christ will be unveiled and his presence manifested in such a way that all people throughout the earth can see him (Matt 24:27). According to our notion of three-dimensional geography, this would be impossible. But a new dimension will break into our universe, one in which Christ will be able to reveal his presence with all his people at one time. Second Thessalonians 2 presents the parousia of Jesus as the manifestation of a great warrior coming to destroy the man of lawlessness soon after his own parousia.

That happens to be agree with exactly the way I usually think about it. But even here, I don't think this describes a single exact and specific way the idea can be fulfilled. There are always things we just won't know until the time comes.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Now, Why the need to understand the first epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians.

Because it's part of the Bible.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

There is an endless amount of either by scholars or religious leaders, commentaries on the subject of 1 Thess 5:3.

Possibly. Without looking, I would guess that if you found 100 commentaries on the verse that more than 90% of them would be in agreement with the way I prefer to look at it, and less than 10% would be in agreement with the way you prefer to look at it. It doesn't appear to need much if any commentary, as it appears to be clear enough in context. But some questions could still be asked about the Watchtower's viewpoint on the verse. For example, a question I see arising is whether Christians should expect to literally hear (or learn about) some person(s) or entity(ies) talking about "Peace and Security" in some way or another. In other words, should we treat this verse as a "prophecy" or prediction that somewhere between one person and one billion persons will mention peace and security before the end can come? If so, then this "declaration" becomes a kind of sign of the end. Of course, as we describe it, it will be so late as to not be of much value because sudden destruction comes immediately after the currently unknown person(s) or entities are caught uttering the words (or idea).

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You decided that the Watchtower understanding of this subject was NOT to your satisfaction.

Sort of. This is another matter that does not concern me as deeply as it concerns you, evidently. I am very happy to accept that there COULD be a fulfillment very much like we expect. Some entity like the United Nations COULD very well make a declaration that there is now Peace and Security, and sudden destruction will be instantly upon them. I assume that this declaration would be a mistaken one, or just based on wishful thinking, or might refer the pride such an organization might feel after a major peace deal has been brokered in an area that has long had difficulty in matters of keeping peace. This would satisfy the verse, and satisfy the Watchtower's explanation and all would be just fine. Presumably, you'd be happy, and I'd be happy.

I have not found this explanation of the verse on its own (as a prophecy) to be problematic. It may happen this way and it may not. Either way, I'm not worried about it. If the Watchtower teaches that one way is more likely, and you believe another way is more likely and I believe another way is more likely, that's just fine. It can make for a good Biblical discussion in the meantime.

But the reason I brought it up as a place where I prefer an explanation much like you will no doubt find in dozens of commentaries is that I think our way of looking at it as Witnesses has been colored by our explanation of the Parousia/Synteleia. The more I study that subject, the more I am convinced that the Bible itself explains the Parousia/Synteleia quite clearly in a way that's different from what we have long learned and taught. That does not necessarily change the meaning or explanation of this particular verse in 1 Thess 5, which could go either way. But I wanted to point out that it might make more sense in the context of non-Watchtower explanations of the Parousia/Synteleia. And it does make more sense to me, in that there is another way to understand it with Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, etc. Also, related to this is that the end of 1 Thess 4 appears to me to NOT make sense in the way the Watchtower has traditionally explained it for almost 100 years.

But even here, the Watchtower has just recently changed their understanding of 1 Thess 4 to be more in line with the way that many of Christendom's churches have traditionally explained it.

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***

• 14 What will happen after Gog of Magog starts the attack on God’s people? Both Matthew and Mark record the same event: “[The Son of man] will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43.
• 15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

In other words, we now believe in a "rapture," it's just that we don't use the specific word because many in Christendom think Christians will be raised with their current bodies instead of spiritual bodies.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You decided that the Watchtower understanding of this subject was NOT to your satisfaction.

Just to make the point more clearly, I repeated your words again, because it was the same thing with the idea of this particular kind of "rapture." The explanation was not to the satisfaction of many, and ultimately not to the satisfaction of the Governing Body, either. Perhaps you aren't aware of some of the beliefs that prior generations of Witnesses were required to explain as the meaning of this particular "rapture" passage in 1 Thess 4. Older explanations can now be seen as merely clever ways to avoid the idea of a "rapture" of the kind we now find ourselves accepting and supporting. So, it's true that some understandings SHOULD not have been to our satisfaction, if we were careful students of the Bible. This doesn't mean that we personally need to have all the answers, but it means we should have been asking more questions at least.

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s the beauty of having things clarified by God himself when there is a need for adjustments or revisions. But, not in the negative sense, you make out the Watchtower to be, but rather, the revisions needed to “adapt” to the ever-changing struggles, “different” generations face.

Using the 2015 change in the "rapture" doctrine, if God himself gave us the clarification when there was a need, then you are saying there was no need for anyone to understand it correctly prior to 2015? Are the only things we have right the things that we need to have right? Did we ever get anything right BEFORE it needed it to be right? You probably don't realize that you are undermining both Jehovah's power and the honesty of the brothers who made dogmatic claims that it must have meant something else for nearly 100 years. If you are right, then you should probably tell the Governing Body that they should never say anything dogmatic again, but only say that God has allowed us to be wrong on anything and everything so far, unless there was a "need." We can be wrong until it's absolutely necessary for God to correct us. Does God ever allow us to correct ourselves before it's absolutely necessary. Since it's not up to us to know exactly when that need has arisen, or even if it has arisen yet, we really don't know if anything is right yet, according to your theory.

Or perhaps Brother Jackson was right, and these changes actually come about as more of the Bible is studied more carefully, and someone notices that the Bible helps to interpret the Bible in a better way without contradictions, or historical events, after they have passed, provide a more complete perspective in order to interpret certain passages. 

[John Houston]

Hasn't the cry already began? Is not the priority of every nation on this planet, PEACE AND SECURITY? Could not the cry be for not a period of calm but intense need for these two things? So much so that it will become mundane in our everyday life?  Remember when all was in an uproar about the checks to board a plane, but now we know it's necessary. The increase in security at train stations, bus terminals all over the world show a heightened sense for the need of PEACE AND SECURITY. And since what happenings after is like a thief, we have been lulled to accept all of these things as daily occurrences. Any disaster caused by man against man is shocking but wanes after time, for we are waiting on the next horrific one. The evil of this satanic influence is palpable and without discernment one could be caught unawares to what is actually happening. That this system of things is ending, like a cancer feeding on itself and the only cure is the Kingdom!

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Hasn't the cry already began? Is not the priority of every nation on this planet, PEACE AND SECURITY? Could not the cry be for not a period of calm but intense need for these two things?

Perhaps it has. What you say would make sense if there was really a "CRY" for peace and security. But the Bible doesn't say there is any sort of "cry" here in 1 Thess 5:3. It sounds like it is just speaking of the contrast between a claim of peace and security, in the Trumpian sense of a "calm before the storm." Or something like the calm in the "eye" of a hurricane.

This seems to be the only reason that it could be compared with the night-time break-in of a house, which usually comes during a time of peaceful sleep.