What does the Bible say about the end of the world?

[Data]

What does the Bible say about the end of the world? Was the end of the world to come in the lifetime of the NT authors or soon?

[Data]

You state (paraphrased) - 'Jesus ain't com'n back.'

"Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is coming back?

It proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874, the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and a rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878 and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914."

*********************

Of course, they were wrong, along with other times.

That's funny. Compare science then to science now and tell me what you see? Is it a fair comparison? Jesus was a man who was born and died. He isn't coming back. You don't take the sacrifice back. The Bible never indicates that Jesus would return in physical form, but that he would return his attention back to Earth, where he would be in spirit. Jesus' return is often thought to be in the physical form of a man, but scripture never speaks of his return in such a manner.

In order to establish a contradiction the skeptic uses John 14:19 in support that Jesus return would not be visible and parallel accounts given at Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 as well as Revelation 1:7 in support that his return would be visible.

John 14:19 - Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jesus was telling his disciples that the world would see him no more because he would be put to death, but they would see him again because he would be resurrected and he would resurrect them in spirit upon their deaths. The verse has nothing to do with his return to Earth. Paul later confirms this by saying that, in spirit form no man has seen Jesus and none will, unless they be changed into spirit form. (1 Timothy 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 3:18)

At Matthew 24:30 the Greek word horao is translated "see" but can also mean to discern. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, says of horao "metaphorically, of mental sight, discern, perceive." - 1948 edition, pages 1244, 1245. This metaphorical perception can also be confirmed by Paul's use of horao at Romans 1:20 where things are invisible yet perceived.

Clouds, like those mentioned in the verses given by the skeptic are typically used in a symbolic sense to signify the presence of God (Isaiah 63:9; 1 Kings 8:10-12)

The Watchtower's Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 313, 342-3 says: "Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27 RSV) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God 'came to the people in a thick cloud,' as stated at Exodus 19:9 (RSV)? God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present."

[POI]

You state (paraphrased) - 'Jesus ain't com'n back.'

"Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is coming back?

It proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874, the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and a rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878 and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914."

*********************

Of course, they were wrong, along with other times.

That's funny. Compare science then to science now and tell me what you see? Is it a fair comparison? Jesus was a man who was born and died. He isn't coming back. You don't take the sacrifice back. The Bible never indicates that Jesus would return in physical form, but that he would return his attention back to Earth, where he would be in spirit. Jesus' return is often thought to be in the physical form of a man, but scripture never speaks of his return in such a manner.

In order to establish a contradiction the skeptic uses John 14:19 in support that Jesus return would not be visible and parallel accounts given at Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 as well as Revelation 1:7 in support that his return would be visible.

John 14:19 - Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jesus was telling his disciples that the world would see him no more because he would be put to death, but they would see him again because he would be resurrected and he would resurrect them in spirit upon their deaths. The verse has nothing to do with his return to Earth. Paul later confirms this by saying that, in spirit form no man has seen Jesus and none will, unless they be changed into spirit form. (1 Timothy 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 3:18)

At Matthew 24:30 the Greek word horao is translated "see" but can also mean to discern. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, says of horao "metaphorically, of mental sight, discern, perceive." - 1948 edition, pages 1244, 1245. This metaphorical perception can also be confirmed by Paul's use of horao at Romans 1:20 where things are invisible yet perceived.

Clouds, like those mentioned in the verses given by the skeptic are typically used in a symbolic sense to signify the presence of God (Isaiah 63:9; 1 Kings 8:10-12)

The Watchtower's Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 313, 342-3 says: "Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27 RSV) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God 'came to the people in a thick cloud,' as stated at Exodus 19:9 (RSV)? God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present."

I think you missed my point completely. Unlike the Protestant and Catholic camps, which splinter into many many many cells of conflicting beliefs and practices, the JWs and the Mormons (for example) otherwise all pretty much stick together. Meaning, if I speak to one JW, their views are going to parallel the JW next to them. They believe in the 'end times'. I know Jehovahwitness does believe in Jesus's return and also the 'end times' because (s)he is a JW. You don't. So I will crack open some popcorn, and watch, as you two figure it out. As I stated prior, I have no skin in this game. I do not CARE what the Bible says here because the Bible is filled with B.S (on this topic). Kapeesh? But I do still enjoy pointing some of it out to you believers, in various topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

I do recall he appeared to say that. Something about did I think he had already come back? I'm willing to be corrected. But it's irrelevant. Jesus evidently hasn't come back, not on the clouds with a marching band, anyway, and he was supposed to do so by the end of 1st or early 2nd c at least. Why should anyone credit any of these tales and claims now?

I find it somewhere between a joke and an insult that grown people with responsible positions and even authority, collect in a brick box to sing songs to an invisible dictator. And this is supposed to be a praiseworthy thing to do and a credit to them? If people made 'Flying saucer pilots built the pyramids with ray guns and tractor beams' part of their election campaign, they would be out by primaries. Why is this profession of belief in fairy tales a requirement to even be considered fit for election? Why do we even have to have debates like this with people who aren't even listening but seem to debate from the premise "Let's assume that it's all true, now let's come to blows about the details".

[TRANSPONDER]

You state (paraphrased) - 'Jesus ain't com'n back.'

"Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is coming back?

It proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874, the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and a rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878 and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914."

*********************

Of course, they were wrong, along with other times.

That's funny. Compare science then to science now and tell me what you see? Is it a fair comparison? Jesus was a man who was born and died. He isn't coming back. You don't take the sacrifice back. The Bible never indicates that Jesus would return in physical form, but that he would return his attention back to Earth, where he would be in spirit. Jesus' return is often thought to be in the physical form of a man, but scripture never speaks of his return in such a manner.

In order to establish a contradiction the skeptic uses John 14:19 in support that Jesus return would not be visible and parallel accounts given at Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 as well as Revelation 1:7 in support that his return would be visible.

John 14:19 - Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jesus was telling his disciples that the world would see him no more because he would be put to death, but they would see him again because he would be resurrected and he would resurrect them in spirit upon their deaths. The verse has nothing to do with his return to Earth. Paul later confirms this by saying that, in spirit form no man has seen Jesus and none will, unless they be changed into spirit form. (1 Timothy 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 3:18)

At Matthew 24:30 the Greek word horao is translated "see" but can also mean to discern. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, says of horao "metaphorically, of mental sight, discern, perceive." - 1948 edition, pages 1244, 1245. This metaphorical perception can also be confirmed by Paul's use of horao at Romans 1:20 where things are invisible yet perceived.

Clouds, like those mentioned in the verses given by the skeptic are typically used in a symbolic sense to signify the presence of God (Isaiah 63:9; 1 Kings 8:10-12)

The Watchtower's Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 313, 342-3 says: "Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27 RSV) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God 'came to the people in a thick cloud,' as stated at Exodus 19:9 (RSV)? God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present."

It doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. I could even argue that if Jesus came again, none of the Sanhedrin or those that hadn't tasted death yet would recognize him as he'd be in a different person, just as John was thought to be Elijah come back (the synoptics suggest) but he looked like John, not Elijah. Or at least that a debating - point and a waste of typing space,

The thing is, has it happened and should it have? Answer; no and yes. Thus the smart money is that like all such prophecies, it had failed and debate about what it would look like is a waste of effort.

If anything, the spin off from 'Even if God came atheists would not believe'. Spin off is 'If Jesus came saying doctrines that don't fit with the Dogmas of This or That denomination, (or personally invented religion) let alone other creeds, would any of the others believe it was really him?

"Nay, nay and thrice nay, this is not Jesus, the antsychrist, sent by Satan to deceive us."

"Now, you know what I said about blaspheming the Holy Spirit."

"Get thee behind me Satan, I denounce thee and all thy works!"

"Ah well, onto the bonfire you go. But be of good cheer, thou art in good company. There were those many who cried Lord, Lord and did not do what I said - that Church attendance didn't matter, but schmoozing through the cornfield with your pals was better."

[Data]

I think you missed my point completely. Unlike the Protestant and Catholic camps, which splinter into many many many cells of conflicting beliefs and practices, the JWs and the Mormons (for example) otherwise all pretty much stick together. Meaning, if I speak to one JW, their views are going to parallel the JW next to them. They believe in the 'end times'. I know Jehovahwitness does believe in Jesus's return and also the 'end times' because (s)he is a JW. You don't. So I will crack open some popcorn, and watch, as you two figure it out. As I stated prior, I have no skin in this game. I do not CARE what the Bible says here because the Bible is filled with B.S (on this topic). Kapeesh? But I do still enjoy pointing some of it out to you believers, in various topics.

No, actually you and JW are "wrong" in the same way. Without being wrong. You both are wrong in that sense due to your personal ideologies. To JW, in this respect, the Bible, and so JW and the long list of scholarly references JW gave are correct. JW's perspective is almost a hyper literal approach which doesn't allow for cultural significance. JW is using the correct math to come to the correct conclusion. I'm using a different math. Like baker's dozen isn't a dozen. The earth and world are not the same but the terms are interchangeable. JW knows this because of the confusion people often have with the use of the Greek word katebole by Bible writers. When Jesus says the founding of the world it is often thought to mean the forming or creation of the earth. According to JWs strict scholarly adherence there was no confusion of that time, but as the Watchtower Insight book reference I gave itself points out, the philosophers of that day themselves used the terms interchangeably. It is and was an obvious idiomatic misnomer.

The reason for this is that the Earth was created by God and it belongs to him. But he has given it to man in a sense, temporarily, making man its steward. So, when you say this is "my land" that is saying, according to the strict adherence to scholarly consensus, you are using, in a sense, both definitions for world and earth interchangeably. Though technically there is a definite distinction.

You, in a sense, when Googling produced the answer you desire, namely: "It proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874, the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and a rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878 and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914."" did not contemplate it the same as you would if you had found similar negative results putting your ideological fixation with science in a similar negative light. I could argue that they weren't called JWs until the 1930s. Not a good argument, but an argument nonetheless which at least accounts for the obvious maturity of their teachings. The JWs say, rightfully so, that the "light gets brighter." You could call it learning. Increasing knowledge. Science even. I could also argue that during the time considered your results have given the founder of the JWs was CT Russell, and that there was a schism in which many of the "Russellites" broke from the organization when Judge Rutherford took over. Those folks became the Bible Students which are still barely active today. I've actually talked to one of them online. Odd to say the least. Even more so than the JWs and myself.

Back in the early 1990s when I first became a believer, I studied with the JWs briefly. During that time, at meetings at the Kingdom Hall, the elders would read admonishment from the governing body to the congregation for their not having an appropriate interest in the newly published Proclaimers book. A huge and thoroughly detailed biographical history of the organization. I personally, at that time, had read the book from cover to cover. I had taken a sabbatical and unlike most of the JWs didn't have work, family, and field service to consume my time. I was studying 15 or 16 hours a day seven days a week.

An interesting aside here on cultural significance and the JWs. When CT Russell was the president of the organization big full beards were very common. Judge Rutherford hated facial hair. Hated it. So did his successor Nathan H. Knorr. So much so that the Watchtower, briefly, would portray Jesus, who was a Jew and so of course wore a beard, without one. Like from the image below from the Watchtower publication of 1958: From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained.



If the Watchtower had existed in the days of the prophets of old the prophets would have been disfellowshipped.

Snagged that image from an exjw reddit what d'ya call it? Subreddit - whatever. JWs, like Scientologists, are often very ignorant about their own cult [1] because, in the case of the JWs they are forbidden to have anything to do with what the governing body labels as "apostate" i.e. anyone who points out their messed-up truth like they themselves point out everyone else's. Note Jehovah's Witness response to me early on when I used the common JW term "light gets brighter." Got all snotty and said he/she wouldn't have anything to do with apostates. Trouble is in order for you to technically be apostate you have to turn your back on God. Which, ironically, is the Watchtower. That is their God. I can't have turned my back on them unless I had been one of them. I haven't. But they're not going to listen to me now, huh? Oh no. I once saw a video of a former JW elder who put it in an interesting way. He said the JWs rightly believe that you can't come to Jehovah without Jesus, but they wrongly think that you can't come to Jesus without them.

Anyway, the JWs consider everyone outside of their cult a "worldly person." Worldly people wear beards. Worldly people don't trust people in three-piece suits.

[1] Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

[JehovahsWitness]

While it's certainly where we get the English word "cosmetic" , what are you suggesting regarding the OP topic of the "end of the world"? Perhaps you can enlarge.

Certainly.
I always think of kosmos as adornment more than anything. Cosmetics, cosmos.

...

Thank you so much, I think the quality of your posting is clear for all to see. Excellent use of font.Your effort is much appreciated.

Please have a most wonderful weekend,

Respect,

JW

[otseng]

Anyway, the JWs consider everyone outside of their cult a "worldly person."

Moderator Comment

Note, we do not allow calling a group a cult:

15. It is not permitted to say another person or group is not a Christian or call them a cult if the person or group identifies as Christian (this includes Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any group that claims to be Christian).

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

If I, for one, have been inclined to use the term, I shall try to reform.

[1213]

Or it has in fact been preached to all nations and the end hasn't come because it isn't going to.

If you think Matt. 24:14 has already happened, can you explain what "good news of the reign" means? Do you think all nations know meaning of that?

You should know by now that I think it was supposed to have happened...

I think that is baseless expectation. And it is unfortunate, if you reject Jesus because of wrong expectation. However, I think that is only an excuse to reject Jesus and his teachings, because person who would think Jesus has good teachings, would still keep his teachings, even if he failed to come in the expected time.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you mean a baseless conclusion rather that 'expectation'it is very well based - in what the Bible says, not on what you want it to say. But as is often the case, you think it is a one-shot win or lose. In fact the reason I reject the Gospel presentation of Jesus is because of contradictions, invalidities and nonsense all the way through, and you have seen enough of my posts to know that is my rationale, not just that one thing 'he was supposed to have come back before 2nd c was out', even if you don't agree with any of my conclusions. So kindly don't misrepresent my methodology.