Jehovah's Witnesses: are you the only ones who hold to Paradise Earth?

This is a video I made in promoting the fact that not only JW's believe in Paradise Earth as the eternal hope for Christians.  The clips are from a round-table eschatology discussion between John Piper, Doug Wilson, Sam Storms, and Jim Hamilton. If you are interested in eschatology, i'd recommend watching/listening to the full 2 hour discussion whereby the various eschatological views are discussed and debated. You can watch it HERE.

"Keep on the Watch!"....by proclaiming false dates?

In this blog, i'd like to offer some commentary on a Watchtower article that explains their self-proclaimed "overeagerness" as it relates to the predicting of "the time of the end."  But more importantly, i'd like to display a balanced view of how followers of Christ should seek God's Kingdom as it relates to Christ parousia.

*** w84 12/1 p. 17 par. 12 Keep Ready! ***

When the enthroned Lord Jesus inspected his household in 1919, he found the group of Christians associated with the Watchtower magazine loyally striving to “keep on the watch” with the help of spiritual “food at the proper time.” Until this very day, that “slave” class has faithfully continued to provide spiritual food to enable the Master’s “domestics” and their companions to “keep looking, keep awake.”—Mark 13:33.

Here we have the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim to "faithfulness" to the exclusion of all other religious groups per Jesus' inspection in 1919.  This matter cannot be overstated given the fact that it is Jesus Christ himself who made the appointment, rather than a self-proclaimed appointment.  Though it is not my intent to be a "faultfinder," no one can be blamed for seeking to test this organization in light of its claims; especially when it is the claim of Jesus Christ himself!  The question is, has the Watchtower been faithful in producing "spiritual food" that passes the inspection of Jesus Christ?  I can only imagine the standards that the Son of God would implement in inspecting a particular religious group for faithfulness and dispensing "spiritual food at the proper time"; surely a stricter set of standards than what I could come up with!

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 13 Keep Ready! ***

It is easy for the established churches of Christendom and other people to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses because their publications have, at times, stated that certain things could take place on certain dates. But is not such line of action in harmony with Christ’s injunction to “keep on the watch”? (Mark 13:37)

This is an interesting claim, given the statements made just one sentence prior.  On one hand, they have the highest possible standard set for themselves with the divine approval of Jesus Christ.  But on the other hand, they can be excused for setting false dates?  While it is true that Jesus commanded His followers in the first century to "keep on the watch," is it also true that they set specific dates for "the time of the end?"  This is quite confusing because The Watchtower has, on several occasions, criticized others for doing precisely what they have commended themselves for doing:

*** g93 3/22 p. 3 Why So Many False Alarms? ***

THE story is told of a boy who watched the sheep of the villagers. To stir up a bit of excitement, one day he cried out, “Wolf! Wolf!” when there was no wolf. The villagers rushed out with clubs to drive off the wolf, only to find that there was none. It was such great fun that later on the boy repeated his cry. Again the villagers rushed out with their clubs, only to discover that it was another false alarm. After that a wolf did come, and the boy sounded the warning, “Wolf! Wolf!” but the villagers dismissed his cry as another false alarm. They had been fooled too often.

So it has become with those who proclaim the end of the world. Down through the centuries since Jesus’ day, so many unfulfilled predictions have been made that many no longer take them seriously.

***g68 10/8 p. 23 ‘A Time to ‘Lift up your head’ in confident hope”***

 True, there have been those in times past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date.  Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end.  Yet, nothing happened.  The “end” did not come.  They were guilty of false prophesying.  Why? What was missing? 

Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy.  Missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. 

Is this a double standard that the Watchtower has set for themselves?  It would seem that when they proclaim a false date, it is to be commended for "keeping on the watch" in harmony with Christ's words.  But when someone else does it, they are "false prophets" that "no one should take seriously."

Since it is Jesus' words that should hold the most value to us as followers of Him, what does He say about those who predict things that don't come to pass?

“See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them.”(Luke 21:8)  

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15) 

 If Jesus warns against those who claim that "the time is near," then how could it be that He appointed and approved of a group who not only presents a double standard, but has emphatically predicted the time to be near (with an exact date in mind) on more than one occasion?

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 13 Keep Ready! ***

On the other hand, have Christendom’s churches encouraged Christian watchfulness by teaching that the Kingdom is “the ruling of God in our hearts”? Have they not, rather, encouraged spiritual sluggishness by considering expectation of “the end” to be “meaningless” or “an insignificant myth”? Have apostates who claim that “the last days” began at Pentecost and cover the entire Christian Era promoted Christian alertness? Have they not, rather, induced spiritual sleepiness?

Actually, a large portion of "Christendom" has held a much louder and more prominent voice in proclaiming "the end is near" than what Jehovah's Witnesses have done.  A sales count on books like The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey and The Left Behind Series by Tim LaHaye proves just how widespread this is amongst Christendom.  Even in 1984 when this article was published, "Christendom" had already bought into the "end times" hysteria.  So who exactly is The Watchtower criticizing here?

*** w84 12/1 p. 18 par. 14 Keep Ready! ***

¹⁴ True, some expectations that appeared to be backed up by Bible chronology did not materialize at the anticipated time. But is it not far preferable to make some mistakes because of overeagerness to see God’s purposes accomplished than to be spiritually asleep as to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy? 

I'm not so sure about that.  The last time I checked, the Bible had some very stern words towards those who make false predictions in God's name that aren't said of those who are "spiritually asleep":

“‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ “You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which YHWH has not spoken?’ “When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”(Deuteronomy 18:20–22) 

And just to clear up any doubt as to who these words could be qualified to:

*** rs p. 132 False Prophets ***

False Prophets

Definition: Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.

***w/30 5/15 p. 155***

 The difference between a true and false prophet is that the one is speaking the word of the Lord and the other is speaking his own dreams and guesses…The true prophet of God today will be telling forth what the Bible teaches, and those things that the Bible tells us are soon to come to pass.  He will not be sounding forth man-made theories or guesses, either his own or those of others…This text proves again that those men who foretell things out of harmony with the Bible statements are false prophets.  

In light of these claims, is the Watchtower being inconsistent when they claim the following:

1. Making false prediction where "certain things happened on certain dates" is "in line with Christ's injunction to 'keep on the watch'"

2. Those who "announce a specific date" of "the end of the world" that "did not come...are guilty of false prophecying."

To back up these claims, the Watchtower provides some biblical examples that are to serve as parallels to their setting dates:

*** w84 12/1 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 Keep Ready! ***

Did not Moses make a 40-year miscalculation in trying to act ahead of time to remove Israel’s affliction? (Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6, 17, 23, 25, 30, 34) Were not Christ’s apostles overanxious to see the Kingdom established, not to speak of their complete misunderstanding as to what the Kingdom really is? (Acts 1:6; compare Luke 19:11; 24:21.) Were not the anointed Christians in Thessalonica impatient to see “the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the day of Jehovah”?—2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2.

¹⁵ There is nothing basically unscriptural in using chronology in efforts to learn “the appointed time” for the fulfillment of God’s purposes. (Habakkuk 2:3) Daniel calculated when Jerusalem’s devastation was due to end. (Daniel 9:1, 2) The first-century faithful Jewish remnant were in expectation of the coming of the Messiah because they calculated the end of a time, based on prophecy. (Daniel 9:25; Luke 3:15) Late 19th-century and early 20th-century Christians were enabled to live in expectation of God’s Kingdom rule well before 1914 because they calculated when “the appointed times of the nations” were due to end. (Luke 21:24; Daniel 4:16, 17) It was, therefore, understandable why efforts were made to use other Biblical time indications to try to find out when the long-awaited hopes might become a reality. Faithful servants of Jehovah in the past cried out: “How long, O Jehovah?”—Isaiah 6:11; Psalm 74:10; 94:3.

One is encouraged to look up each one of these biblical references and consider whether these are an accurate parallel to the "end of the world" predictions that the Watchtower has made as "God's channel of communication":

“We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would.  They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours.  But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.  We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the Watch Tower of Jan. 15, ’92.  We advise that it be read again.” –Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p. 226

“Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and the church member by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of “Christianity.” –The Boiling Caldron p. 485

“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 chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection.” –Millions Now Living will Never Die  1920, p. 90

 Hopefully one can see that there is a vast difference between the miscalculation of a chronology and predicting something in God's name that doesn't come to pass (Deut. 18:20-22).  Even the Watchtower's own writings reveal this.  But their statement, "There is nothing basically unscriptural in using chronology in efforts to learn 'the appointed time' for the fulfillment of God’s purposes" reveals ignorance on their part or an unwillingness to apply their own standards to themselves.  

*** w84 12/1 p. 19 pars. 16-18 Keep Ready! ***

¹⁶ Since Jesus clearly stated that no man could know “that day” or “the hour” when the Father will order his son to ‘come’ against Satan’s wicked system of things, some may ask: ‘Why is it so urgent to live in expectation of the end?’ It is urgent because practically in the same breath, Jesus added: “Keep looking, keep awake . . . keep on the watch.” (Mark 13:32-35) The “sign” of Jesus’ parousia has been in evidence since 1914. We now await “the sign of the Son of man,” when he ‘comes’ as Jehovah’s Executioner.

¹⁷ When Jesus gave the first-century Judean Christians a sign whereby they would know that the time had come to flee from Jerusalem, he insisted on the need to act immediately. (Luke 21:20-23) Why all the urgency, since nearly four years elapsed from the appearing of the sign in 66 C.E. and the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? Because Jesus knew that if they delayed, they would keep putting off their flight and eventually be caught by the Roman armies.

¹⁸ Similarly today, it would be highly dangerous for Christians to rationalize about the urgency of our times and adopt a “cruising speed” attitude that reflects doubt about the nearness of the end.

Of course it would be unbiblical for Christians to adopt a "cruising speed" attitude towards the day when Christ will return.  The problem with the Watchtower is that they have adopted a completely unbalanced mindset towards end times chronologies and predictions to the point of rationalization, whereas the true follower of Christ lives each day with the realization that the end could come; not in overeagerness, but with balance.  Such swaying could lead to some very serious consequences that the Watchtower has yet to take responsibility of.  The word of the Lord Jesus are quite clear towards those who cause such stumbling:

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

One who associates themselves with such an organization would do well to ask themselves who their loyalty is with; God or man?  I pray that if this question is something you are contemplating, then you will find what can only be found in the person of Jesus Christ:

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.” (Matthew 11:28–29)

A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

In about 13 minutes (with as much detail as possible all packed in), this video contains a summary of the preterist understanding of Matthew 24. This theological persuasion holds that all of the events in Matthew 24 find their fulfillment in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, this may sound absurd to those who have never been exposed to such theology, as it did to me. But I would ask that you at least watch this video and consider some of the arguments that are made. I can't say that i'm one hundred percent on board or able to provide a thorough defense of this view, but so far its a position that i'm leaning towards:

My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

This will be my last response to Marcus in his well-written answers to my MATTHEW 24 CHALLENGE, where I challenge anyone to show me a verse in Matthew 24 which demands a fulfillment beyond the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Here is the dialogue thus far:

Marcus' initial response

My response to Marcus

Marcus' second response

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

But why can't the disciples be asking two questions in referencing the same event? I think it would help to look at the parallel accounts to show that this doesn't demand a post 70 A.D. fulfillment:

"When will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age." (Matthew 24:3)

"When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled." (Mark 13:4)

"When therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7)

Interestingly, if Mark and Luke are parallel accounts to Matthew 24 (which I don't see how anyone could doubt), why would they omit the main event; namely, the second coming? My answer is that it is because a "second coming" wasn't in the scope of the disciple's questions at all. But just to be as fair and open minded as I can, I would be willing to grant that this verse could be used to support either position. Why? Because, if the context was speaking of a literal second coming, then it would only be appropriate to assume that Jesus was actually answering the disciple's question correctly. But if the context doesn't reference any second coming, then we would have to assume that Jesus didn't answer their question.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

With all due respect to Marcus, this is merely an opinion based on ignorance. The reason I say this is because, even in Marcus' own admission, "we don't really know what the abomination is." And if we really don't know what the abomination is, then how can he claim that it wasn't fulfilled in 70 A.D.? I submit that the clues provided in the context suggest a very strong basis by which this event was fulfilled in the disciple's lifetime:

1. In 24:1, Jesus was clearly referencing the temple, which at least should grant the possibility that the "abomination" was in reference to this.

2. The pronouns "you" throughout the context of Matthew 24 strongly supports the idea that all the events were in reference to the disciples. If it were in reference to a group thousands of years later, wouldn't "they" or "them" be more often implemented?

3. "This generation" was in reference to the disciples, not some group thousands of years in the future, as i'll discuss in more detail.

4. The parallel account in Luke 21:20 supports the possibility that the "desolation" was in reference to Jerusalem itself, not specifically the temple: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." So what is the "desolation" in reference to? Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Yes, this "desolation" certainly would include the temple, since it resides in Jerusalem as well as the possibility that it was desolated in some way similar to what Antiochus Ephiphanes did.

Therefore, on what basis does the reference to the "abomination" demand a post-A.D. 70 fulfillment?

The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

But where in the text does it say that the "coming on clouds" is what triggers the Jews to embrace Jesus? From what I can tell, there is nothing in the text which suggests such a thing. And as I pointed out in my last response, the "coming in the clouds" has nothing to do with a "coming to earth." So even in what seems to be Marcus' view, even a "second coming" scenario in implementing this text wouldn't support such a conclusion either. But with that aside, I don't see how 24:31 is meant to be a direct or consequential result of 24:30. And as for Marcus not being able to see how v. 31 could be in reference to the first century, I think the details of such a discussion would have to be reserved for another time, as I intended this discussion to be more focused upon one or two texts.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.

But which translations and on what basis? Is there anything lexically which would merit such a translation? Also, check out the context in which "this generation" is used in other places. Would "this race" be appropriate in those places as well? I think that a lot of justification would need to be made before implementing such a conclusion.

I want to thank Marcus for such a profitable discussion and hope that the readers have benefitted from the interaction. I think this goes to show how two people can disagree in a respectful manner while remaining brothers in the Lord. I'll leave the last word for Marcus so that he can clarify any points that he sees fit.

"This Generation" changed by the Watchtower...yet again

In the April 15, 2010 Watchtower, there is an article titled, “Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose.” And in this article, a change was made in a fairly significant teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And to illustrate the significance of this doctrine, please open up your Watchtower library and type in “this generation.” Then, come to your own conclusion as to how important this teaching has been over the Watchtower’s history. And not only that, but consider how important the meaning of this phrase is to Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 24 and the parallel accounts. Certainly, it would be no stretch to say that the meaning of Jesus’ words is crucial to how you understand that passage.

But how does the Watchtower understand it? Let’s go over the history of interpretation to illustrate:

In 1927, the view was that “this generation” was in reference to the anointed, or the “new creation.”

In 1951, “This generation” meant those who were born before or during 1914.

In 1995, “this generation” was in reference to those who failed to repent, which would include all non-Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Please watch the video above for the actual references)

Then, in 2008, the teaching was changed back to the view held in 1927 which referred to “this generation” as the “anointed.”

And last, just two years later, the Watchtower changed their view yet again to mean something else:

“To what generation did Jesus refer? Jesus was referring, not to the wicked, but to the disciples, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus’ anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning—that Jesus ‘is near at the doors.’ What does this explanation mean to us? Although we cannot measure the exact length of ‘this generation,’ we do well to keep in mind several things about the word ‘generation’: it usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about ‘this generation?’ He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” –The Watchtower April 15, 2010

So it looks as if, now, when you read the word “generation” in places like Matthew 24, it doesn’t mean just one particular generation, but an overlap of generations. Now, to many of you, especially if you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, this is not a big deal. It will be looked at as “new light” and will be accepted without question. After all, no one is perfect, and the society will refine their views as they come to better understand the Scriptures. And often times, Jehovah’s Witnesses will ask me why I am not criticizing bible scholars for changing their views, as I will readily admit, this happens all the time.

But I don’t believe this is a valid comparison. And the reason being, most Bible scholars are not claiming the type of authority that the Watchtower claims. That is, there aren’t too many Bible scholars out there who insist that their personal interpretations should be accepted without question. And furthermore, there are not too many Bible scholars who claim that they are God’s sole channel of communication on earth today. And therefore, to disobey or disagree with them, would be to disagree with God. And for me, this makes these changes in Watchtower doctrine to be far more significant.

And to finish this off, I’d like to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses some questions in order to get you thinking.

First, do you agree with this change in the meaning of “this generation?” And are you accepting this change without question? That is, when you are studying this publication along with your congregation, are you really searching the Scriptures and seeing if this explanation is the best that could be offered? Or are you just accepting it as long as the Watchtower can cite a Bible verse to try to support it?

Second, how sure are you that this understanding is the correct one? With this many changes, do you still feel that the Watchtower is a trustworthy guide for Bible knowledge? And how many changes would have to be made before you’d consider them unreliable? 5? 10? 20? Or is there nothing that would cause you to think that?

And third, what if you don’t agree with the Watchtower on this point? Is there any Scriptural basis by which you wouldn’t be allowed to stand by your view, as long as you believed it was in line with what the Bible teaches? Or would you be asked to stay silent on this issue, so as to not be looked at as divisive?

And last, do you find Jesus’ words to be unclear in Matthew 24? To an outsider, with such a variety of interpretations offered by the Watchtower over the years, would this not make Jesus out to be unreliable? After all, the Watchtower, though not necessarily claiming inspiration, has stated that their interpretations are not based on man’s opinion. So who is the one being unclear here, Jesus or the Watchtower?

And to those who are doubting that the Watchtower is who they claim to be for whatever reason, you may decide to stick with them because you don’t know where else to go. But I would challenge you to search the Scriptures for yourself. And instead of asking, “what is the truth, “ ask yourself, “who is the truth.”

Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Instead of responding in the comment section of my Matthew 24 challenge, I figured I would just write a whole new blog post since Marcus McElhaney WROTE an excellent blog of his own in response. So what i'd like to do here is go through some of the things he said in response.

"The disciples asked Jesus two separate questions: When will the temple be destroyed? When will the end of the world happen?"

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

"The Emperor Caligula had tried to set up idols in the holy pace in the Temple. The interesting thing to me is that Jesus said that when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place he seems to be describing a person not an idol and as far I can tell Caligula's order was never presented. This is why I've never thought that Jesus was merely describing AD 70. I would argue that it was in this paassge Jesus is sifting from talking about the temple to the end of the world."

Let's see how Jesus describes what is going on in v. 15:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place..."

In light of Marcus' comment's, I still find that there is good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking about the events leading up to 70 A.D. And to illustrate this, it would be important to bring in the parallel account in Luke where more details are given:

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." (Luke 21:20)

This clearly links the military action associated with the destruction and the desolation of the temple. In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

This has not happened yet. It can only happen once and it has not happened ever in any history we can point to."

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

Because this could lead to a very technical discussion, i'm just going to address v. 30 and leave v. 31 for another discussion.

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory."

First, let's consider the language of "coming" with regards to judgment, which is clearly what is going on in Jesus' account. It is important to recognize that Jesus is speaking to a Jewish audience who would have the Hebrew Scriptures in mind when hearing familiar references. For instance, could they have heard an echo of Micah 1:3-4:

"For behold, YHWH is coming forth from His place. He will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. The mountains will melt under Him and the valleys will be split, like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place."

Even the most staunch dispensationalist commentary will affirm that this wasn't a literal appearing of Jehovah to bring destruction to Samaria. Instead, it is figurative language used to describe the fact, not necessarily the means by which, Jehovah would bring judgment upon the land. To find out the means by which He did this, visit 2 Kings 17:1-8. And as far as I can tell, there was nothing supernatural about the invasion of Samaria; especially not a literal appearing or coming of Jehovah. Therefore, we cannot read Matthew 24:30 as a literal appearing on the basis of "Son of Man coming" alone.

What about the "coming on the clouds" language? First, we can't assume it is literal unless there is a good reason for believing so. And with the Hebrew context in mind, there would be good reason to believe that it is not literal. After all, what is normally associated with "clouds" and God? Isn't it normally judgment, whether God is visibly present or not?

"Behold, YHWH is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." (Isaiah 19:1)

"He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind." (Psalm 104:3)

In Isaiah 19:1, is this describing a time when Jehovah literally came down on a cloud and judged Egypt? Interestingly enough, the passage also describes Jehovah as "present," yet no Egyptian actually saw Him. Also, He is described as having clouds as "chariots" But there is no event, to my knowledge, where God performed a visible act of judgment whereby he came down on a cloud as a chariot. And so very often, God accomplishes His judgment by the means of bringing pagan nations against His people, which is clearly the means by which He does so in Matthew 24. And since we have many indicators of this in Matthew 24, why allege that Jesus is speaking of a physical appearing whereby God judges when the Hebrew context tells us that this is not always the case?

Next, there is a very important "cloud" reference that cannot be overlooked. This is where Jesus is referencing Daniel 7:13 in describing what is going to take place with His "coming." Notice that the account has the Son of Man goingup instead of down:

"I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him."

If Jesus were referring to a physical coming to earth to judge, why would He reference a text in which He was not coming to earth? Instead, He is making a prediction in which He would have exaltation and authority; the kind of authority He would need in order to pronounce such a judgment on Jerusalem, which is why the Pharisees were to appalled at Jesus' statement in Matthew 26:64-65:

"Jesus said to them, 'You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his robes and said, 'He has blasphemed!'"

It is very interesting to note how this affirms my view even further; namely, that this "coming" would happen soon. Why else would Jesus tell them, "hereafter you will see." If Jesus were referring to an event thousands of years later, how could He be telling the Pharisees that they would see this? A possible objection might be, "but the Pharisees didn't actually see the Son of Man in this regard, so how could it have happened back then?" To answer this, consider the fact that the Bible often equates "seeing" with "understanding." For instance, in John 12:40, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:10 to explain why some are not believing:

"He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."

Therefore, is it not likely that the "seeing" in Matthew 24:30 is likely with reference to "understanding," since Jesus was basically telling the Pharisees that they would "see the Son of Man...coming on the clouds of heaven?"

Next, let's consider what Jesus means with, "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky." This needs to be read very carefully so as to not miss what is being said. What is it that will appear in the sky? Jesus, or the sign? It would seem that the sign is what appears. Also, consider the fact that according to the BDAG Greek lexicon, ouranos can mean, "The portion or portions of the universe distinguished from planet earth, heaven." And also the, "transcendent abode, heaven...the dwelling place (or throne) of God." And even in isolating Matthew 24:30 from its context, the fact that Jesus alludes to a place (Daniel 7:13) where the Son of Man is going to heaven rather than coming to earth, further supports the idea that this isn't speaking of a literal and physical coming of Jesus.

But we still need to answer what this "sign" is referring to? Whatever it is, it is something which proves that Jesus is enthroned in heaven and has the authority to rule and judge. Thus, it is completely reasonable to see the "sign of the Son of Man [appearing] in the sky" as the destruction that would take place in 70 A.D. What better way could Jesus prove He was the one spoken of in Daniel 7:13 than this?

Last, but not least, in order for my position to be true, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn" would have to more likely fit into the first century context than an "end-times" scenario. The first issue to consider is a translation issue. Since the context of Matthew 24 is within the destruction of Jerusalem, "land" would seem to be a more appropriate translation, and is a very justifiable translation of ge, as almost any Greek dictionary or lexicon will affirm. And if it is the case that the entire context of Matthew 24 is localized, then "all the tribes of the land will mourn" is very reasonable in light of what happened in 70 A.D.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

Eschatology has always been a bit of an interest to me. There have been times where I focused too much on the subject (I was practically obsessed with Tim Lahaye books), and other times when I focused too little. Until recently, I was a very staunch futurist in that I believed that Matthew 24, the book of Revelation, and other prophetic books like Daniel, had a future fulfillment. However, the more I studied Reformed theology, the more I became exposed to the preterist view, whether it be amillennial or postmillennial. One thing that really challenged my view was reading alternate exegesis of Matthew 24, which would describe all of the events as having a past fulfillment in 70 C.E. in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though i'm not completely set on this idea, it seems to be the most reasonable. With that said, i'd like to pose a challenge to anyone who views Matthew 24 as having a unique, future fulfillment. And specifically, i'd like to see someone choose one specific event listed in the account that specifically, uniquely, unequivically refers to a future event. That is, do not choose an event that had some sort of "dual fulfillment." I want to see if there is even one event in Matthew 24 that could not have possibly been in reference to the destruction in 70 C.E.

I'd appreciate any insights on this and i'll either interact in the comment section or in a future blog. And keep in mind that this is not a debate. I just want to discuss this with an open mind and respectfully share our views with each other.

Some eschatological thoughts

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

Could this verse be speaking of the same event as the following:

"For just as lightening comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24: 27)

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky with power and glory." (24:30)

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (24:34)

There's a few things i'd like to point out. First, is the "coming" in Matthew 16:28 the same as what is spoken of in chapter 24? Is the language not parallel?

Could the "those who are standing here" in 16:28 be the same "this generation" that is spoken of in 24:34?

If it is really true that "those standing here" and "this generation" is in reference to those who were living at the time of Jesus, then what implications would this have for your theology?

An Evening of Eschatology

Recently, four prominent evangelical theologians, John Piper, Doug Wilson, Sam Storms, and Jim Hamilton, got together to debate the various eschatological views. In particular, the millennium was discussed. I felt like this was a very profitable discussion and serves as an excellent example in having strong disagreements and yet be fully united in our proclamation of the gospel.

You can watch the video HERE

You can listen to the discussion HERE

Though i'm far from settled on my millennial views, I felt like Sam Storms had the most solid case with his amillennial view.

Debate: The Great Tribulation. Past or Future?

This was an excellent debate that took place between Gary DeMar and Thomas Ice at Biola University in 2002. Because of the popularity of dispensationalist, premillennial eschatology most Christians are unaware that there are other perspectives within "evangelicalism." Debates like these are great opportunities to hear both sides of the issue. The debate is primarily centered around Matthew 24. Did it take place in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or is it yet to come? Listen and come to your own conclusions.

PART 1
PART 2

Book Review: "Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church" by Gary DeMar

In his book, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, Gary DeMar presents a powerful critique of today’s popular “end-times” authors. While some may be tempted to accuse the author of not dealing with the more conservative futurists, such an accusation is unwarranted given the subtitle: “obsession of the modern church.” This is important to recognize, for the more conservative writers are not to be confused with the “madness” of men like Hal Lindsey who are borderline, if not outright false prophets.

But regardless of the intended audience for DeMar, I feel that he did a very good job of establishing and defending the preterist position against futurism. To sum up the primary thesis of the book; the author concedes that the events of Matthew 24 are not to be fulfilled in the future. Instead, they were all fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Thus, the author seeks to put an end to the “madness” by showing how the futurists misinterpret the “signs” of Matthew 24, as well those in Daniel, Revelation and other books.

The bulk of the book is essentially a preterist commentary on Matthew 24. In fact, more than half of the 442 pages are devoted to Matthew 24, and for good reason; the majority of “signs” that futurists look for are from this chapter. Therefore, the author feels that if Matthew 24 can be shown to reflect the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., then the futurist position falls apart.

Being a reserved and fairly cautious futurist, I approached Last Day Madness with a lot of skepticism. I have always believed that the signs are being fulfilled right before our very eyes, with increased lawlessness, wars, famines, etc. And I could not even begin to imagine the events in Revelation as having a past fulfillment. However, I never took a dogmatic approach to this, since men of old have often failed at interpreting the signs correctly.

And this is one aspect that I felt was unfair for DeMar. He regularly accused futurists of doing “newspaper exegesis” in looking at the modern “signs.” He argues that if you stick to the Bible, you wouldn’t have to be constantly modifying your theories. The problem is, the author is inconsistent. Where DeMar accuses futurists of looking “outside the Bible” for fulfillment of the signs, he does the exact same thing in looking at ancient equivalents of “newspapers” (i.e. Josephus and other “reporters”) to establish a past fulfillment. Either way, this does not establish the truth or falsity of either position. If Matthew 24 is future, then no one can be faulted for looking at the signs. If Matthew 24 is past, then the same applies. This is one place where the author unfairly accused others time and time again.

As far as the author’s exegesis of the text, there was very little I could disagree with. When I said to myself, “There is no way this verse has a past fulfillment,” DeMar would surprise me with an application that I could not deny. The problem was, I had always looked at these verses with a modern eye, thinking that Jesus’ original audience would view things the same way. Instead, I should have looked at these verses with an ancient eye, as one who was familiar with the language and usage of the phrases and motives in the Hebrew Scriptures.

This being the first work of Preterism that I’ve ever encountered, I still remain fairly skeptical of this position, with many questions yet to be answered. However, at this point I find very little I can outright disagree with in DeMar’s interpretation of the texts. Furthermore, I am quite surprised that the futurist books that I once studied did not address the text of Scripture as it should. In other words, I found things in the Bible that I never knew was there!

If you are a futurist who believes that we are living in the end times, you need to read this book, especially if you have never been challenged by the preterist position.

Eschatological Developments

I haven't really done much blogging on eschatology for a few reasons. First, I haven't studied it enough to have a firm opinion. And second, it just hasn't been at the forefront of my mind.

My background has always been a premillennial, dispensational eschatology. The reason being, its all i've been exposed to. When I went to college where I was in the process of figuring out what I believed, I picked up a few books by Tim Lahaye and Henry Morris to see if this form of eschatology had any credibility. When I concluded the credibility of this position, and that the majority of Christian leaders and seminaries held to these views, I never saw any reason to question any of it. Never did I hear any opposition from the "other side," whoever they were. As far as I knew, preterists were a bunch of theological liberals, or at worse, heretics.

Being on the road full time with my band has brought me a very significant amount of free time; time to read things that I would probably never otherwise read. And ever since I was exposed to "reformed theology," i've been hearing more and more arguments from the preterist position. So, I decided to pick up one of their books: Last Days Madness by Gary DeMarr.

All I can say is that i'm half way through this book and it is making me rethink anything and everything I ever believed about eschatology. If you are a premillennialist and don't mind a good theological challenge, check out this book. If you've never read what the other side has to say on this, you'll be very surprised. Things will jump out of the Bible that you never knew was there. Just try it. You'll see.

I'll post more details on this when I finish the book.

An insight on some of my theological developments

On 1/10/09, I called into the Narrow Mind radio program and asked a question concerning the Watchtower's view of paradise earth. In case you are unaware, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 144,000 "anointed" Christians will rule in heaven for all eternity, while the rest live on a paradise earth. But i've been talking to one Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe this, but instead, believes that all Christians will inherit paradise earth. In other words, there are not two classes of Christians. And honestly, i'm not quite sure of where I stand on the location of the "one hope." But I thought that Gene's answer to this question was pretty insightful.

The whole reason i'm even bringing this up is to be open about some of the possible changes that might be happening to some pretty important theological issues. And its not that the location of the "one hope" is all that crucial to the main issue at hand, but it is relevant and consequential. To what theological issue am I speaking? The millennium and the covenants. You see, I have grown up believing in a premillennial rapture, a future anti-Christ, a 7 year tribulation, and all that. But ever since I embraced reformed theology, I have been regularly challenged in this area, which is causing me to take some very serious considerations on my current position.

But what does this have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses? As one who is regularly involved in apologetics, I am constantly reminded that consistency is extremely important. No matter how well you can argue your case on one theological issue; if it is inconsistent with your position, then it is a failed argument. I know i'm speaking broadly here, but I think most people would agree with that. And though one might consider eschatology (the study of "last things") a relatively minor issue, its certainly not irrelevant in apologetics. Let me give you an example.

How many books have you read that defend Christianity against the beliefs of the Watchtower? You may notice something; most, if not all, are written from a dispensational framework. And there is no way to get around this, if you are a dispensationalist. Your eschatology will determine how you engage Jehovah's Witnesses on certain points. Let's take the 144,000 for instance. If you are a dispensationalist, you are forced to interpret this text in some way to represent 144,000 "Billy Grahams" who are literal Jews, who will evangelize during the tribulation. And if you are discussing this text with a Jehovah's Witness, you are attempting to show him why this isn't in reference to a separate "heavenly class" who will rule in heaven for all eternity. Furthermore, if you are dispensationalist, you are forced to "get around" those biblical texts which seem to establish a paradise earth, which will exist for all eternity. In other words, you will go to heaven after the millennium is over. And the one who doesn't have their eschatology developed and can't be consistent with his other theological views, will find himself in some difficult situations when discussing these issues in depth with a Jehovah's Witness.

And this is exactly what is happening with me right now. And I suppose I can thank Jehovah's Witnesses for encouraging me in this, though they probably don't even know it. Its really forcing me to look at these areas that I may not otherwise look. And its forcing me to take my consistency very seriously, even on those "minor" issues. So if there are changes that are to be made, it may take some time. I have done almost no reading in what the "other" side has to say. The most reading i've done in this area are Tim LaHaye books, which include his commentary on Revelation, among other books. So I think its about time I boldly go into those areas of discomfort where I may be forced to say, "yep, I was wrong." But its also very exciting, because i'm not afraid of truth. I love truth, and want to believe it no matter what the consequences. Anyway, enough rambling on this. Besides, my studies may leave me to embrace dispensational theology even more strongly.

If you want to hear first-hand what i'm going through in this area, I think you will find my call into the Narrow Mind radio show to be interesting. And you won't have to fast forward too far, as i'm the first caller. Let me know what you think!

Shawn sheds some light on the issue.

Shawn left a very well thought-out comment on my last blog. I felt that it shed so much light on this issue that I had to include it here for everyone to read:


Here's the context... and you won't get it simply by having both articles in their entirety. In 1984, JWs believed that the people who witnessed the events of 1914 would not die before Armageddon occurred. The age of a person who was able to comprehend the events of 1914 was eventually lowered to 10 years old, born in 1904. These people would have to be 104 now.... oops. So, to save themselves from yet another failed prophecy ( they have said that 'the end' would happen in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1975, before the 1914 generation dies, and the latest implication is 2034 ), the Watchtower society redefined the term "generation" from the literal generation that saw 1914 to something nebulous. The latest date was published in the December 15, 2003 Watchtower on pages 14-19. (quote from http://www.jwfiles.com/2034.htm )

Noah preached 120 years until the time of the flood, which was the time of the end to Noah and his generation. The December 15, 2003 Watchtower article is paralleling Noah's day to our present day. The Society is adding a 120 years to the 1914 date to come up with the hinted date of 2034.

Words such as "Similar, Similarly, Similarity, Similarities, Parallel, Corresponds, Characteristic, Compare, Arklike and more are all through the article to back up their subtle and hinted claims.

Page 15, Paragraph 6
"In Noah's day, Jehovah declared: 'My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.' (Genesis 6:3) The issuance of this divine decree in 2490 B.C.E. marked the beginning of the end for that ungodly world. Just think what that meant for those then living! Only 120 years more and Jehovah would bring 'the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens.' - Genesis 6:17"

Page 15, Paragraph 7
"Noah received the warning of the upcoming catastrophe decades in advance and he wisely used the time to prepare for survival.' After being given divine warning of things not yet beheld,' says the apostle Paul, '[Noah] showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household.' (Hebrews 11:7) What about us? Some 90 years have passed since the last days of this system of things began in 1914. We are certainly in 'the time of the end.' (Daniel 12:4) How should we respond to warnings we have been given? 'He that does the will of God remains forever,' states the Bible. (1 John 2:17) Now is therefore the time to do Jehovah's will with a keen sense of urgency."

Page 15, Paragraph 9
"Jehovah has kept these warnings in front of his people by means of timely reminders through the spiritual food provided by 'the faithful and discreet slave'".... (end of quote)

A footnote in the Feb 15th 2008 Watchtower study article states "Apparently, the period in which "this generation" lives seems to correspond to the period covered by the first vision of the book of Revelation. (Rev. 1:10-3:22) This aspect of the day of the Lord extends from 1914 until when the last of the faithful anointed dies and is resurrected - See Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand! page 24, paragraph 4."
The Watchtower society used to quote Psalms 90:10

"10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years;
And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,
Yet their insistence is on trouble and hurtful things;
For it must quickly pass by, and away we fly. "

and associate 70 or 80 years with the generation of 1914, but now that that time has come and gone, they need an extension and found it in the parallel of Noah's day. The JWs are a branch of Adventism and are eagerly awaiting the destruction of all human life on earth except for JWs, at which time the earth will, through the hard work of the survivors, be transformed into a global park where there will be no carnivorous animals. Oh, lions will still be around, they just won't eat meat anymore, so your children will be able to hug them. Take a look at http://www.watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm

The Watchtower society is constantly looking for clues as to when this catastrophic event will occur and every time one of the indicators (either a particular year or the passing of the 'generation') fails to ring in the destruction of almost all human life, the Watchtower society suddenly gets 'new light' from the Holy Spirit.

So it's entirely understandable that you are confused about this interpretation. You have to keep in mind that the JWs (meaning the governing body in Brooklyn) are constantly discovering "new light" and this new light gives way to "the current understanding" of the scriptures. So really, only the publications from the last few years are to be understood as "the truth". Also, keep in mind that any interpretation of the scriptures that does not come from the Watchtower society (referred to internally as 'the faithful and discreet slave') is coming from an apostate.

The preaching work of the JWs is fueled by the fear that the coming day of Jehovah's wrath is very near and that true Christians will be involved primarily in the preaching activity. For the rank and file adherents, that means that if they're not busy in the Lord's work when Armageddon happens, they will be destroyed with the rest of the pagans. This urgency is what drives JWs to engage in the door-to-door ministry to promote the Watchtower society's message. Therefore, anyone who claims that the scriptures do not indicate that the time we are living in is 'the time of the end', is working against God's spirit-directed organization (the Watchtower society's governing body)... an apostate.

In the mind of a JW, there is no conflict in the statements of 1984 and 2008. In the 1984 article, the Society is warning the faithful not to believe people who say the end is not near. That's because JW families might not want to go out knocking on doors every weekend and take their family to a real park without friendly lions and actually enjoy the life they are living instead of living for a life that the Watchtower society has promised them will come really, really soon. On the other hand, in the 2008 article the Society is disseminating 'new light' on the understanding of what the term 'generation' means.

This is typical Watchtower marketing spin. They present this new light in a you-heard-it-here-first-Aren't-you-special? kind of way to distract the rank and file from the fact that the society was just plain wrong about Armageddon arriving before the literal generation of 1914 dies ( or whatever else they were wrong about). There's a lot of excitement before some new light is published. Magazines leading up to the new light hint at it's arrival. Then, after the new light arrives there's a sort of mob mentality that pushes each individual to adapt their beliefs to this new light. Talks from the platform and Watchtower articles tell the congregations how the Society is a swift moving organization and that no member can 'stand still' - You're either moving forward with the faithful and discreet slave, or you're moving backwards into spiritual darkness. Members are also constantly reminded to 'look forward', discouraging them from looking critically at the failed prophecy of the organization they belong to. Combine this with...

* The shear volume of required study of the current Watchtower publications
* The hours each week spent at meetings and in the field ministry
* The fear that if one is not in-line with God's spirit-directed earthly organization, the Watchtower society, that person will be destroyed at Armageddon ( which is going to happen really soon)

...and you have a group of people that are so busy that they simply don't have time to sit and reflect on the very long list of failed predictions.

How do I know? I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness from infancy and was a member up to my late twenties when I could no longer stand how women are treated as second-class citizens along with some serious discrepancies between historical events and the dates used by the society to predict 1914 as the beginning of Christ's invisible presence, namely the Watchtower claim that the first destruction of the temple in Jerusalem occurred in 607 B.C.E. The one good thing that I got out of being a JW was extensive training in public speaking and debate... which I now use to shed, not 'new light' but the actual light of truth on this controlling and manipulative cult.

I would be happy to answer any other questions that anyone has about what JWs believe, what life as a JW is like, etc.

Are all Jehovah's Witnesses after 1984 apostate?

I am a bit perplexed by this and would like clarification by any Jehovah's Witness who might be reading this:

December 1, 1984 Watchtower:

"....Have apostates who claim that "the last days" began at Pentecost and cover the entire Christian Era promoted Christian alertness? Have they not, rather, induced spiritual sleepiness?...."

February 15, 2008 Watchtower:

".....Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about "this generation," the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the "generation" that would not pass away "until all these things [would] occur....."

I don't have the full articles, which might make more sense given the fuller context. But what i'm seeing here seems to be saying that those who claimed that the last days began at pentecost are "apostates." This was said in 1984. But then in 2008 it was said that the apostles understood the last days as happening in their lifetime. Unless i'm mistaken, this seems to be an instance of careless stone-throwing by the Watchtower.

John Hagee has lost it...big time.

I never thought dispensational, pre-mill eschatology could ever go this far. But John Hagee has certainly proved himself worthy in an ad for his latest book:



Just a few highlights:


1) "Jesus did not come to be the Messiah"


2) Jesus was killed as part of a "Calvary Conspiracy"


3) Jesus "did not claim to be the Messiah"


UNBELIEVABLE!!! This man has completely lost it!