Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[JehovahsWitness]

It makes a huge difference to every JW.

With all due respect you are not in a position to say what "makes a huge difference to every JW". The year 1914 is only important in that it is the year our king started his rule. It confirmed bible prophecy which in turn strengthens our faith. But had it been 1913 or 1915 would make no difference to us, we don't worship a date we worship the GOD that in his wisdom to chose that date.

It our God that we worship, the king we honour, and the kingdom that makes the difference between this world full of war, disease, suffering and crippling inequality. It is the kingdom that will sanctify our beloved Gods Holy name, it is the kingdom that we preach, it is the kingdom we pray for and we all stand loyal to the king and his kingdom above any human government, power or authority.

If we celebrated 100 years of kingdom rule back in 2014, it was not because we were happy about a number but because we recognise the accomplishments of our God in this regard.






JW



FURTHER READING 100 Years of Kingdom Rule"How Does It Affect You?
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines ... gdom-rule/

[Checkpoint]

It has no such "then later"/"spiritual harvest period" aspects in the only harvest he named.

Well the whole chart is covering the events of the "harvest period(or season)" .

For more on whether it is accurate to refer to a harvest period /season see post #1512
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#1010870

When I say it's a "spiritual" harvest I mean it's not a literal harvest of plants but a harvest related to spiritual matters (things related to the spirit world).


THEN LATER

The expression "then later" was not used to indicate that there are two harvests described nor to imply the subseqnent events are outside of the "harvest period" (see above). But to harvest is literally to collect from the point of growth, so harvesting apples for example would only apply literally to when you pick the apple off of the tree. Of course "a harvest" usually includes to what we *do* with the product, thus our speakjng of a harvest season. For more on what is done with the produce see post above
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#1011815


Obviously if the weeds are gathered FIRST (Jesus words) and they are bound those two things happened chronologically before being burnt. My "then later" simply refers to the subsequent actions/events in terms of chronological order. The weeds are not burnt before they are collected, they were not burnt while simultaneously being bundled, they are collected -> bound and then burnt.

#collected
#2 bundled
... and then later (chronologically after steps 1 &2 )
#3 burnt

Hope that clarifies things,

JW

Not so much, except for you and yours.

This does, however, for me:

Quote:

MATTHEW 13:30, 39-43 * [It is called harvest time because it is a period marked by a spiritual harvest

H*
A (#1 First collect /identification of the "weeds" (imitation Christians) v41
R
V (#2 then, the gathering the wheat (true Christians: Christs remaining anointed brothers .
E [...] a gathering of spirit anointed born again Christians
S into the "storehouses" (the organised Christian congregation v30) firstly into his congregation
T

And then/ /then later ...

OK, how does that clarify the harvest?

Scripture includes three kinds of harvest, the literal or natural, the spiritual or supernatural, and the end of the age or last day.

The harvest in our parable is the one he says "is the end of the age". What ends this age is the final Judgment that he here calls "the harvest".

The harvest you describe above is the spiritual harvest of believers in the world who have become not of it. That is why it has no place in either the parable or its explanation.

I wonder if that helps you at all...

[JehovahsWitness]

The harvest in our parable is the one he says "is the end of the age". What ends this age is the final Judgment that he here calls "the harvest".

I dont know what you mean by "the final judgement", it sounds like you are trying to go beyond what the scripture deals with. This parable focuses on imitation Christianity (weeds) , true Christians (wheat) and what will finally happen to them.

We note that in explaining the parable Jesus mentions other elements which are merely alluded to in his conclusion, namely Satan (who sowed the weeds) and "the world" where both the wheat and the weeds grew. It seems reasonable that Jesus could have given other explainations that focus on their fate elsewhere in scripture, scriptures beyond the scope of this discussion.

The harvest you describe above is the spiritual harvest of believers in the world ...

So? That's exaclty what Jesus said, he said the field is the world, the readers angels and the wheat "are the sons of the Kingdom".

That is why it has no place in either the parable or its explanation.

In your opinion, according to your interpretation.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

It has no such "then later"/"spiritual harvest period" aspects in the only harvest he named.

Well the whole chart is covering the events of the "harvest period(or season)" .

For more on whether it is accurate to refer to a harvest period /season see post #1512
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#1010870

When I say it's a "spiritual" harvest I mean it's not a literal harvest of plants but a harvest related to spiritual matters (things related to the spirit world).


THEN LATER

The expression "then later" was not used to indicate that there are two harvests described nor to imply the subseqnent events are outside of the "harvest period" (see above). But to harvest is literally to collect from the point of growth, so harvesting apples for example would only apply literally to when you pick the apple off of the tree. Of course "a harvest" usually includes to what we *do* with the product, thus our speakjng of a harvest season. For more on what is done with the produce see post above
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#1011815


Obviously if the weeds are gathered FIRST (Jesus words) and they are bound those two things happened chronologically before being burnt. My "then later" simply refers to the subsequent actions/events in terms of chronological order. The weeds are not burnt before they are collected, they were not burnt while simultaneously being bundled, they are collected -> bound and then burnt.

#collected
#2 bundled
... and then later (chronologically after steps 1 &2 )
#3 burnt

Hope that clarifies things,

JW

Not so much, ...

Well I think anyone reading can see I've done all I can do to explain clearly what we believe, literally taking each word and comma you question and writing entire paragraphs explaining why I used a particular word or expression , what the Greek was, what we believe Jesus was saying and drawing charts to show how that word fits into the whole.

In short, I have literally explained in detail every word I posted. I defy anyone to say I could have done more.



JW

[Checkpoint]

The harvest in our parable is the one he says "is the end of the age". What ends this age is the final Judgment that he here calls "the harvest".

I dont know what you mean by "the final judgement", it sounds like you are trying to go beyond what the scripture deals with. This parable focuses on imitation Christianity (weeds) , true Christians (wheat) and what will finally happen to them.

We note that in explaining the parable Jesus mentions other elements which are merely alluded to in his conclusion, namely Satan (who sowed the weeds) and "the world" where both the wheat and the weeds grew. It seems reasonable that Jesus could have given other explainations that focus on their fate elsewhere in scripture, scriptures beyond the scope of this discussion.

The harvest you describe above is the spiritual harvest of believers in the world ...

So? That's exaclty what Jesus said, he said the field is the world, the readers angels and the wheat "are the sons of the Kingdom".

That is why it has no place in either the parable or its explanation.

In your opinion, according to your interpretation.


JW

As with your posts, of course.

Regrettably, we can only agree to differ, it seems, on what elements are described in this parable of "the harvest" that he said was "the end of the age".

[JehovahsWitness]

Regrettably, we can only agree to differ, it seems, on what elements are described in this parable of "the harvest" that he said was "the end of the age".

Fair enough. I hope at least you understand what we believe and why even if you don't agree.


JW

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1568 by JehovahsWitness]

Well I think anyone reading can see I've done all I can do to explain clearly what we believe, literally taking each word and comma you question and writing entire paragraphs explaining why I used a particular word or expression , what the Greek was, what we believe Jesus was saying and drawing charts to show how that word fits into the whole.

In short, I have literally explained in detail every word I posted. I defy anyone to say I could have done more.

Yes, you have stuck to the task you found, to explain in detail "what we believe".

Well done, JW!

Sadly, we have come t a stalemate and it may be best to call it a day on this one.

Thanks anyway, and we will no doubt have other exchanges about various things.

I look forward to that.

God bless you, JW.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1558 by Checkpoint]

I'm getting rather dizzy trying to follow the lines of thinking being presented here. What difference does it make if Jesus started ruling in 1914? What difference does it make if he was separating sheep and goats during the last days or right at the end? It doesn't really matter, in the scheme of things.

One thing is certain: Jesus is coming to get rid of the incorrigibly wicked and to bind Satan for a thousand years, thus beginning a time of peace and security and unimaginable happiness. We merely have to be ready for this event and in the meantime do our best to imitate him and uphold his Father's Sovereignty.

Yes, this current debate is a somewhat dizzying experience "trying to follow the line of thinking being presented here".

But perhaps what you have just said about 1914 takes the cake. It makes a huge difference to every JW.

Yes, Jesus is coming to end this old order/system of things, by destroying every enemy, including Satan and death.
Thus, God will then make all things new, an eternity with unimaginable happiness for all who will be there.

Acts 3:21
For he must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago through his holy prophets.

2 Peter 3:
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. a

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives
12 as you wait eagerly for the day of God to come. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

13 But, in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

So what, really, is your beef? You insist on splitting hairs, questioning every which way the breeze might blow. My comment about 1914 was meant to merely bring attention to the idea that I don't understand why you argue about that date when there are bigger issues to resolve, like why is Jesus coming back? What is he going to do after the riddance of the wicked? Is he really going to resolve all of our problems? These are the things we might be discussing rather than quibbling about a date. We have shown why we know that 1914 was a significant year (Bible chronology; scriptural evidence) yet it is ignored, and arguments go on.


.

[PinSeeker]

So what, really, is your beef? You insist on splitting hairs, questioning every which way the breeze might blow. My comment about 1914 was meant to merely bring attention to the idea that I don't understand why you argue about that date when there are bigger issues to resolve, like why is Jesus coming back? What is he going to do after the riddance of the wicked? Is he really going to resolve all of our problems? These are the things we might be discussing rather than quibbling about a date. We have shown why we know that 1914 was a significant year (Bible chronology; scriptural evidence) yet it is ignored, and arguments go on.

I well realize this comment was directed at Checkpoint, but I'll speak to it:

Nobody is "quibbling about a date," really but rather what some think happened on that date... in this case, what happened (or did not happen) in the year 1914.

And I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that 1914 was a significant year. I would say that every year is a significant year; each year that comes since Pentecost is another year of Christ's Millennial reign, our progress in fulfilling the Great Commission, and the Holy Spirit's work of converting hearts to Christ toward bringing the fullness of the Gentiles into and then removing the partial hardness from Israel. Yes, each year is very significant.

But certainly, there are a great many Christians -- I among them and I'm presuming Checkpoint also, but maybe not -- who adamantly assert that 1914 was most assuredly not the year of Christ's return. We are still patiently awaiting that great event.

And I would certainly dispute -- as I think Checkpoint would, too, but he can speak for himself if he so chooses -- the Jehovah's Witness propagation of what they think is Scriptural evidence for their position. This is what you have shown: why you think 1914 was a significant year. And it's not 'ignored," but debated where necessary, with reference to scriptural evidence.

And I would certainly dispute -- again, as I think Checkpoint would, too, but he can speak for himself if he so chooses -- at least to some extent what the Jehovah's Witness line of thought is regarding Bible chronology. I would assert, along with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Van Til, and many others right up to the present day, that Christ's rule in heaven as King began with His ascension to God the Father's right hand:

• * as prophesied by David in Psalm 110:4-5 --
  
  • "The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' The Lord is at your right hand; He will shatter kings on the day of His wrath."
  * as proclaimed by Paul in Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, and Colossians 3:1
  
  • "Christ Jesus is the one who died"more than that, Who was raised -- Who is at the right hand of God" (Romans 8:34)
    
    "...that He worked in Christ when he raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." (Ephesians 1:20-21)
    
    "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." (Colossians 3:1)
  * the actual event recorded by Luke in Acts 1:9 --
  
  • And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
  * as asserted by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, and 12:2 --
  
  • "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high..." (1:3)
    
    "Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven..." (8:1)
    
    "Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (12:2)
  * as again proclaimed by Peter in 1 Peter 3:22 --
  
  • "...Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

Again, the reign of Christ from heaven began in... well, about 33 A.D. Or thereabouts. But I agree that the date is not worth quibbling over. We agree that it's true, at least.

Now, if we can just get you to understand that Jesus is the second Person of the triune Jehovah God... Of course, only the Spirit can do that, and He will, if the Father so wills it...

Grace and peace to you, OWH.

[onewithhim]

So what, really, is your beef? You insist on splitting hairs, questioning every which way the breeze might blow. My comment about 1914 was meant to merely bring attention to the idea that I don't understand why you argue about that date when there are bigger issues to resolve, like why is Jesus coming back? What is he going to do after the riddance of the wicked? Is he really going to resolve all of our problems? These are the things we might be discussing rather than quibbling about a date. We have shown why we know that 1914 was a significant year (Bible chronology; scriptural evidence) yet it is ignored, and arguments go on.

I well realize this comment was directed at Checkpoint, but I'll speak to it:

Nobody is "quibbling about a date," really but rather what some think happened on that date... in this case, what happened (or did not happen) in the year 1914.

And I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that 1914 was a significant year. I would say that every year is a significant year; each year that comes since Pentecost is another year of Christ's Millennial reign, our progress in fulfilling the Great Commission, and the Holy Spirit's work of converting hearts to Christ toward bringing the fullness of the Gentiles into and then removing the partial hardness from Israel. Yes, each year is very significant.

But certainly, there are a great many Christians -- I among them and I'm presuming Checkpoint also, but maybe not -- who adamantly assert that 1914 was most assuredly not the year of Christ's return. We are still patiently awaiting that great event.

You are, I think, confusing Christ's parousia with his return at Armageddon. His becoming the working-for-disciples'-commission-on-Earth (from heaven) King in 1914 is different from his taking up full Kingdom power after Armageddon. According to the Scriptures, Jesus would once again represent Jehovah's King-ship like the Davidic kings did in the past, in the year 1914. The book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" explains it very nicely. Daniel wrote down everything we would have to know about when the Messiah would first show up and then when he would take his Kingly throne and start to rule. His rule is in two stages, if you will. From 1914 to now, he has been guiding his disciples in their preaching work (Matthew 24:14). After the Great Tribulation he will conquer evil by eliminating the wicked and casting Satan into a figurative abyss. Then he will entirely rule the world for a thousand years.


.