Bad Conditions Now Compared to Periods in the Past

[David Davidovich]

Well I think somewhere in here, you realize that your first comment isn't quite accurate.
The only big difference between my post, and your OP, is that yours is first , which makes any complaining about mine... well... just don't point fingers, okay.
I could have put all my scriptures in a spoiler, and you would see how much shorter it is in comparison to yours.
I mentioned patience because I experienced that most here don't like to read posts that are more than 5 lines. Honestly.

I really had no idea, and really didn't think you would have a problem or complain after posting a book.

Hmmm. So, it sounds like you have no idea how long, verbose, and almost obsessive some of your posts seem.

 

[David Davidovich]

And your point is...?

You asked the odd question:

Why mention wildfires, when wildfires did not start specifically at the time he began ruling?​

And I simply responded to your question by saying:

Yeah, but doesn't Matthew 24:8 say: All these are the beginning of birth pains. (biblehub.com)? And which is similar to how the book of Revelation is supposed to show occurrences and calamities throughout the decades after the supposed start of the last days in the year 1914, and not just what immediately happened after 1914? (Although, technically, World War I started prior to Jehovah's Witnesses' number crunching of the month of the October in 1914 when the last days were supposed to have started.)​

Therefore, to break it down to be more rudimentary so that you can understand what I said: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the so-called sign of Jesus' second presence was not only supposed to have involved events at the so-called time when Jesus began ruling purportedly in the year 1914, but decades past the year 1914... However, I don't understand why you didn't understand the point that I was making.

Hmm. Someone feels guilty.
As the saying goes... If the cap fits...

Sorry, but no guilt at all. Also, is that another one of your camouflaged ad hominess? But I guess the feelings of superiority and arrogance in regard to one's religion can do that.

I only need the first part of your article... Intense hurricanes possibly more powerful than any storms
Guessing, pretty much.

But isn't that using a double standards since Jehovah's Witnesses are known for using the words "apparently," "likely," "evidently," and more?

click here: Cringe-worthy terms used in talks, that you likely on hear from a JW : exjw (reddit.com)

Did you read Matthew 24:14? Please explain what you understand it to be saying.

Matthew 24:14 says: And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Therefore, it sounds like you were saying that the gospel wasn't preached in Rome in the first century, however, it is being preached in Rome during our time period. And thus, the so-called Jehovah's Witness gospel can only be said to have been preached in all the world during our time. However, that's not true:

click here: Countries Where Jehovah's Witnesses' Activities Are Banned (rferl.org)

 

[David Davidovich]

If you got the point, you wouldn't be asking me to look through part 2 of your OP, and tell you what I think about what the historical records say about how attitudes and behaviors were in first century Rome.
is Rome the whole world? Then you missed the point.

Sorry, but you missed the point because you haven't proven that the attitudes and behaviors are just as bad as they are in other controls in comparison to how bad things are in the United States.

What? Do you usually think every general statement applys to you personally?
Man, that's sad.

Not sad because if the bully pulpit fits, then stand in it.

One image from jw.org. One video from jw.org.
Dude... are you okay?

Ditto!

I don't know everything that Satan may do directly, but I know he uses man, and he teaches man, so man's actions can create one domino effect after another, which can affect lives in many ways... woes for the earth.

The Christian concept of Satan is ridiculous... Just as ridiculous as the concept of Hellfire.

You were a good student, I must say, to take in and understand so much. You didn't go any further than studying... like getting baptized? Do you mind me aking why?

So, what difference would that make?

Well that's the reason I referred you to the post again, because there is a link to the video in that post (I triple checked), and the only possible way one can miss it, is if they are not taking the time to read the post.
Since I am not sitting here typing for my health, I am not going to post something someone does not take time to read, and then repost a part to them. What! Am I stupid!

All I know is that I said that I would watch the two videos that were in your one post, and I watched them... So, was there a third video that you wanted me to watch? Because if so, then I don't know where it is.

 

[natasha levchenko]

Thank you for your message.
It’s a great pleasure to communicate with sincere people . I’m touched that your heart isn’t hardened despite the terrible circumstances in the world.
There are lot’s of prophecies about last days that highlight menace but there’s a good one. It’s written in the Holy Scriptures .I often read it because it’s not easy to cope with all this stuff.
“And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.”
But you may wonder the end of what?
It’s interesting to know if you were able to end calamities in the world what exactly would you like end up with?

 

[David Davidovich]

I have. Where? What did I say is referring to World War I?

Sigh! If I have been sounding a bit perturbed with you, nPeace, below is one of the reasons why.

David Davidovich said: ↑
However, I could see if Jesus had predicted something specific such as blazing wildfires in one place after another. But instead, Jesus predicted common things that applied to almost any time period during history.

At what point was Matthew 24:13-14 "common"?
When was there ever a world war?

emphasis is mine

 

[David Davidovich]

I addressed your second post here, here, and here.
However, evidently, you haven't gotten the point. Is that because you are just scanning the post, and not taking time to read, and understand the point?

Okay, concerning here, here, and here, below is a quote from a small fraction of an article that can explain things better than I can. Also, I will post the actual video that is embedded in the article:

(I hope I'm doing this right.)

What would you, as a Jew of that time, have understood Jesus to mean by,

1. This good news?
2. All the inhabited earth?
3. All the nations?
4. The end will come?

. . .

Let’s look at that list again.

It will be easier to figure it out if we start from the bottom and work upwards.

So the fourth item was: “And then the end will come.”

What end could he be referring to? He only mentions one end. The word is in the singular. They had just asked him for a sign so they would know when the end of the city with its temple would come. They would naturally assume that was the end he was speaking of. But for that to make sense, the good news would have had to be preached in all the inhabited earth, and to all the nations, and that didn’t happen in the first century. Or did it? Let’s not go jumping to any conclusions.

Moving to the third point: What would they have understood Jesus meant when referring to “all the nations”? Would they have thought, “Oh, the good news will be preached in China, India, Australia, Argentina, Canada, and Mexico?

The word he uses is ethnos, from which we get the English word, “ethnic”.

Strong’s Concordance gives us:

Definition: a race, a nation, the nations (as distinct from Israel)
Usage: a race, people, nation; the nations, heathen world, Gentiles.​

So, when used in the plural, “nations”, ethnos, refers to the Gentiles, the pagan world outside of Judaism.

This is how the word is used throughout the Christian Scriptures. For example, in Matthew 10:5 we read, “These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Samaritan city;” (Mt 10:5)

The New World translation uses “nations” here, but most other versions render this as “Gentiles”. To the Jew, ethnos meant non-Jews, gentiles.

What about the second element of his statement: “all the inhabited earth”?

The word in Greek is oikoumené. (ee-ku-me-nee)

Strong’s Concordance explains its usage as “(properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.”

HELPS Word-studies explains it this way:

3625 (oikouménē) literally means “the inhabited (land).” It was “originally used by the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves, in contrast with barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, ‘the entire Roman world;’ still later, for ‘the whole inhabited world’ “.​

Given this information, we could paraphrase Jesus’ words to read, “and this good news of the kingdom will be preached throughout the known world (the Roman Empire) to all the Gentiles before Jerusalem is destroyed.”

Did that happen? In 62 C.E., just four years before the first siege of Jerusalem and while he was imprisoned in Rome, Paul wrote to the Colossians speaking about “…the hope of that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven.” (Col 1:23)

By that year, Christians had not reached India, or China, or the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Yet, Paul’s words are truthful within the context of the then known Roman world.

So, there you have it. The good news of the kingdom of the Christ was preached throughout the Roman world to all the Gentiles before the Jewish system of things came to its end.

(emphasis is mine to make it easier to understand the quote)

the link to the quote: Examining Matthew 24; Part 3: Preaching in All the Inhabited Earth - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer (beroeans.net)

I hope this helps, nPeace.

 

[David Davidovich]

Part 1
But before I post some quotes from some links about how bad life was during first century Rome, I wanted to also say that I posted this thread in a non-debate forum because I only wanted people to share their point of view, and to agree or disagree with others' point of view. However, I really didn't want anyone to go after each other. Therefore, please share with me what you know about how good or how bad political and social conditions were throughout history.

The Part 2 of my OP has been removed, therefore, I will try to post it again correctly. But with only a small fraction of the entire article.

If You Were Poor, You Lived in a High Rise

Most Romans lived in tall (up to 100 feet), rectangular apartment buildings called insula, meaning "island." Rome was crammed with these buildings, which were spaced very closely together, creating a labyrinth-esque network of narrow alleys.

These buildings were built so close together that one man wrote that he and the man in the apartment across from him could stretch their arms out and shake hands from their windows. And unlike today, the worst apartments were on the top floor, where it was darker, more cramped, and less safe. If the building burned, you'd need to haul it down those stairs. Richer citizens lived on the bottom floors.

There was no running water or sanitation in the insulae. Poorer folk had to rent apartments with several other roommates, who were day laborers, so the places stunk. It also was not uncommon to hear the agony of childbirth if your neighbor was a pregnant woman, as women gave birth at home in Rome.

And the buildings were cheap, so the insulation was terrible.

. . .

The Streets Were Also Dangerous Because of All the Thugs. And Emperor Nero

When the sun set, Roman streets were shrouded in shadows and frequented by dangerous people.

"Most Romans simply tried to avoid crime by not going at night, when thieves haunted the unlit streets," says Ryan.

A person who chose to brave the streets for a game of dice and a pint may even have had the misfortune of bumping into Emperor Nero. According to the historian Suetonius, Nero would disguise himself with a hat or a wig and attack men "coming home from supper" and beat them up. If they put up a fight, he would "wound them, and throw them in the common sewer."

. . .

Actual Justice Was for the Rich

The absence of police didn't mean the Romans had no laws. There were harsh punishments, but again, they were mainly directed at the lower class.

Laws were explicitly designed to give Roman's more powerful citizens, the honestiores, even more room to break laws. The honestiores included people such as senators, local officials and army officers, who were given an entirely different scale of punishments because they "did more" for society.

Everyone else was a member of the humiliores, regular Roman citizens who could be sentenced to work in the mines, which was essentially a death sentence. The worst sentence would be crucifixion, although that fate was almost never given to Roman citizens.

When Julius Caesar was still a lawyer, he was captured by Mediterranean pirates. After escaping, he hired men to hunt them down and bring them back to Rome, where he had them crucified. But rather than let them suffer on the cross, he had their throats slit.

click here for the quotation link: What Life in Ancient Rome Was Really Like | Work + Money (workandmoney.com)

 

[David Davidovich]

But before I post some quotes from some links about how bad life was during first century Rome, I wanted to also say that I posted this thread in a non-debate forum because I only wanted people to share their point of view, and to agree or disagree with others' point of view. However, I really didn't want anyone to go after each other. Therefore, please share with me what you know about how good or how bad political and social conditions were throughout history.

Here is another quotation:

Violence as entertainment

Probably the most famous aspect of Rome’s gruesome history are the events that took place in the Circus Maximus and later in the Colosseum. Emperors built these grand stadiums to entertain the masses and keep them happy and the most popular forms of entertainment were undeniably gory.

Chariot races were one of the most popular forms of entertainment in Roman times, but they were notoriously dangerous, which added to the excitement for the crowds. Gladiatorial battles were also a big draw for audiences. Thousands of spectators would pile into the stadiums to catch a glimpse of two gladiators compete in an epic, violent battle that normally ended in death.

Romans also involved animals in the brutality, with exotic animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants being brought into the amphitheatre to either face each other or a human competitor.

the link for the quotation: A Gruesome History of Rome (romecitytour.it)

Therefore, I think that things are better in the twenty first century compared to the first century, nPeace.

 

[David Davidovich]

All I know is that I said that I would watch the two videos that were in your one post, and I watched them... So, was there a third video that you wanted me to watch? Because if so, then I don't know where it is.

Well that's the reason I referred you to the post again, because there is a link to the video in that post (I triple checked), and the only possible way one can miss it, is if they are not taking the time to read the post.
Since I am not sitting here typing for my health, I am not going to post something someone does not take time to read, and then repost a part to them. What! Am I stupid!

At first, I thought that the video was embemmed, but later I saw that you hyperlinked it with the word "here." However, it would be helpful if you referred to the word "here" as a hyperlink because it is easy for people to miss that. But after I realized that it was a hyperlink, I decided not to look at the video since you seemed to have left this conversation. Also, to be honest with you, nPeace, I am not keen on looking at jw.org videos because I view the information as Jehovah's Witness propaganda as you probably view websites that don't speak favorably of the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses — such as the Beroean Pickets - (beroeans.net) site — as anti-Jehovah's Witness propaganda from where I posted an article in a previous post. Plus, I really struggle with some of the jw.org personalities such as Stephen Lett.