Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 01, 1999 at 19:02:07 {2gTL9dbN6khxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ***********Discussion summaries posted by Rational on November 01, 1999 at 18:08:33:
Rational
If I misunderstood your expressions of the sign in relation to the parable then I apologize. Here I will deal with what you just expressed.
For its fulfillment to be part of "the sign" it [=the separating] could not come at the very end of the "conclusion of the system of things" (i.e., at or after Armageddon), since by then the "sign" would have fulfilled its purpose--to be a prelude and precursor to the end!
There are two problems with that idea.
1) It intimates that "the judgment" at Armageddon is different that the sheep/goat/judgment when they are actually one and the same. In other words, the separating is the judgment.
2) I have otherwise answered your perceived problem related to there being a "precursor" in that the period assigned to the sheep/goat/judgment is between the great tribulation and Armageddon. Armageddon is the finale not the only applicable time of the parable. I noticed that you have avoided that little discrepancy in your idea. Again I have been dealing with your notions but you do not see it.
You still have not rebutted that point, nor this one:Your mistake is in equating the expression "the time in which we are living" with the expression "the conclusion of the system of things." They are not equivalent. The writer did not use them equivalently; he used the expression "the time in which we are living" as a subset of the "conclusion of the system of things," a fact proven by the addendum "and it is fast running out". The time period in question would not still be "running out" when the separating of sheep and goats takes place, now would it? It would have already run out, a point which I have made repeatedly and which you have repeatedly ignored.
Considering that the post-1995 teachings are that the parable finds fulfillment starting with the great tribulation, my last post dealt with this perceived "fast running out" issue you raise. Here, I will repeat it for you.
"Irrespective of Armageddon, do you consider the great tribulation as part of "the conclusion of the system"? As of the great tribulation time would still be running out until the final event of Armageddon."
As for the supposed "subset" period, that entire notion is so absurd that it hardly deserves attention. The very notion denies one solid fact, that in 1984 (and today) the Society taught that the sheep/goat/judgment would only finally be fulfilled at Armageddon. There is no subset period excluding the very conclusion of the system, Armageddon, from the 1984 application of the sheep/goat/judgment parable.
When the paragraph said, "we are living in that time" (when Christ’s brothers are experiencing hardships, etc.), "that time" is "the conclusion of the system" in which many events are to occur, of which Christ’s brothers experiencing hardships is one. Armageddon is as much an event of "the conclusion of the system" as is Christ’s brothers experiencing hardships. Do you consider that the paragraph should have mentioned every event of "the conclusion of the system" in order to make plain that that period was the one identified? Surely not! There is nothing to distinguish some subset of "the conclusion of the system" in which Christ’s brothers suffer hardship. They suffer hardship throughout the period of "the conclusion of the system". Hardships are not disposed of until Armageddon is over.
Now I would appreciate a response to this and my last post.
Friend