# *To Flee or not to Flee

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by proplog2 [proplog2] on November 10, 1999 at 01:24:05 {AAJB0ph6mY/CPYT8orz2lJ4aSwVkqg}:

In Reply to: To Flee or not to Flee posted by Shelby on November 09, 1999 at 18:36:40:

This subject was discussed as "new light" in the May 1, 1999 Watchtower.

Unfortunately, it is a patchwork change that creates more
questions than it answers. Their whole approach resembles a
groping for understanding on the part of ordinary humans and not
the supernatural divine guidance that they espouse. At the very
least this latest example of "new light" isn't enough to convince
a rational person that they have any inside track to divine
revelation.

Let me explain what I mean.

Read this and tell me if this requires any deep insight.

First let's look at the text under discussion.

Matthew 24:15 & 16 "Therefore, when you catch sight of the
disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through
Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use
discernment) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the
mountains"

For years the Watchtower has said that this scripture has
application in our day and that it is necessary for individuals to
flee from false religion to the true religion. In other words it
is not a literal flight but a symbolic flight. Now they are saying
in paragraph 19 on page 18 of the July 1, 1999 Watchtower that
"Jesus' disciples certainly needed no warning about fleeing from
one religion to another; they had already become true Christians."

I guess this straightens out what they said as recently as June 1st
1996, ""This flight to safety is NOT a geographic move, such as
Jewish Christians made when abandoning Jerusalem. It is a flight
out of the religions of Christendom, yes, out of any part of
Babylon the Great...It is a flight to the place of safety within
Jehovah's theocratic organization."

Basically the same thing was repeated in Aug 15 1996 15-20 "Will
You Be Saved When God Acts?"

"20 We can rest assured, though, that God's chosen ones and their
associates will not be in the danger zone, at risk of being killed.
Oh, they WILL NOT HAVE FLED TO ONE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. First-
century Christians in Jerusalem could flee from that city to the
mountainous region, such as Pella across the Jordan. In the
future, however, God's faithful Witnesses will be located all over
the globe, so safety and protection will not be based on geographic
location."

Now that they have the correct understanding that the flight isn't
a symbolic change in religion do they now conclude that the flight,
in reaction to seeing the "disgusting thing standing in a holy
place", is going to be a geographical flight? Amidst the "new
light" is the same muddled thinking.

Here is the latest: Paragraph 22 page 19 Watchtower May 1, 1999 -
"We cannot presently have full details about the great tribulation,
but we can LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT FOR US THE FLIGHT JESUS SPOKE OF
WILL **NOT** BE IN A GEOGRAPHICAL SENSE."

Why do they keep insisting that the future flight will NOT be
geographical? Is there any other kind of flight than a change in
location? If you are in harms way and you flee so that you are no
longer in harms way aren't we talking about a physical-
geographical- movement from the "dangerous place" to the "safe
place"? There are only three ways that you conceive of flight.
You can flee symbolically which is to say you change your mental
space. You can flee spatially which means geographically. And you
can conceptualize a temporal flight. If the flight isn't mental or
symbolic, and if it isn't geographical that leaves temporal flight.

So are they suggesting some sort of time travel?

They continue in that same Paragraph 22 "God's people are already
around the globe, virtually in every corner"

So they think this is the premise for them to "logically conclude
that for us the flight Jesus spoke of will NOT be in a geographical
sense."

The Watchtower argument can be summed up by the following
SINCE/THEREFORE format:

SINCE, "First century Christians weren't located "all over the
globe" THEREFORE, "they could flee from that city to the
mountainous region."
and
SINCE, "In the future, God's faithful Witnesses will be located all
over the globe" THEREFORE, "safety and protection will not be
based on geographic location."

The problem with the SINCE (premise) is that the only way for
Christians to survive was to physically get out of Jerusalem. But
what about the majority of early Christians. They weren't in
Jerusalem. The command to get out of Jerusalem was not a general
command to ALL Christians. Christians could be found in large
numbers all over the Roman Empire and beyond. In fact the
Watchtower has stated many times that the scripture at Matthew
24:14 "This good news of the kingdom would be preached in all the
inhabited earth" had an initial fulfillment by the time Jerusalem
was destroyed.

Likewise today true Christians might want to look for a parallel to
ancient Jerusalem from which they could literally flee. Not ALL
Christians will have to flee. Only those in some modern day
counterpart of Jerusalem will have to flee when they see their
geographical region threatened by the yet to be observed
"disgusting thing

- More Prophecy

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **To Flee or not to Flee

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]