Being embarrassed about Jesus?

[CoreyD]

So those other things have overwhelming evidence but the most important part has no obvious evidence? BTW in all other instances kings have a power over the world. It seems your saying that in this instance there is nothing happening that non-believers could detect. I mean actions besides war, famine, and pestilence - unless Jesus the king is responsible for that.

You did not understand correctly.
The evidence is there - overwhelmingly so. Like a fingerprint.
I'm saying to you that Jesus' followers are looking for it, as opposed to skeptics, and it is them Jesus gave it to.

Are you trying to find out who killed O.J. Simpson's wife? Neither I.
So I won't be looking for any evidence. Detectives will.
If I did take an interest though, I could examine that evidence, and determine what it says, but I need to get that information from the detectives, wouldn't I.
I could then go about the investigation, and accumulate more evidence if there is any.

I'm saying you aren't in such a position, but Jesus followers are.
I'm saying that there is no video tape for those looking for such, but any additional evidence will indeed be found by those detectives.
Jesus followers have that evidence.
They don't need a video tape, and neither does anyone else.

I thought that was about the Holy Spirit... not about Jesus ruling as king.

Not everyone reading the Bible will understand it.
They need help, and Jesus explained how truths he reveals will be made clear. Holy spirit is a gift.
Think of detectives having special equipment.

I don't see a need to involve the supernatural to explain the conversion of people - people get converted to all types of religions and cults and this can be explained with secular psychology.

I think a lot of people see his miracles as evidence that he is God. There was also the miracle of Jesus making the fig tree wither. I'm not sure all of his miracles are because of compassion.

Good point.
He did proved to his disciples by his signs that he was the son of God, as well as the crowds. That's true.

Yes that's what I mean.

It would be different if I was an eye witness to a miracle - like many people in the gospel stories. And like I said I believe the upside-down Bible and Connect 4 events were miracles.

Are you sure these can be considered miracles?
Putting a cover on wrong is a mistake, isn't it?

It says "see" i.e. be an eye witness - not hear about them third or fourth hand, etc. Well I guess that is ambiguous.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

No that's all for now.

Great. Thanks.

 

[JohnClay]

So those other things have overwhelming evidence but the most important part has no obvious evidence? BTW in all other instances kings have a power over the world. It seems your saying that in this instance there is nothing happening that non-believers could detect. I mean actions besides war, famine, and pestilence - unless Jesus the king is responsible for that.

You did not understand correctly.
The evidence is there - overwhelmingly so. Like a fingerprint.
I'm saying to you that Jesus' followers are looking for it, as opposed to skeptics, and it is them Jesus gave it to.

Are you trying to find out who killed O.J. Simpson's wife? Neither I.
So I won't be looking for any evidence. Detectives will.
If I did take an interest though, I could examine that evidence, and determine what it says, but I need to get that information from the detectives, wouldn't I.
I could then go about the investigation, and accumulate more evidence if there is any.

I'm saying you aren't in such a position, but Jesus followers are.
I'm saying that there is no video tape for those looking for such, but any additional evidence will indeed be found by those detectives.
Jesus followers have that evidence.
They don't need a video tape, and neither does anyone else.

So you're saying Jesus has been ruling as king since about 1914. How have the lives of Jesus' followers changed since 1914? I don't just mean changes due to war, famine, pestilence and lawlessness. I mean due to something else - Jesus ruling as king. Or maybe there has been no change and saying that Jesus has been ruling as king doesn't really involve any changes at all.

Are you sure these can be considered miracles?

Putting a cover on wrong is a mistake, isn't it?

Perhaps covers of Bibles are put on upside-down in 1 in 1000 Bibles. But I got a sealed one about a day or two after I read a Bible upside down. And that was within weeks of that Connect 4 set event. Like I said skeptics would just explain that it was coincidence, etc, so that my belief in a non-obvious intelligent force is strengthened. Other parts of the Bible are significant - it was an NIV 2013 version which is the same one that my church had. It had red letters for Jesus words but John 7:53—8:11 was in black instead of red.

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

In the text itself, not just in the footnotes, it says:
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
If it wasn't for that Bible I might not have realised that the story of the stoning of the adulteress didn't seem to be part of Jesus' history.
That Bible also is against a key Trinity verse:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5 - New International Version

Faith in the Incarnate Son of God - Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. In fact, this is love for God: to keep...

www.biblegateway.com

The footnote says:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
People like Jack Chick say that that trinity verse was part of the original Bible/text.

Jesus said...

“Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will never believe.” John 4:48

It says "see" i.e. be an eye witness - not hear about them third or fourth hand, etc. Well I guess that is ambiguous.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Jesus apparently performed miracles. People "saw" them and believed. I haven't "seen" the miracles that Jesus performed.

 

[CoreyD]

So you're saying Jesus has been ruling as king since about 1914. How have the lives of Jesus' followers changed since 1914? I don't just mean changes due to war, famine, pestilence and lawlessness. I mean due to something else - Jesus ruling as king. Or maybe there has been no change and saying that Jesus has been ruling as king doesn't really involve any changes at all.

There have been, I would say, added, or increased benefits.
One of those benefits is the urgency of the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom has intensified, leading to a more focused approach.
There is also increased excitement, and expectation at the nearness of the end. Luke 21:28
Both of these result in more joy, and stronger faith.

It can be described by the illustration given by Jesus, at Matthew 25:13-30.
Not the experience of the slave that buried his talent, although this would happen in a few cases.

With that, there will be more work being done, and more disciples joining in the harvest. Matthew 9:37, 38
Since Jesus is the one directing the work he started on earth, this is expected, since God prophesied such increase. Isaiah 60:22

I'm curious as to why you asked.

Perhaps covers of Bibles are put on upside-down in 1 in 1000 Bibles. But I got a sealed one about a day or two after I read a Bible upside down. And that was within weeks of that Connect 4 set event. Like I said skeptics would just explain that it was coincidence, etc, so that my belief in a non-obvious intelligent force is strengthened. Other parts of the Bible are significant - it was an NIV 2013 version which is the same one that my church had. It had red letters for Jesus words but John 7:53—8:11 was in black instead of red.

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

Why do you believe that because coincidences do occur, every other occurrence must be a coincidence?

In the text itself, not just in the footnotes, it says:
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
If it wasn't for that Bible I might not have realised that the story of the stoning of the adulteress didn't seem to be part of Jesus' history.

Yes, that text is not considered by some to be part of the Canon, because it is believed to be a later addition.

That Bible also is against a key Trinity verse:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5 - New International Version

Faith in the Incarnate Son of God - Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. In fact, this is love for God: to keep...

www.biblegateway.com

The footnote says:
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
People like Jack Chick say that that trinity verse was part of the original Bible/text.

The text in 1 John 5:8 is also considered a later addition, and spurious.

Jesus apparently performed miracles. People "saw" them and believed. I haven't "seen" the miracles that Jesus performed.

If you saw one of Jesus' miracles performed, would you believe?

 

[JohnClay]

There have been, I would say, added, or increased benefits.
One of those benefits is the urgency of the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom has intensified, leading to a more focused approach.
There is also increased excitement, and expectation at the nearness of the end. Luke 21:28
Both of these result in more joy, and stronger faith.

It can be described by the illustration given by Jesus, at Matthew 25:13-30.
Not the experience of the slave that buried his talent, although this would happen in a few cases.

With that, there will be more work being done, and more disciples joining in the harvest. Matthew 9:37, 38
Since Jesus is the one directing the work he started on earth, this is expected, since God prophesied such increase. Isaiah 60:22

I'm curious as to why you asked.

How is that proof that Jesus is "ruling as king"? You basically said that there is nothing about this that could convince skeptics - that only some believers are aware of it. Maybe you could argue that it is involving Jesus somehow, but I don't see why it involves him "ruling as king".

If you saw one of Jesus' miracles performed, would you believe?

I think it is somewhat compatible with the Bible for the "miracles" to be magic tricks so I'd have to be satisfied that they weren't. If he could walk through walls and allow me to put my hands in his wounds then it could imply he was capable of rising from the dead. If there were many other witnesses that would seem to rule out a hallucination. Since I believe I'm probably in a simulation it would technically be possible for any kind of miracle to happen but currently I don't believe that obvious miracles that can't be explained by skeptics are possible.

 

[CoreyD]

How is that proof that Jesus is "ruling as king"? You basically said that there is nothing about this that could convince skeptics - that only some believers are aware of it. Maybe you could argue that it is involving Jesus somehow, but I don't see why it involves him "ruling as king".

I did not say that was proof John,
I answered your question. I said the evidence that Christ had begun ruling added to increased joy and bolstered faith.

I gave you proof already. In fact I showed you a miracle, and you tried finding ways to deny it.
If someone told you what would happen in the future, and it happens exactly as that one told you, how can you deny that the person gave you proof of prophetic ability?

Skeptics claim that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was written after the fact, because they wanted an excuse to deny it, but it's not possible to claim that what was written before in regard to what we see taking place today was written after the fact.

It's expected that skeptics will try their best to deny any evidence for the accuracy of Bible prophecy.
It would take a miracle to alter their MO, and I do not work miracles. Jesus does.

I think it is somewhat compatible with the Bible for the "miracles" to be magic tricks so I'd have to be satisfied that they weren't. If he could walk through walls and allow me to put my hands in his wounds then it could imply he was capable of rising from the dead. If there were many other witnesses that would seem to rule out a hallucination. Since I believe I'm probably in a simulation it would technically be possible for any kind of miracle to happen but currently I don't believe that obvious miracles that can't be explained by skeptics are possible.

JohnClay said:
I'm sure skeptics would have a reason to believe it wasn't a supernatural thing.

This pretty much sums up what I said, John.
If someone has closed their mind to anything that goes against what they want to believe, any answer against the evidence will be acceptable, whether it be magic tricks, coincidences, fraud, or we are not in reality, but a simulation.
That, despite the skeptic has no evidence of any of these. Yet, is asking for evidence.

Suppose, I have no evidence that I can read your mind, but I am asking for evidence that you know what I would say next.
Suppose you wrote down on a piece of paper what I am going to say, and I said it, and you showed me the piece of paper with the exact words I said, who would you say have provided evidence?

 

[JohnClay]

I did not say that was proof John,
I answered your question. I said the evidence that Christ had begun ruling added to increased joy and bolstered faith.

If Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914 do you have any evidence that Christians have been more likely to call Jesus "king" after 1914 than before 1914? I think Jesus in Revelation does more as king than just offering "increased joy and bolstered faith". I think there was more faith in the early church than since 1914. As far as "increased joy and bolstered faith" goes I think in some countries there has been less Christian faith than there used to be.

 

[CoreyD]

If Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914 do you have any evidence that Christians have been more likely to call Jesus "king" after 1914 than before 1914? I think Jesus in Revelation does more as king than just offering "increased joy and bolstered faith". I think there was more faith in the early church than since 1914. As far as "increased joy and bolstered faith" goes I think in some countries there has been less Christian faith than there used to be.

John. If you are wanted proof that the Bible foretold - prophesied - the sign of the last days, and the evidence it was fulfilled in the early 1900s, that proof has been given.
Whether skeptics accept it or not, is not of concern to Christians, and will not change the facts.

Historians, would admit that if the Bible did foretold this time period as the beginning of the sign of the times, then the Bible is very accurate.
The fact is, the sign Jesus gave fits no other period than the 20th century.

Here is the evidence from the historian's perspective.

The Century of Peace

The 19th century was the century marked by the collapse of the Spanish, Napoleonic, Holy Roman, and Mughal empires. This paved the way for the growing influence of the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the United States, the German Empire, the French colonial empire, and Meiji Japan, with the British boasting unchallenged dominance after 1815.​

​

The entire era lacked major conflict between these powers, with most skirmishes taking place between belligerents within the borders of individual countries. In Europe, wars were much smaller, shorter, and less frequent than ever before. The quiet century was shattered by World War I (1914–18), which was unexpected in its timing, duration, casualties, and long-term impact.​

​

Pax Britannica (Latin for “British Peace,” modeled after Pax Romana) was the period of relative peace in Europe (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemonic power and adopted the role of a global police force.​

The First World War is frequently described as "the war that changed the world," as it marked a turning point in global history. The war reshaped political boundaries, led to the collapse of empires, and set the stage for the emergence of new political ideologies and global conflicts. The impact of the First World War was so profound that it is often seen as the catalyst for many of the events that defined the 20th century, including the rise of totalitarian regimes and the eventual outbreak of the Second World War.

There is also a documentary series titled The War That Changed Us, which focuses on the impact of the First World War on Australia and its people. The series uses personal stories and dramatic reconstructions to illustrate how the war transformed the lives of Australians and influenced the nation's identity.

One hundred years ago the First World War set the course for the modern world: for the countries that took part nothing would be the same again.​

So, let me ask you this, John...
Since Jesus gave his disciples a sign to look for as to when he would be ruling in the heavens, invisible to human eyes, what would the disciples of Jesus be looking for... not the sign?
When the sign was evident to them, what would they have evidence of... not Jesus' presence as king?
Since both of these... 1) Jesus disciples keeping watch for the fulfillment of the sign, and 2) evidence the sign is fulfilled in the 20th, are noticeable, what are you thinking Jesus' followers have missed out on?

 

[JohnClay]

So, let me ask you this, John...

Since Jesus gave his disciples a sign to look for as to when he would be ruling in the heavens, invisible to human eyes, what would the disciples of Jesus be looking for... not the sign?
When the sign was evident to them, what would they have evidence of... not Jesus' presence as king?
Since both of these... 1) Jesus disciples keeping watch for the fulfillment of the sign, and 2) evidence the sign is fulfilled in the 20th, are noticeable, what are you thinking Jesus' followers have missed out on?

I no longer wanted to talk about war (and famine, pestilence and lawlessness). I just want to talk about "Jesus ruling as king" since about 1914. If Jesus was actually ruling as king since about 1914 then surely some Christians would be aware of that. Can you show that Jesus has been called "king" more since 1914 than before 1914?
edit:

Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...Jehovah's Witnesses....believe that Jesus Christ has been ruling in heaven as king since 1914"
Deepseek says:
"The belief that Jesus began ruling as king in 1914 is a doctrine unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses and is not shared by other mainstream Christian denominations or religious groups"

So would you consider yourself to be a JW?

 

[CoreyD]

I no longer wanted to talk about war (and famine, pestilence and lawlessness). I just want to talk about "Jesus ruling as king" since about 1914. If Jesus was actually ruling as king since about 1914 then surely some Christians would be aware of that. Can you show that Jesus has been called "king" more since 1914 than before 1914?
edit:

Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...Jehovah's Witnesses....believe that Jesus Christ has been ruling in heaven as king since 1914"
Deepseek says:
"The belief that Jesus began ruling as king in 1914 is a doctrine unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses and is not shared by other mainstream Christian denominations or religious groups"

So would you consider yourself to be a JW?

There are things religious people share in common, but I don't want to talk about JW or what religion I consider right or wrong. Nor my religion.
If you want to discuss the Bible, and what it says, or does not say. or if it is reliable, or not, we can.
The evidence is clear to me.

Are you finished with questions on Jesus Christ and the Bible?

 

[JohnClay]

There are things religious people share in common, but I don't want to talk about JW or what religion I consider right or wrong. Nor my religion.
If you want to discuss the Bible, and what it says, or does not say. or if it is reliable, or not, we can.
The evidence is clear to me.

Are you finished with questions on Jesus Christ and the Bible?

I'll just say that if basically all mainstream Christian denominations or religious groups don't believe in it then maybe the evidence for it isn't as overwhelming as you have been saying. So if they can't be convinced then it would be even harder for me to be convinced.

 

[CoreyD]

I'll just say that if basically all mainstream Christian denominations or religious groups don't believe in it then maybe the evidence for it isn't as overwhelming as you have been saying. So if they can't be convinced then it would be even harder for me to be convinced.

Are you then appealing to the majority? Isn't that a fallacy, and isn't that dangerous, since Jesus did not say the majority would know these things? Matthew 7:13, 14; Matthew 11:25, 26; Matthew 13:10-16
Why are millions recognizing it? Are they hallucinating?

You cannot say they are, since you have not answered the simple and straightforward questions posed to you.

Spoiler: Questions

Since Jesus gave his disciples a sign to look for as to when he would be ruling in the heavens, invisible to human eyes, what would the disciples of Jesus be looking for... not the sign?
When the sign was evident to them, what would they have evidence of... not Jesus' presence as king?
Since both of these... 1) Jesus disciples keeping watch for the fulfillment of the sign, and 2) evidence the sign is fulfilled in the 20th, are noticeable, what are you thinking Jesus' followers have missed out on?

Nor have you addressed the evidence in any way whatsoever.
That would make it a case of willful ignorance, would it not?

It would just take one piece of evidence that the compound features of Jesus' sign fit another time period, other than the 20th century, and you would have a basis for dismissing the evidence as misplaced.
Just one piece John... Do you have it?

 

[JohnClay]

Are you then appealing to the majority? Isn't that a fallacy, and isn't that dangerous, since Jesus did not say the majority would know these things?

I thought people tend to follow what their church says. And it seems all churches don't believe Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

Matthew 7:13, 14; Matthew 11:25, 26; Matthew 13:10-16

I don't think a belief that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914 is required to be saved.

Why are millions recognizing it? Are they hallucinating?

Which millions believe that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914? JWs?

Since Jesus gave his disciples a sign to look for as to when he would be ruling in the heavens, invisible to human eyes, what would the disciples of Jesus be looking for... not the sign?

When the sign was evident to them, what would they have evidence of... not Jesus' presence as king?
Since both of these... 1) Jesus disciples keeping watch for the fulfillment of the sign, and 2) evidence the sign is fulfilled in the 20th, are noticeable, what are you thinking Jesus' followers have missed out on?

But JWs, who apparently aren't real Christians, believe that but regular Christians don't.

Nor have you addressed the evidence in any way whatsoever.
That would make it a case of willful ignorance, would it not?

It would just take one piece of evidence that the compound features of Jesus' sign fit another time period, other than the 20th century, and you would have a basis for dismissing the evidence as misplaced.
Just one piece John... Do you have it?

I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other person about whether it is meaningful to say Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

 

[CoreyD]

I thought people tend to follow what their church says. And it seems all churches don't believe Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

I don't think a belief that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914 is required to be saved.

Which millions believe that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914? JWs?

But JWs, who apparently aren't real Christians, believe that but regular Christians don't.

I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other person about whether it is meaningful to say Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

What does JWs have to do with the sign Jesus gave, and being able to identify it?
Are you saying that no Christian is able to identify the time period of Matthew 24:3?
Would that not be the same thing as saying Jesus is not real because no one is really Christ follower today?
Is that what you are saying?

 

[JohnClay]

What does JWs have to do with the sign Jesus gave, and being able to identify it?
Are you saying that no Christian is able to identify the time period of Matthew 24:3?

It seems only JWs and not regular Christians are saying that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

Would that not be the same thing as saying Jesus is not real because no one is really Christ follower today?
Is that what you are saying?

I think only Christians would find your arguments persuasive and even then Christians don't really believe it.

 

[CoreyD]

It seems only JWs and not regular Christians are saying that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

It sounds to me as though you are saying anyone who believes that Jesus parousia began in the early 1900s, is a non Christian, but the Bible describe a Christian as a disciple or follower of Christ. Me and my associates are not non Christian.

I think only Christians would find your arguments persuasive and even then Christians don't really believe it.

A "regular Christian" can be anyone, who does anything, and believes anything.
In fact, as of 2020, "regular Christians" number approximately 2.38 billion, which represents nearly one-third of the world's population, but numerous divisions exists among them, so that of the approximately more than 45,000 distinct Christian denominations worldwide, agreement on Christ's parousia mentioned at Matthew 24:3, will not be there.

So, it's impossible to find "regular Christians" believing the same thing about the last days, and when they began.
Some don't even realize there is a difference between Christ's parousia as mentioned in Matthew 24:3, and the end of the world mentioned in the same verse.
So that when Jesus says no one knows the day and the hour, he refers not to his presence, but the end of the world, which he describes at Matthew 24:29-31

However, from what you said, you were not asking what "regular Christians" believed.
You were making a bold, unevidenced claim.
JohnClay said:

"I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud"​

I simply refuted that claim, and provided the evidence that you are up till now, unable to challenge.
Claiming that everyone does not believe, is not a verification of your claim being right.
It just says that everyone, including "regular Christians", do not believe your claim, nor the evidence against it.
That hardly is valuable.

If you want to know, however what scholars have to say about the evidence I presented, you can read here.

The Greek New Testament uses the Greek term parousia (παρουσία, meaning "arrival", "coming", or "presence") 24 times, seventeen of them concerning Christ. However, parousia has the distinct reference to a period of time rather than an instant in time. At Matthew 24:37, the word parousia is used to clearly describe the period of time in which Noah lived. The Greek word eleusis, which means "coming", is not interchangeable with parousia. So this parousia or "presence" would be unique and distinct from anything that had occurred before. The word is also used six times referring to individuals (Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, Titus, and Paul the Apostle) and once referring to the "coming of the lawless one".​

​

Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1908) showed that the Greek word parousia occurred as early as the 3rd century BC to describe the visit of a king or dignitary to a city – a visit arranged in order to show the visitor's magnificence to the people.​

Therefore, according to the evidence we see present in the 20th and 21st century, the sign of Jesus' presence is clear to his followers.
That's the important thing, because it is evidence that cannot be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud".
Therefore, it denies skeptics an excuse for denying God.

You are free to try something other than the appeal to majority fallacy - argumentum ad populum fallacy.
If at this point, you and your friends have no other response, why not accept the result?

 

[JohnClay]

It seems only JWs and not regular Christians are saying that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

It sounds to me as though you are saying anyone who believes that Jesus parousia began in the early 1900s, is a non Christian, but the Bible describe a Christian as a disciple or follower of Christ. Me and my associates are not non Christian.

I'm saying that Christians who basically believe what their church believes and not what JWs uniquely teach are unlikely to believe that Jesus has been ruling as king since 1914.

A "regular Christian" can be anyone, who does anything, and believes anything.

I'm talking about Christians who believe what Christians commonly believe.
BTW from DeepSeek:

Mainstream Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical denominations universally reject the 1914 doctrine. They affirm that Jesus has been reigning as King since His Ascension (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33–36) and will return visibly to consummate His Kingdom

This is critical of the 1914 beliefs:

Why is 1914 important to the Jehovah's Witnesses? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Explore Christian Apologetics, theology, and critical answers to today's questions about God, the Bible, and the Christian faith at Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

carm.org

You are free to try something other than the appeal to majority fallacy - argumentum ad populum fallacy.

So you're correct about Jesus ruling as king since about 1914 and basically all of the Christian ministers, etc, are wrong? Yes it is possible you are correct but I don't want to try and convince you that you are wrong because that would be futile.

If at this point, you and your friends have no other response, why not accept the result?

I thought it would be better for you to debate this with a Christian because their beliefs are already a lot closer to yours.

 

[CoreyD]

So you're correct about Jesus ruling as king since about 1914 and basically all of the Christian ministers, etc, are wrong? Yes it is possible you are correct but I don't want to try and convince you that you are wrong because that would be futile.

I tend to deal specifically with evidence. I don't normally consider claims as having any validity or purpose.
Hence arguing about who is right or wrong, in my opinion, is pointless - leads absolutely nowhere, and is therefore q waste of time.

Lay the evidence out on the table, and we can look at that.
I laid the evidence out. Since there hasn't been any evidence laid out against it, I think in any case, the evidence usually stands, and proves the right... until other evidence surfaces.

For example, if the F.B.I finds fingerprints on items in my home, that matches your own, after my computer is stolen, the evidence prove you stole it.
Until other evidence disproves it, you stole it.
No amount of, "I didn't do it. You are wrong." will get you off the hook.

So, as of now, the evidence is on my side.

I thought it would be better for you to debate this with a Christian because their beliefs are already a lot closer to yours.

That's not possible in this subforum, since all replies should be made to the OP, and not other posters.
I don't think anyone is willing to debate this with me though.
Besides, parousia has the distinct reference to a period of time rather than an instant in time. is not interchangeable with the Greek word eleusis, which means "coming".

So,, that piece of information makes clear the distinction between coming, and presence, which shows more than half of those "regular Christians" numbering approximately 2.38 billion, to be wrong, and I just read a post in another thread, that pointed out the "second coming" does not refer to the coming of the Lord, when he brings an end to this world.
So, very few "regular Christians" know what the scriptures teach on Jesus' parousia, and there will be an argument on that as well.

I tried to cover the questions you have, because I think you asked in order to have evidence based answers, rather than unevidenced claims.
Did you want the former, or later... or it doesn't matter?

 

[JohnClay]

So, as of now, the evidence is on my side.

I had been hinting that Christians would have counter-arguments but now I'll present some: (from Microsoft Copilot)

What are the best bible verses against Jesus' enthronement in 1914?

Key Bible Verses Affirming Jesus’ Kingship at His Ascension
1. Post-Resurrection and Ascension Testimonies
- Acts 2:33–36
“Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God… God has made him both Lord and Christ.”
Peter’s Pentecost sermon ties Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement immediately to His resurrection and ascension.
- Luke 24:50–51
“He led them out as far as Bethany… he was carried up into heaven.”
The very moment of His ascension marks His seating “at God’s right hand,” a metaphor for royal enthronement.

2. Universal Authority in Heaven and Earth
- Matthew 28:18
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
Jesus declares universal lordship immediately after His resurrection.
- Ephesians 1:20–22
“He raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality… and put all things under his feet.”
Paul emphasizes that Jesus already reigns over every power.

3. Eternal Davidic Kingship
- Psalm 2:6–8
“I have set my King on Zion… Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.”
A prophetic declaration of the Davidic King’s eternal rule.
- Luke 1:32–33
“He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
The angel’s announcement to Mary connects Jesus’ kingship to the unending Davidic covenant.

4. Revelation’s Heavenly Throne Scene
- Revelation 4:2–4
“Behold, a throne stood in heaven… on the throne sat one like a son of man.”
John’s vision immediately places Jesus on the heavenly throne.
- Revelation 5:11–13
“Worthy is the Lamb… to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”
The worship scene presupposes Jesus already exercises kingly authority.

5. Direct Titles as King of Kings
- 1 Timothy 6:15
“…which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords.”
Paul calls Jesus “King of kings” in the present tense.
- Revelation 17:14
“The Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
Again, an explicit, ongoing title of supreme rulership.

Why These Verses Challenge a 1914 Enthronement
- Immediate Exaltation
From the Gospels through Acts and Revelation, Jesus is enthroned “at God’s right hand” the moment He ascends, not centuries later.
- Present-Tense Kingship
Scripture uses present-tense language (“has been given,” “is King of kings”) to describe His rule.
- Unbroken Davidic Covenant
Heaven’s court scene in Revelation echoes the promise that the Davidic line never lapses into desuetude pending a 1914 coronation.
- No Biblical Gap
There is no hint in New Testament chronology of a postponed enthronement or of “times of the Gentiles” ending in 1914 as a trigger.

These passages underscore that, according to the Bible itself, Jesus’ royal enthronement—His seating at the Father’s right hand—occurred in the first century, at the time of His resurrection and ascension. They leave no biblical basis for shifting that event forward to a specific modern-era date such as 1914.

Since Christians basically take my side of the argument then I'd say the evidence is on my side. (edit: I guess that isn't a proper argument) Also there are multiple Bible verses supporting this while I think yours involve less when specifically talking about Jesus' enthronement (not counting your verses about wars, famine, etc)

 

[CoreyD]

I had been hinting that Christians would have counter-arguments but now I'll present some: (from Microsoft Copilot)

Since Christians basically take my side of the argument then I'd say the evidence is on my side. (edit: I guess that isn't a proper argument) Also there are multiple Bible verses supporting this while I think yours involve less when specifically talking about Jesus' enthronement (not counting your verses about wars, famine, etc)

Which of those scriptures refute that Christ's presence will be accompanied by a compound sign featuring wars, famines, food shortages, and earthquakes in one place after another, along with increased violence?
I don't see any.
I just see Microsoft Copilot's collections of interpretations.

It's not uncommon to refer to Jesus role as if he already accomplishes it, before he does, and having authority does not mean one is inaugurated as king, or begins to rule as king.
The prince sits on a throne at the king's right hand, until official appointment.

If you want evidence against what I have presented, you must first show that Matthew 24:3 is wrong, because the sign Jesus gave applies to his presence. Or...
If Matthew 24:3 is correct, you need to give evidence that all the scriptures Microsoft Copilot used, are accompanied by the sign, because Christ's presence as king, and the sign he gave, goes hand in hand.

Perhaps Microsoft Copilot can help with that.

 

[JohnClay]

Which of those scriptures refute that Christ's presence will be accompanied by a compound sign featuring wars, famines, food shortages, and earthquakes in one place after another, along with increased violence?

The two most popular options are that Jesus was ruling as king in Heaven since his ascension - or it began in about 1914. I think it is compatible for Jesus to be ruling as king since his ascension and wars, famines, earthquakes, etc, happening now at the same time...
Apparently JWs call the time before Jesus ruled as king as the "Gentile Times". Do you agree that there was some kind of state where Jesus was not king before about 1914?
Here are counter-arguments about those things happening a lot since 1914: (for your own interest)

Did the Last Days start in 1914, as proclaimed by Jehovah's Witnesses?

Critical analysis of Watchtower information attempting to prove the Last Days started in 1914

jwfacts.com

The prince sits on a throne at the king's right hand, until official appointment.

If you want evidence against what I have presented, you must first show that Matthew 24:3 is wrong, because the sign Jesus gave applies to his presence. Or...
If Matthew 24:3 is correct, you need to give evidence that all the scriptures Microsoft Copilot used, are accompanied by the sign, because Christ's presence as king, and the sign he gave, goes hand in hand.

Perhaps Microsoft Copilot can help with that.

From Copilot:

Does Matthew 24:3 mean that Jesus has been ruling as king only recently due to the recently fulfilled prophecies?

Does Matthew 24:3 Imply a Recent Start to Jesus’ Kingship?
What Matthew 24:3 Actually Says
In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask Jesus three questions:
- When will the temple’s destruction take place?
- What will be the sign of Jesus’ coming?
- What will signal the end of the age?
This verse frames the disciples’ curiosity about end-time events and Christ’s return—not the timing of his enthronement in heaven.

Kingship Began at the Ascension
New Testament passages make clear that Jesus was exalted and seated at God’s right hand immediately after his resurrection and ascension.
- Acts 2:33–36 describes the Father’s gift of the promised Spirit and Christ’s enthronement “at his right hand.”
- Ephesians 1:20–22 affirms that God “raised him from the dead” and “put all things under his feet,” appointing him “head over all things.”
These texts anchor Jesus’ kingship in the first century, not in our modern era.

The “Signs” Are Ongoing “Birth Pangs”
Jesus labels wars, famines, earthquakes, and similar upheavals as “birth pains” (Matthew 24:7–8).
- Birth pains begin early and grow in intensity and frequency.
- They signal the nearness of the end but do not by themselves inaugurate Jesus’ rule.
- These phenomena have recurred throughout history, serving as continual reminders, rather than pinpointing a new start date for Christ’s reign.

Why 1914 Doesn’t Arise from Matthew 24:3
Interpreting Matthew 24:3 as dating Jesus’ rule to a modern fulfilment of signs conflates two distinct ideas:
- The initiation of Christ’s heavenly reign (ascension).
- The progress of eschatological signs that herald his final return.
Matthew 24:3 focuses on the latter—how to recognize the season of his coming—without commenting on when his rule began.

Next Steps You Might Explore
- How first-century Jewish and Gentile believers understood Christ’s enthronement (e.g., early church fathers).
- The development of the “already/not yet” kingdom theme in the Synoptics and Paul’s letters.
- A deeper dive into Matthew 24’s parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21 to see how each evangelist treats Jesus’ kingship and end-time warnings.