i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
If I, like you, believed scripture was uninspired, I would not care what Joe Schmoe had to say or intended?
So. It’s my position that has more respect for the original intent of the writings rather than retconning with later reinterpretations.
And it’s still not clear how your statement can be interpreted as a question.
so, the organization says the “disgusting thing that causes desolation” in daniel 11:31 is the united nations being set up in 1945, but in daniel 12:11 when they interpret the 1,290 days they say it’s the league of nations in 1919. please could someone play devils advocate and tell why this could be anything but inconsistent?
.
Okay, if you say so.
Yeah, because I’m the one with the outlandish view here. 🤦♂️
so, the organization says the “disgusting thing that causes desolation” in daniel 11:31 is the united nations being set up in 1945, but in daniel 12:11 when they interpret the 1,290 days they say it’s the league of nations in 1919. please could someone play devils advocate and tell why this could be anything but inconsistent?
.
Duran:
It may prove to be true that the UN is the 'disgusting thing' (KOTN/8th king), but it was not so upon being set up in 1945. The 8th king comes about at some point during WW3.
No. Apart from the superstitious hyperbole about ‘God’s kingdom’, everything in Daniel was done and dusted in the 2nd century BCE.
so, the organization says the “disgusting thing that causes desolation” in daniel 11:31 is the united nations being set up in 1945, but in daniel 12:11 when they interpret the 1,290 days they say it’s the league of nations in 1919. please could someone play devils advocate and tell why this could be anything but inconsistent?
.
If you think those interpretations are nuts (and they are), have a look at their interpretation of the ‘2300 days’ in Daniel chapter 8. 🤦♂️
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
f I looked at scripture as you do Jeffro i would not care what Joe Shmoe had to say or intended?
That makes no sense. Clearly you don’t understand how I look at scripture (a further unfounded assumption on your part) because I consider it in its historical and political context, which necessarily is concerned with what the authors intended.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
https://youtu.be/k2hwesvuddq?si=7g6pvmqvcfh-cke4.
The scanning of this JW crap is what exposed him to enough radiation to cause cancer?
No. Non-ionising radiation from standard computer equipment doesn’t cause cancer. It was very irresponsible to spread that incorrect claim.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Do you believe the writer of Malachi was inspired...and by extention any of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures?
Of course not. There isn’t even any clear definition of what ‘inspired’ actually means beyond a vague superstitious notion of ideas being communicated magically without any verifiable means of transmission.
There’s a reason that the operative word is ‘believe’ because ‘inspiration’ in the sense intended can’t actually be demonstrated to exist.
But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Definitely the gospel writers affirm the Baptist is bring referred to.
Christian writers ‘affirmed’ a Christian reinterpretation of vague writings. This is not slightly remarkable.
Do you think there might be a dual fulfilment here?
No. Of course not. Co-opting an old text and framing it around unverifiable anecdotes is not a ‘fulfilment’ of anything.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Malachi 3:1 mentions two messengers: The first is John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the second Messenger, "the Messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ.
Malachi doesn’t mention John the Baptist or Jesus. Those are just Christian reinterpretations.
The author of Malachi (literally ‘messenger’) was likely Ezra rather than someone actually named ‘Malachi’, and Ezra is probably also the ‘messenger’ intended at Malachi 3:1.
