Posts by aqwsed12345

20

Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

In Daniel 11, the KOTN refers to a historical geopolitical power in conflict with the King of the South. While some interpret the latter parts of Daniel 11 as apocalyptic or eschatological, the context primarily deals with historical events leading up to the Maccabean period. The KOTN’s actions—such as profaning the sanctuary and removing the "constant feature" (Daniel 11:31)—are tied to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jerusalem temple. Attempts to link this directly to the MOL or the 8th King in Revelation are speculative and lack scriptural support.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, the MOL is described as an eschatological figure who exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God. Paul’s focus is on a spiritual rebellion (apostasy) rather than a geopolitical figure. The temple mentioned here likely refers metaphorically to the Church or God’s spiritual dwelling among believers (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16–17; Ephesians 2:21–22). There is no textual basis for equating this with the KOTN or the 8th King.

The assertion that the "holy place" in Daniel and the "temple" in 2 Thessalonians are identical conflates two different symbols. In Daniel, the "sanctuary" refers to the physical Jerusalem temple desecrated by Antiochus IV, whereas Paul’s "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians is a metaphorical expression of God’s dwelling. The claim that these must refer to the same entity is unfounded and contradicts the contexts of both texts.

Your interpretation oversimplifies and distorts the concept of apostasy and its connection to the Mark of the Beast. Paul’s reference to apostasy (a falling away) in 2 Thessalonians 2 describes a general spiritual rebellion against God, likely within the context of the Church. There is no mention of a geopolitical power like the 8th King or a symbolic mark such as the MOTB in this passage. The text focuses on the deception propagated by the MOL and the need for believers to remain steadfast.

The MOTB symbolizes allegiance to the beast and its system, often interpreted as a worldly power in opposition to God. However, linking this directly to the KOTN or MOL is speculative. Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery that is not meant to be rigidly tied to other biblical figures without clear textual connections.

The claim that there are only two outcomes—rejecting the MOTB or succumbing to apostasy—oversimplifies the complexity of apocalyptic literature. Revelation and other apocalyptic texts emphasize perseverance and faithfulness but do not present such rigid binaries tied to specific figures.

The interpretation of judgment starting with God’s house and extending to those who support the 8th King misreads the relevant passages. 1 Peter 4:17 refers to the refining trials believers undergo as part of their faith journey, not a specific period under the rule of an 8th King or geopolitical power. Peter emphasizes the spiritual preparation of believers rather than a timeline of apocalyptic events. 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10 describe Christ’s return in glory to bring relief to believers and judgment on unbelievers. There is no mention of the 8th King, KOTN, or a specific period of tribulation tied to these figures. Revelation 13 and Daniel 11 describe persecution and challenges for God’s people but in distinct contexts. Revelation 13 addresses the beast’s blasphemous rule and its demand for worship, while Daniel 11 reflects historical conflicts involving Antiochus IV. These texts are not describing the same event or figure.

The argument that the 8th King (Revelation 17), MOL (2 Thessalonians 2), and KOTN (Daniel 11) are identical is unsupported by the texts. In Revelation 17:11–17 the 8th King represents a culmination of earthly powers opposing God’s kingdom, tied to the imagery of Babylon. This is not an individual figure but a symbol of collective rebellion against God. In Daniel 11 the KOTN’s actions are tied to specific historical events (e.g., the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV). Attempts to project this onto an eschatological figure like the 8th King or MOL are interpretive leaps. In 2 Thessalonians 2 the MOL is presented as a singular figure associated with spiritual rebellion and deception. There is no evidence connecting this figure to the 8th King or KOTN.

The argument that God’s temple/holy place refers to "all peoples of the world" (as wheat) misinterprets key texts. Ephesians 2:21–22 and 1 Peter 2:5 describe believers collectively as God’s spiritual temple, built on the foundation of Christ. They do not equate the temple with all peoples of the world indiscriminately. This parable in Matthew 13:38 distinguishes between wheat (believers) and weeds (unbelievers) within the world. It does not suggest that the world itself constitutes God’s temple. 1 Corinthians 3:16–17 emphasize the Church as God’s temple, where His Spirit dwells, it does not extend this designation to all humanity.

To sum up, your interpretation selectively conflates distinct biblical texts and figures, resulting in a distorted eschatology. The KOTN, MOL, 8th King, and other apocalyptic symbols are distinct in their contexts and cannot be forcibly merged into a single narrative. The temple/holy place is not a global entity but a spiritual reality for God’s people. Apostasy, tribulation, and judgment are themes that must be understood within their proper scriptural contexts, not through speculative and unsupported connections. A faithful interpretation of these passages requires attention to their historical, literary, and theological contexts rather than an overarching, forced synthesis.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@joey jojo

Yes, it's a common objection that if Jesus Christ is God, why did He not clearly and directly declare it? The argument that Jesus never explicitly says the words "I am God" and therefore cannot be fully divine misunderstands the way Jesus communicated His identity and the way Scripture reveals theological truths.

The incarnation of the one true God and, with it, the revelation of the Trinity, was an extraordinary and overwhelming concept for the strictly monotheistic Jews, who, since the Babylonian exile, had conceived of God as utterly transcendent and unapproachable. The wisdom that "orders all things gently" did not permit the great mystery to blaze forth fully at once. The "sun" of this truth, at the moment of its rising, was not allowed to reach its zenith immediately, dazzling and intimidating all with its brightness. Instead, its early rays, filtering through the clouds of restraint, needed to accustom souls gradually, preparing them step by step to receive the full understanding of the mystery.

The incarnate Word had to accomplish the work of redemption through a meritorious life: by living in direct contact and interaction with humanity, experiencing persecution, suffering, and obedience (Luke 24:26; Heb. 2:10; Phil. 2:7–11; Matt. 20:28). If, however, He had presented Himself to His contemporaries in the overwhelming radiance of His deity, the possibility of such a truly human, meritorious life would have ceased to exist. This would have disrupted the entire order of salvation history (œconomia salutis). Furthermore, there would have been no room left for faith in the hearts of people. If Jesus Christ had revealed Himself with complete clarity and tangible evidence as God through words and deeds, it would have inaugurated an eschatological state—the kind of reality He associated with His second coming. The first time, however, He did not come to receive homage and rule but to serve. Thus, His reserved self-revelation was a sign of His superhuman wisdom and, at the same time, evidence that this confession of His deity was not a later human invention. If humans had fabricated it, they would have impatiently and indiscreetly thrust Christ’s deity to the forefront.

What apologetics establishes about the character of Jesus Christ places beyond doubt what He Himself affirmed: "Even if I bear witness concerning Myself, My testimony is true" (John 8:14). Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: Jesus Christ is God.

20

Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

The MOL is described by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 as an eschatological figure characterized by rebellion, self-exaltation, and deception. The key details include:

Self-exaltation in the temple of God (verse 4): This indicates a spiritual rebellion against God and an attempt to usurp divine authority. The "temple of God" most likely refers to God's spiritual dwelling (the Church, as in 1 Corinthians 3:16–17), not a literal political structure or global government.
Revealed at the proper time (verses 6–7): The MOL is restrained until a divinely determined moment, indicating that his emergence is controlled by God's sovereignty.
Destroyed by Christ's coming (verse 8): The MOL’s destruction is directly tied to Christ’s glorious return, emphasizing divine judgment rather than a prolonged earthly reign.

This description focuses on spiritual rebellion and apostasy, not global political dominance.

The 8th king in Revelation 17:11–14 symbolizes a system or coalition of earthly powers opposed to God, arising out of the previous seven kings. The beast represents ongoing worldly opposition to God throughout history, culminating in a final manifestation of rebellion. The 8th king is associated with the "ten horns" (verse 12), which represent kings who align themselves with the beast for a brief period of power. The beast and its followers are ultimately defeated by the Lamb (verse 14), highlighting their collective opposition to Christ’s kingdom.

While the MOL and the beast share similarities (both oppose God and face judgment at Christ’s return), their contexts and descriptions suggest they are distinct. The MOL is a personal figure of spiritual rebellion, while the beast/8th king represents a political or systemic rebellion against God.

Revelation 14:6–12 describes the "hour of judgment" as a global proclamation calling humanity to worship God and reject the beast. The mark of the beast symbolizes allegiance to worldly systems opposed to God. The mark of the beast represents a spiritual choice, not merely political compliance. Those who align with the beast reject God’s sovereignty. Revelation 19:20–21 shows that the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire at Christ’s return, signifying the end of their earthly influence.

This imagery does not equate the beast with the MOL but emphasizes their shared opposition to God. The MOL’s role is focused on apostasy and spiritual deception, while the beast operates as a worldly system of power.

The claim that the MOL and the beast/8th king must be the same entity because both are judged at Christ’s return is flawed. Similarities in their judgment do not necessitate identity. The MOL’s focus is on spiritual rebellion within the Church (2 Thessalonians 2:4), while the 8th king represents political and systemic rebellion on a global scale (Revelation 17:13–14). The beast/8th king is described in corporate and symbolic terms (a coalition of kings, horns, and powers), whereas the MOL is depicted as a singular, personal figure. Scripture frequently depicts multiple entities judged simultaneously (e.g., Satan, death, and Hades in Revelation 20:10–14). Shared judgment does not imply shared identity.

Your interpretation relies heavily on literal readings of apocalyptic imagery, leading to speculative conclusions. The "restraint" in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7 refers to a divine or spiritual force preventing the MOL’s emergence. This is unrelated to political timelines or events leading to an NWO. Apocalyptic imagery in Revelation uses rich symbolism to convey theological truths. Reading these symbols as direct political predictions (e.g., the NWO) distorts their purpose.

Both 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation emphasize divine sovereignty and ultimate judgment. The MOL’s deception is a result of God allowing people to be deluded because they rejected the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10–12). This judgment is spiritual, targeting apostasy and rebellion within the Church. The beast’s judgment in Revelation reflects God’s justice upon worldly powers that oppose His kingdom. It is corporate and symbolic, not focused on individual apostasy. These judgments serve distinct purposes and address different aspects of rebellion against God.

In conclusion, the claim that the MOL and the 8th king are the same entity misreads their respective biblical contexts. While both are judged at Christ’s return, their roles, descriptions, and theological implications differ. The MOL represents spiritual rebellion and apostasy, while the 8th king symbolizes systemic and political opposition to God. Attempts to equate them oversimplify apocalyptic imagery, misinterpret prophetic texts, and impose speculative frameworks that detract from the texts’ true spiritual and theological messages.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your statement seems to confuse the distinction between "god" (with a lowercase "g") and "God" (with a capital "G"), as well as misinterpret the verses you’ve cited. The phrase "god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4) refers to Satan's temporary and limited authority over the sinful world system, as allowed by the true God. It does not suggest that Satan is "God" in the sense of being divine, eternal, omnipotent, or the Creator. Paul uses the term "god of this age" to emphasize Satan's role in deceiving unbelievers and keeping them from recognizing the truth of the gospel. Satan is a created being, entirely subordinate to God, and his power is neither infinite nor self-existent. Satan’s "godhood" is metaphorical, referring to his influence over this age, not a statement of his divinity. His purpose is to blind unbelievers to the gospel, which displays the glory of Christ. This verse underscores Satan's role as an adversary of Christ, not an equivalence between the two.

Colossians 1:15 clearly identifies Jesus as the "image of the invisible God," which means He perfectly reveals and represents God’s nature, essence, and character. It also refers to His preeminence ("firstborn" in rank and authority) over all creation. This verse celebrates Jesus' divine status, not as a created being but as the agent of creation itself (see Colossians 1:16-17). Jesus is not "a god" or "a creature," but the manifestation of the eternal God (John 1:1, 1:14). The phrase "firstborn over all creation" does not mean Jesus is part of creation but indicates His supremacy and authority over it.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Rattigan350

Paul's statement in Colossians 1:16 ("For by him all things were created...") is not an isolated or novel theological concept. It aligns with the broader biblical narrative of the preeminence and creative work of the Son, rooted in both Jewish Scripture and early Christian revelation. The personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31describes wisdom as being present with God at creation. Early Christians, including Paul, understood Christ as the incarnate "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). This directly ties the creative work described in Colossians to Old Testament imagery. The role of the "Word" (logos) in creation is implicit in Genesis 1:1-3, where God speaks creation into existence. John later identifies Christ as the "Word" through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3), but this concept is rooted in Jewish thought about God's creative word and wisdom. Psalm 33:6 emphasizes the instrumental role of God's word in creation, prefigures the New Testament identification of Jesus as the divine Word. Paul’s theology integrates these Jewish ideas, understanding Christ as the agent of creation, not in contradiction to Jewish Scripture but as its fulfillment.

The claim that Jesus is the "Son of God" (or "Son of the Supreme Being," as the argument rephrases it) does not contradict His creative role. In fact, the title "Son" affirms His unique relationship with the Father, which is essential for understanding His divine authority. In the cultural and theological context of the Bible, a "son" shares the nature of his father. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the "Son of God" was understood by His contemporaries as a claim to equality with God (John 5:18). His sonship affirms, rather than denies, His divine identity and creative authority.

So in Jewish thought, the term "Son of God" carries implications of divinity. For example, in John 10:30-33, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The Jews immediately sought to stone Him, saying, "You, being a man, make Yourself God." This shows that Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was understood as a claim to divinity, not merely a title of honor. When Peter calls Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matthew 16:16) Jesus affirms the truth of this statement, declaring that it was revealed to Peter by God (Matthew 16:17). This declaration aligns with other passages where Jesus explicitly claims equality with God (e.g., John 8:58, John 14:9).

In Matthew 4:3 the devil tempts Jesus, acknowledging Him as the Son of God. This reflects Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and His divine mission, not a denial of His divinity. In Matthew 8:29 the demons recognize Jesus as the Son of God and express fear of His authority. Their acknowledgment underscores Jesus’ power and dominion, further affirming His role as Lord over all creation. Demons recognized Jesus as the "Son of God" (Luke 4:41), acknowledging His divine authority and identity. The fact that demons feared Him and obeyed His commands (Mark 1:24-27) further supports His divine nature, as only God holds such authority over spiritual beings.

"Firstborn of all creation" (v. 15) does not mean Jesus is part of creation. In Jewish culture, "firstborn" signifies rank and preeminence, not chronological birth order. Jesus is supreme over all creation because He is its creator, as stated in verse 16. Verse 16 explicitly states that "all things" were created through and for Him, affirming His active role in creation.

The argument assumes that Paul could not have written Colossians 1:16 because John’s Gospel was not yet available. Paul explicitly states that his gospel was received directly by revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12). His understanding of Christ’s role in creation does not depend on John’s Gospel but on his divine commission and extensive knowledge of Jewish Scriptures. The belief in Christ’s role as creator was not unique to Paul. It was a core part of early Christian teaching, rooted in Jewish Scripture and affirmed by other New Testament writers (e.g., Hebrews 1:2-3).

Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16 is consistent with Jewish Scriptures and the broader New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ. The Son’s creative role does not diminish His sonship; instead, it emphasizes His unique relationship with the Father and His divine authority. Dismissing Paul's theology based on speculative assumptions about his sources ignores the coherence of biblical revelation. Colossians 1:16, far from being an innovation, reflects the fulfillment of Old Testament themes in the person and work of Christ, who is fully God and fully active in creation.

The New Testament provides explicit statements from the apostles affirming Jesus’ deity. After the resurrection, Thomas directly addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) Jesus does not correct Thomas but instead commends his faith, showing that this recognition is correct. Paul frequently affirms Jesus’ deity (Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6). John 1:1 explicitly identifies Jesus (the Word) as God.

The claim that Jesus did not predict a self-resurrection misunderstands both Scripture and Trinitarian theology. In John 2:19-21 Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John explains that "He was speaking of the temple of His body." In John 10:18 Jesus states, "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again." These passages clearly show that Jesus predicted His own resurrection, demonstrating His divine authority over life and death. The New Testament attributes Jesus’ resurrection to the entire Trinity: God the Father raised Him (Acts 2:32, Galatians 1:1), the Holy Spirit raised Him (Romans 8:11), Jesus Himself took up His life (John 10:18), this reflects the cooperative work of the Trinity rather than any contradiction.

Acts 2:32 and 2:36 emphasize God the Father’s role in Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation but do not diminish Jesus’ deity. "God made him both Lord and Christ": The term "made" here does not imply that Jesus became something He was not before. Rather, it refers to the formal recognition and declaration of Jesus’ roles as Lord and Messiah through His resurrection and exaltation. These roles were eternally His by nature but were revealed and confirmed to humanity in history. The title "Lord" (Kyrios) in the Greek Septuagint is the same word used for Yahweh, the divine name of God. Peter’s declaration in Acts 2:36 aligns with other New Testament affirmations of Jesus as divine Lord (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11).

The argument that Jesus being dependent on the Father proves He is not God misunderstands Trinitarian theology. In the incarnation Jesus, as the Son, voluntarily took on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8). This included submitting to the Father’s will and relying on Him as an example of perfect obedience. His dependency reflects His role within the Trinity and His mission as the incarnate Son, not a denial of His divinity.

The argument that Jesus could not resurrect Himself because "He was dead" misunderstands the nature of Christ’s death. Jesus’ death involved the separation of His human soul and body, not the cessation of His divine nature. As God, He remained fully active and sovereign even during His death. The effectiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice rests on His divine nature, as only an infinite being could provide atonement for the sins of humanity (Hebrews 9:12-14).

20

Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your interpretation is problematic on several levels, as it misinterprets key biblical passages, conflates apocalyptic imagery with speculative political theories, and projects unsubstantiated connections between unrelated texts.

The claim that the Tower of Babel incident represents God's intention to restrain a one-world government (or New World Order, NWO) misreads the passage in Genesis 11:1–9. The Tower of Babel narrative illustrates God's intervention to prevent human pride and self-reliance from leading to a rebellion against Him. By scattering humanity and confusing languages, God ensured the diversity of nations and cultures. However, there is no biblical basis to suggest this was meant to hold back a future political "NWO." The text speaks about human pride, not geopolitical governance.

The assertion that Babel’s scattering would only last until the 7th king (interpreted here as a specific era in Revelation) is speculative and not grounded in any biblical text. Babel’s significance is spiritual—demonstrating God’s sovereignty over human attempts to establish unity apart from Him—not prophetic of a political timeline.

The claim that the 8th king (Revelation 17:11), the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2), and the Antichrist (1 John 2:18) are the same figure conflates different apocalyptic and eschatological concepts without textual evidence. These figures are described in distinct contexts:

· The 8th King (Revelation 17:11): Symbolizes a succession of earthly powers hostile to God, rooted in the seven preceding kings. This imagery refers to a worldly system of opposition to God, not an individual figure.

· Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4): Paul describes a figure who exalts himself above God, but this description is more spiritual and theological, focusing on rebellion and apostasy rather than global political dominance.

· Antichrist (1 John 2:18): John uses the term "antichrist" to describe multiple opponents of Christ, both present and future. It is not tied to the 8th king or a specific political structure.

The attempt to merge these figures and link them to modern political entities or speculative future events reflects an interpretive leap not supported by Scripture.

The interpretation of Revelation as predicting an NWO under the 8th king demonstrates a misunderstanding of apocalyptic literature. Revelation uses symbolic language to address the struggles of the early Church, offering hope for God’s ultimate triumph over evil. The 8th king (Revelation 17:11–17) represents worldly powers opposing God’s kingdom, but there is no indication that this refers to a modern global government or political body.

· Revelation 13:5–7 describes the beast as being given authority to persecute the saints for 42 months, symbolizing a period of intense persecution. This timeframe is not meant to be taken literally but reflects a symbolic period of limited duration during which God’s people endure suffering.

· Revelation 17:13, 17 speaks of the kings giving their authority to the beast. This imagery emphasizes the unity of worldly powers in opposition to God but does not describe a literal transfer of power to a single modern entity.

The claim that the 8th king serves as God’s judgment on His people misreads 1 Peter 4:17, which states that judgment begins with the household of God. This passage refers to the refining and testing of believers through trials, not a political entity. The idea that the 8th king is the instrument of this judgment lacks scriptural support.

Similarly, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10 describes Christ’s return to bring relief to believers and judgment on unbelievers. It does not mention the 8th king or suggest a timeline involving a world war or a New World Order. The focus is on Christ’s final victory, not on intermediate political developments.

The description of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13 refers to the ultimate renewal of creation, where God dwells with His people in perfect unity. The interpretation that this involves the erasure of current cultures, languages, and histories misunderstands the text. These passages emphasize restoration and redemption, not the obliteration of human diversity. Zephaniah 3:9 ("a pure language") symbolizes the unity of worship, not a literal homogenization of human language or culture.

Revelation 3:10 refers to a promise of protection for the faithful in Philadelphia during a time of trial. It does not suggest a global judgment tied to a future political regime. The "hour of testing" is symbolic of tribulation that refines believers’ faith, not a specific period governed by an 8th king.

The invocation of contemporary political language (e.g., UN Secretary-General Guterres’ speech) to interpret biblical prophecy is anachronistic and speculative. Revelation and other apocalyptic texts were written to address the concerns of their original audiences and offer hope for all Christians, not to predict specific modern events.

In conclusion, your interpretation demonstrates a pattern of speculative associations, selective proof-texting, and misreading of apocalyptic symbols. The Tower of Babel, the 8th king, the Man of Lawlessness, and the Antichrist are distinct concepts within their respective contexts. The New Heavens and New Earth are about restoration, not cultural erasure. The idea of an NWO arising under the 8th king is unsupported by Scripture and reflects an overreach in interpretation. A proper understanding of these texts focuses on their spiritual and theological messages: God’s ultimate victory over evil, the call to perseverance, and the hope of eternal life with Him.

37

Prepare to get Pelted by Symbolic Hailstones

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/idhmflud3p4?si=9xc4svrhxslduwvz.

so david schafer a member of the teaching commitee and a helper to the governing body has come out yesterday with a new video that goes through the king of the north, the hailstones message and other things in the wake of the possibility of a ww3 and especially now that tensions are escalating with russia so he is making quite a few end time arguments and i will be expanding on those one by one but today let's see what he has about the hailstones message of the end(video) so this is the paragraph in question, paragraph 14 from article 20 of the watchtower 2020 study edition: "sometime after the start of the great tribulation, “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” will form a coalition of nations.

(rev.

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your interpretation of the cited biblical passages reflects a highly speculative and selective approach to eschatology, heavily influenced by a framework resembling Jehovah’s Witness theology, but it lacks coherence when viewed in the light of proper biblical exegesis and the broader scriptural context. Let me address its flaws systematically, focusing on the misinterpretation of the cited verses.

Misinterpretation of Matthew 24:7-8 and Revelation 6:2-8

The claim equating World War III with the activity of the horsemen in Revelation 6 and the events of Matthew 24:7-8 is speculative and ignores the nature of apocalyptic literature. The four horsemen represent broader realities—conquest, war, famine, and death—affecting humanity throughout history, not a specific event like WW3. Matthew 24:7-8 describes general signs (wars, famines, earthquakes) that characterize the "beginning of birth pains," which have occurred repeatedly in history, not just in a modern geopolitical context.

The attempt to pinpoint these symbols to a contemporary event, such as a future world war, misuses apocalyptic imagery, which is inherently symbolic, not predictive of specific modern conflicts.

Misinterpretation of Revelation 17:13, 17 and Revelation 13:5

The argument that nations will give their power to the United Nations, making it the 8th king, conflates the symbolic language of Revelation with contemporary political structures without textual support. The "8th king" in Revelation 17:11 is described as arising from the seven kings, symbolizing successive world powers hostile to God, and ultimately heading toward destruction. This is symbolic of worldly opposition to God across ages, not a specific modern political entity like the UN.

Revelation 13:5 speaks of a beast given authority to act for 42 months, symbolizing a time of intense persecution. Associating this with a specific political organization like the UN is speculative and not supported by the text, which focuses on general opposition to Christ’s kingdom rather than any modern geopolitical body.

Equating the 8th King with the King of the North (KOTN)

Equating the "8th king" of Revelation with the "King of the North" in Daniel 11 demonstrates a lack of contextual understanding. The "King of the North" in Daniel refers to historical rulers (e.g., Antiochus IV Epiphanes) within the framework of the Seleucid Empire and the conflicts with the Ptolemaic Kingdom. While some interpret later portions of Daniel 11 as having eschatological significance, there is no textual evidence linking the King of the North to the 8th king or the UN.

Revelation and Daniel use different symbolic frameworks to address distinct themes, and forcing a connection between these figures creates an artificial synthesis not supported by the texts themselves.

Misinterpretation of the "Hour of Test" (Revelation 3:10)

The "hour of test" in Revelation 3:10 is a promise of protection to the faithful in Philadelphia, likely referring to specific trials in their historical context or general persecution faced by believers. It is a stretch to link this to a future global trial involving the UN or a one-world government. Revelation 3:10 focuses on spiritual perseverance, not political events.

The Concept of Wheat and Weeds (Matthew 13:38)

The parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:38 refers to the coexistence of righteous and wicked people within the world until the final judgment. Attempting to assign a specific eschatological timeline (e.g., the 42 months) to this parable misinterprets its focus on the final separation of the righteous and the wicked by God’s angels. The parable emphasizes patience and God’s ultimate justice, not a specific period of tribulation under an 8th king.

Speculation About the Great Crowd (Revelation 7:9, 14)

The "Great Crowd" in Revelation 7:9, 14 represents a multitude from all nations who have come through the "great tribulation," symbolizing faithful believers who remain loyal to God in the face of persecution. Claiming this group will undergo a period of tribulation under the 8th king before unifying in belief introduces speculative details not found in the text. Revelation emphasizes their worship of God and their deliverance, not their temporal journey toward doctrinal unity.

42 Months as a Literal Timeframe

The claim that the 42 months (Revelation 13:5) represents a literal period of future tribulation misreads the symbolic use of numbers in apocalyptic literature. The 42 months (or 1,260 days) symbolizes a limited period of persecution, paralleling similar symbolic timeframes in Daniel. It is not intended as a literal chronological prediction of future geopolitical events.

Misapplication of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 speaks of God’s final judgment and the glorification of believers at Christ’s return. It does not support the claim that believers will endure a specific 42-month tribulation under the rule of an 8th king. Instead, it reassures believers of their ultimate vindication when Christ is revealed in glory.

Summary

This interpretation misuses apocalyptic and symbolic biblical texts, applying them to speculative modern scenarios without textual justification. Revelation and Daniel are not meant to provide a detailed timeline of future political events but to offer hope and assurance to believers facing persecution. Their focus is on God’s ultimate victory, not on specific geopolitical structures or timeframes.

The attempt to link the 8th king, the King of the North, and other figures into a cohesive eschatological framework ignores the unique contexts and purposes of these texts. Such speculative interpretations distract from the spiritual and theological messages of Scripture, which emphasize faithfulness, perseverance, and the certainty of God’s ultimate triumph. Instead of focusing on speculative timelines, a proper understanding of these passages should inspire trust in God’s sovereignty and encouragement to remain faithful in the face of trials.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

It’s true that the Bible does not specify December 25 as Jesus’ birth date, but the absence of this detail does not invalidate the practice of celebrating His birth. The Bible also does not command Christians to observe birthdays, wedding anniversaries, or even to gather on specific days for communal worship, yet these are widely accepted practices in Christian life. The principle of freedom in Christ allows believers to commemorate events in ways that honor God (Romans 14:5-6).

The claim that the celebration of Jesus' birth on December 25 is non-Scriptural assumes that only practices explicitly commanded in the Bible are valid. However, this legalistic approach ignores the fact that many Christian traditions have developed to honor God and deepen faith without being directly prescribed. The choice of December 25 likely stems from theological reasoning, as explained in historical studies—not from pagan worship but from aligning Christ’s birth with the symbolism of light overcoming darkness (e.g., John 1:5).

The celebration was chosen by early Christians, long before it became a widespread tradition. This does not imply "following worldly tradition," but rather utilizing cultural contexts to elevate Christ's significance.

You assume that Christians must reject any tradition not originating directly from Jesus or the apostles. This is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witnesses' own practices. For instance their conventions, terminology, and organizational structure are not explicitly found in the Bible but were developed later. JWs follow the WTS’ interpretation, a human tradition, while rejecting other forms of Christian tradition. Christianity allows for traditions, provided they align with Scripture’s principles and honor God. The early Church fathers and councils were led by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), forming traditions that are Christ-centered.

The question about observing Jesus’ death on a Friday rather than strictly on Nisan 14 is based on a misunderstanding of Christian liturgical practice. The choice of Good Friday reflects the chronology of the Passion narrative in the Gospels, which places the Crucifixion on the day before the Sabbath. This is not an abandonment of Nisan 14 but a way to integrate the Jewish calendar’s theological significance into the weekly rhythm of Christian worship.

Unlike Quartodecimanism, which insisted on adhering rigidly to Nisan 14, the Church prioritized the Resurrection’s centrality and its significance for all humanity. The Church’s authority to adapt liturgical practices is supported by Matthew 16:19, where Jesus gives Peter and the apostles the keys to bind and loose.

The selective rejection of customs (e.g., birthdays or Christmas) while accepting others (e.g., wedding anniversaries or conventions) reveals inconsistency. By their logic, any practice with historical connections to non-Christian contexts should be rejected, yet this is neither practical nor Biblically required.

In short, the celebration of Christmas, including its date, is rooted in historical and theological reasoning, not paganism or "worldly tradition." Christians have the freedom to commemorate Christ’s birth as a way of honoring the Incarnation, even if the exact date is unknown. The Bible does not prohibit such celebrations, and early Church practices demonstrate the legitimacy of developing traditions that glorify God. Legalistic objections based on rigid interpretations fail to reflect the liberating message of the Gospel.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

While it is true that the Bible does not explicitly prescribe the celebration of Jesus’ birth, the absence of a command does not imply prohibition. The Bible permits all practices that glorify God, provided they do not contradict His teachings. Celebrating Christ’s birth, like observing Easter, honors His role in salvation history. The centrality of His incarnation is affirmed in Scripture (e.g., John 1:14), and its commemoration aligns with Christian principles.

The Jewish calendar’s lunar-solar system differs from the Gregorian calendar, making direct date alignment impractical. Christianity does not mandate adherence to the Jewish calendar for its celebrations. The choice of December 25 for Christmas reflects the use of the local Roman calendar rather than the Jewish one, emphasizing inculturation without compromising theological truth.

You asked why Christians celebrate on December 25. Early Christians chose this date for several reasons, including its symbolism with the winter solstice, representing Christ as the “Light of the World” (John 8:12). This choice does not stem from a "worldly" origin but reflects theological meaning.

Your concern that Kislev 25 does not always fall on December 25 misunderstands Christian practice. Christmas is not tied to Kislev 25. It is based on the Roman calendar, separate from Jewish calendrical cycles. Similarly, Easter is determined using the Gregorian system, independent of the precise Jewish Nisan 14 date.

The Quartodeciman controversy (2nd–4th centuries) exemplifies why strict adherence to the Jewish calendar was rejected by the Church. Quartodecimans insisted on celebrating Easter on Nisan 14 regardless of the day of the week, in alignment with Jewish Passover. However, the Church affirmed that Christian holidays are celebrated in light of the Resurrection, not bound by the old covenant’s calendar (Colossians 2:16-17). This distinction underscores Christian freedom to determine dates that reflect theological meaning.

Quartodecimanism was deemed heretical because it clung to Judaic customs, undermining the new covenant established by Christ. The same principle applies to your argument about Christmas: Christianity is not obligated to follow the Jewish calendar, nor is it restricted from selecting dates that resonate with its faith.

Tradition plays a vital role in the life of the Church. While Scripture is foundational, not all Christian practices are explicitly detailed in the Bible. The Church has always recognized that certain elements of worship and celebration develop through tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The accusation that Christmas or other celebrations are "worldly" misrepresents their theological significance. Christians celebrate December 25 not because of cultural conformity but as an expression of faith in the Incarnation. The Church “baptized” cultural customs (like festivals or symbols) to redirect them to Christ, a process of inculturation rather than syncretism.

The New World Translation translates John 17:16 as "they are no part of the world," which implies absolute separation from societal customs. However, the Greek text indicates that Christians are "not of the world," meaning their values are distinct, not that they reject all cultural practices. The NWT’s rendering distorts the passage to support Jehovah's Witnesses' separatist ideology.

This misinterpretation serves to enforce rigid boundaries against practices like celebrating birthdays or holidays, despite the lack of explicit biblical prohibition. It imposes unnecessary legalism rather than reflecting the gospel's freedom.

In conclusion, celebrating Christmas on December 25 is neither unbiblical nor inherently “worldly.” It honors Christ’s incarnation, an essential event in salvation history. The date’s theological symbolism and historical development reflect Christian freedom in worship. Misunderstanding or distorting this practice fails to grasp the inclusive and transformative nature of Christian tradition.

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

In John 17:16, Jesus says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” (NIV). The NWT translates this as “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” The phrase "no part of the world" is an interpretive addition. The Greek text (ouk ek tou kosmou) translates more naturally as "not of the world." This subtle mistranslation introduces an unnecessary absolutism, implying complete detachment from societal practices, which is not the intended meaning of Jesus’ prayer. Jesus is referring to spiritual distinctiveness, not physical separation or rejection of cultural practices. Christians remain in the world but are called to live according to God’s values, not worldly sinful behaviors (John 17:15). The Watchtower Society uses this phrase to justify rejecting neutral societal customs (like birthdays or Christmas), promoting a divisive interpretation that equates cultural participation with spiritual corruption.

It is true that the Bible specifies Nisan 14 as the date of Jesus’ death and commands its commemoration (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However while Jesus did not command celebrating His birth, He did not forbid it either. Christians are free to honor significant events in salvation history, such as the Incarnation, as long as it aligns with scriptural principles (Romans 14:5-6). Without the Incarnation (John 1:14), there would be no death or resurrection. Celebrating Jesus’ birth reflects the joy and fulfillment of God’s promise (Luke 2:10-14), complementing the commemoration of His death.

According to the Watchtower Society, only the celebrations explicitly prescribed in the Bible can be observed, but the Bible does not establish such a principle. Besides the annual feasts prescribed in the Law, the Jews had both occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah). Jesus Himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and attended the Hanukkah (Feast of Dedication) celebrations, teaching in the Temple in the middle of the festival (John 10:22-23). He never opposed celebrations not mandated by Mosaic Law. The New Testament explicitly teaches that there is no religious significance to regarding one day as better than another. Thus, no one should be compelled to observe any particular day, nor should others be judged for celebrating something (Romans 14:5-12, Colossians 2:16-17).

The claim that December 25 is a "worldly" celebration misunderstands history. December 25 was chosen not to “align” with paganism but to emphasize Jesus as the "Light of the World" (John 8:12), coinciding with the winter solstice when daylight begins to increase. The earliest records of Christmas predate Emperor Aurelian’s Sol Invictus festival (AD 274), disproving the claim that Christians copied it. Romans 14:5-6 allows believers to esteem certain days as special for honoring God. Celebrating Christmas on December 25 does not inherently align Christians with "the world," as the focus remains on Christ’s birth.

The inclusion of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, or gifts is cultural and not mandated by Scripture. These customs, while not rooted in the Bible, can be neutral tools for expressing joy and generosity, provided they do not distract from the holiday’s true meaning. Giving gifts echoes the generosity of the Magi (Matthew 2:11) and reflects the ultimate gift of Jesus to humanity (John 3:16). Symbols like the tree or lights remind Christians of Christ, who brings eternal life (John 1:4) and light into the world. Their origins in pre-Christian customs are irrelevant if their modern meaning is Christ-centered.

Jehovah’s Witnesses inconsistently apply the “pagan origin” argument. The Watchtower has admitted that many customs, such as wedding rings or timekeeping, originated in pagan contexts but are now secular and acceptable (e.g., w98 10/15 pp. 30-31). By their own logic, Christmas traditions—now widely associated with Christ—should not be dismissed solely because of their ancient origins.

In conclusion, the celebration of Christmas is not about adhering to a specific date or pagan customs but about honoring Christ’s Incarnation, a cornerstone of Christian faith. The mistranslation of John 17:16 in the NWT serves to isolate Jehovah’s Witnesses unnecessarily from cultural expressions that can glorify God when done with the right intent.