Peace & Security or Sudden Destruction?

[Oeste]

I agree, Christians should Not go beyond what Jesus taught at Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10.

I disagree. We should not go beyond what scripture teaches. Limiting ourselves to two bible verses is silly.

Jesus, nor his 1st-centruy followers, were part of any military.

Incorrect. Cornelius was a Centurion, part of the Cohors II Italica Civium Romanorum.

They were neutral.

Incorrect. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8). As such he did not tell the Father he was "neutral" in Israel's wars. Even your Organization prays for Jesus to come back and kill everyone it thinks is an "apostate" and/or "so-called Christian".

That's tough to due if you're "neutral".

.
They did Not even get involved in the 'issues of the day' between the Jews verses the Romans.

So? There are some wars I wouldn't take part in either, like one between ISIS and the Taliban.

Facing violence is in self defence, Not going out to kill another at political whims.

Then we are agreed. If a nation is being attacked through no fault of its own it has a right to self-defense. However, other nations have a responsibility also, like mitigating the dispute, or even defending the targeted nation.

The Constitution of the Mosaic Law was only for one nation, and that was the nation of ancient Israel.

Not sure what you mean by this. The 10 Commandments and the Mosaic Law were given to prepare Israel to receive Christ. Today we reap the benefit, as much of our own Laws are based on the same principals, or case law.

The 'executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked

Whoa...I thought you said Jesus was neutral. Did he change? (See Hebrews 13:8 again).

Jesus wants ALL to repent, and at 2 Peter 3:9 we are ALL (everyone inside and outside of Christendom ) asked to 'repent' if we do Not wish to ' perish ' (be destroyed).

A bit strange from an Organization that has never apologized, much less repented. Do you intend to perish as a result? Or is your Organization so obsessed with its own virtue, that you can pray like the Pharisees?

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this so called Christian tax collector. Luke 18:11​

That is Not praying for God to kill off ' Christendom ' but praying those in Christendom and elsewhere will repent.

Then shouldn't you be leading the way in the repentance category, or should we develop the ways of your Organization, and simply consider God so pleased with us there is nothing to repent about?

 

[nPeace]

Why conflate Nebuchadnezzar with the Wild Beast? Nebuchadnezzar was sent by God to punish Israel. The Wild Beast is not sent by God to punish anyone.

So yes, Nebuchadnezzar was an “arm of God”, but the Wild Beast, who wages war against the Lamb, is never an “arm of God” because God does not wage war against the Lamb. Did God wage war against Israel from time to time? Sure. Against the Lamb? Never.



Again, the Wild Beast is not Nebuchadnezzar and should not be equated with him.



I did, that is verse 17. Now read this text again, please. It’s verses 12-14, just a few verses prior:

12 “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13 They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”​

Nebuchadnezzar was Divinely sent against Israel , but the Wild Beast was never Divinely sent against the Lamb. There is nothing at Revelation 17:17 to suggest it was. That is the difference, and it’s not slight or nuanced, it’s huge.

There is another problem. Not only was the Beast never Divinely sent against the Lamb, it is never Divinely sent against the Whore.

God sends the thought to relinquish authority into the hearts of the 10 kings, not the Beast. The beast is actually an eighth king that is of the seven kings who had kingdoms, but not of the 10 who did not have kingdoms.



The thoughts of the Beast are not and do not become the thoughts of God. The thought placed by God is to be of the same mind, and that was given to the 10 kings.



The purpose of the Beast is to rule the earth, receive worship, deceive/ kill the Saints and defeat the Lamb. I am sure you will agree that is not “common purpose” with Jehovah.

Rev 17:17 simply tells us how God has and will re-purpose mankind's fallen plans to His glory because all creation must work within the sovereign will of God. However this does not make the perpetrator of such fallen plans His agent.

"But", you may ask, "the Beast not only attacks the Lamb, it also attacks the Whore. Wouldn’t this lone fact make the Beast ‘an arm of God’?"

Let me answer it this way:

ISIS and the Taliban are in Afghanistan. They hate each other but not as much as they hate the US.

You, as our President decide to draw down US forces in the region. Why? Because you realize that as long as you have a heavy presence there, both will stay united against you. You pull out all but a few hundred troops sending a message that you would love to negotiate a new government but you’re not sure which group to meet with. Sure enough, with you gone both groups break out in all out conflict, waging war against the other for control of the country.

At this point, do you announce ISIS is an “arm of the US”? Why not if they are fighting the Taliban?

Do you announce the Taliban is an “arm of the US”? Why not, if they are fighting ISIS?

Do you announce ISIS and the Taliban are both arms of the US? Why not, if they’re both destroying the other?

And when US attacks the Taliban, does ISIS announce that America, the Great Satan, is an ‘arm of the Caliphate’? Of course not, and neither does the Taliban consider us allied when we attack ISIS.

That is the situation we have when the Wild Beast attacks the Whore of Babylon. A possible convergence of interest is totally insufficient to consider one an ‘arm’ of the other.



There is no similarity between these two situations. Nebuchadnezzar was sent by God. The beast is the Anti-Christ or represents the Anti-Christ's kingdom. The beast is described as "full of names of blasphemies". As such it cannot be 'an arm of God' because God does not walk around with a blasphemous arm, and He certainly does not make war with the Lamb.



Yes, Jesus did say that, which is why I’m wondering how this teaching passed muster. We know Nebuchadnezzar was God’s agent because scripture tells us so, but to ascribe the Beast the same status is clearly going beyond what is written. We know the Beast has blasphemies written all over it, so I’m finding it extraordinarily it as an “arm of God”.

What is similar are the visions and how the kingdoms of man are envisioned. Nebuchadnezzar has the vision and sees man's kingdoms as "an enormous, dazzling statue, in appearance." whereas Daniel and John see them as horrible or loathsome beasts.

Okay, so what is your view on Zechariah 2:6-12
Did God arm himself against himself, when he chose the King of Babylon as his arm?

 

[Fool]

The Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, Steven Pinker famously argued in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, that violence is on a downward trajectory in modern society.

I don't know whether or not I agree, since I'd have to read his thesis more closely, but my understanding is that his argument has considerable support from many quarters.

I do know that there remain a good number of serious threats to international peace and that the balance of power in world politics is still delicate.

The passage you cite actually presupposes a period of peace and security that ends while those enjoying it are caught unawares. It does not specify the duration of the peace.

The term Pax et securitas (Peace and Security) in the context of first century Thessalonica was one of the slogans of the Roman Empire, of the Pax Romana instituted by Caesar Augustus. Paul is here pointing to the "Day of the Lord" as the event that will shatter this peace and stability, following the manifestation of Antichrist - "the son of destruction".

As Helmut Koester, James Harrison and others have argued, this passage should be read in light of the Roman imperial propaganda. The expression “peace and safety” (pax et securitas) was common during the era of the pax Romana (Roman peace).

During this time period, people in the Roman Empire felt protected against barbarian attacks. The subjects uttering "peace and security" are, in the context, the Romans who trusted in theimmutability of their temporal “peace and security". Rome claimed to have brought peace to the world.

Even the early church fathers understood the Empire to be the "katechon" described St. Paul, which restrained the advent of Antichrist and "lawlessness":

St John Chrysostom Homily IV on Second Thessalonians II Thess.ii.6-9:

"...Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way, that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God..."​

St. Bonaventure argues in his Collations on the Hexaemeron (1273):

"...The seventh time or age, that of quiet, begins with the shout of the angel (Rev. 10:&-7)...It is necessary that One Ruler, a defender of the Church, arise...No one knows how long that time of great peace will last since ''when they said 'Peace and security,' then suddenly destruction came upon them" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3)..."​

here's your sign. like the people of noahs time it will come


Predictions from Edgar Cayce: Erupting Volcanoes and Multiple Earthquakes

Hopi Indian Prophesies, October 30,1997

 

[savagewind]

Okay, so what is your view on Zechariah 2:6-12
Did God arm himself against himself, when he chose the King of Babylon as his arm?

God's arm is against sinners. God's arm is never against righteousness. It should be obvious. God knows why it isn't!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As far as Cornelius, up until the time of Marcus Aurelius No Christian became a soldier, and No soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.- The Rise of Christianity by E. W. Barnes.
Thus, Cornelius upon his baptism would have become a former solider.

Since Pentecost, Christians are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law - Romans 10:4.
The motive for men's wars is Not to carry out the Creator's will or purpose, but for their nationalistic interests.
Teaching that war equals freedom is a teaching from men, when war equals their capitalism.
Christians do Not fight against any fellow believers living in another country.

This ties in with what Christ directed his followers at Matthew 26:52 because Jesus himself will be the one who will carry out the execution of those opposed to God as per 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:11-21.

Besides Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10, there is also what is written at 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 and Luke 6:27-28

 

[URAVIP2ME]

here's your sign. like the people of noahs time it will come
Predictions from Edgar Cayce: Erupting Volcanoes and Multiple Earthquakes
Hopi Indian Prophesies, October 30,1997

Before Cayce, we have the gospel writing of Luke found at Luke 21:11 because there Luke Not only mentions earthquakes (plural/multiple) but describes the magnitude of the earthquakes with the adjective ' GREAT ' earthquakes.

 

[Oeste]

Okay, so what is your view on Zechariah 2:6-12
Did God arm himself against himself, when he chose the King of Babylon as his arm?

Zechariah 2:6-12 talks of a time when God is dwelling among us once again, and not simply in our hearts as He is now. This could have occurred when Jesus arrived (God with us) but as you know the final week was delayed (Daniel 9). IMO, it's complete fulfillment occurs when a New Jerusalem descends from the sky.

As for Nebuchadnezzar, he is sent by Jehovah to attack an unrepentant/defiant Judah, not Jehovah Himself, so it is not an arm against Himself.

Had Israel obeyed the Law and commandments Jehovah would not have sent Nebuchadnezzar against them. In other words, if Israel is compliant with the Law God gave them, and Jehovah raises an army to fight them even though they are compliant, then yes, it would be "God's arm against Himself".

The false prophet, Whore and Wild Beast are at war against the Lamb whom we know was, is and will always be compliant and in accordance with God. As such, any army, person or entity raised against him is not an arm of God, even if that army, person or entity attacks the Whore.

Consider the armies of Moab and Ammon who marched against Israel. God sowed confusion so that they attacked each other. However at no time should we consider any of their soldiers as an arm of God even though they are performing something God willed.

 

[Oeste]

As far as Cornelius, up until the time of Marcus Aurelius No Christian became a soldier, and No soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.- The Rise of Christianity by E. W. Barnes.

Scripture please?

Thus, Cornelius upon his baptism would have become a former solider.

You cannot make up your own biblical narratives URAVIP2ME!
Let's look at what the biblical narrative actually says, rather than what you suppose it says:

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, ‘Cornelius.” 4 And he stared at him in terror and said, ‘What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, ‘Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.'​

It is the actual biblical narrative that puts such arguments to rest URAVIP2ME.

1. Cornelius is shown to be a centurion.
2. He is labeled a devout Christian, not a “so-called” Christian as your Organization would have labeled him.
3. His prayers are heard before God.
4. God responds by sending an angel, and it’s not to ask why he’s still in the army.

Since Pentecost, Christians are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law - Romans 10:4.
The motive for men's wars is Not to carry out the Creator's will or purpose, but for their nationalistic interests.

I'm not seeing your point here. Will Jesus oppose Jehovah at Armageddon because of Pentecost? Since Jehovah and Jesus are "in Agreement" at all times, and since Christians are "in Agreement" at all times with Christ, shouldn't Jesus sit out the impending war with the Beast and any nation marching on Jerusalem since they're both opposed to war?

Teaching that war equals freedom is a teaching from men,

I agree, but "war equals freedom" sounds like a campaign slogan of Kim Jung-un rather than anything from the traditional church.

when war equals their capitalism.

capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state​

I think it fairly easy to cite plenty of wars not rooted in capitalism.

Christians do Not fight against any fellow believers living in another country.

So they're free to fight if they're not "fellow believers", and free to fight as long as they are not in "another country"?

Is there a scripture basis?

This ties in with what Christ directed his followers at Matthew 26:52

Of course he told them to put away their swords. They didn't need them. Jesus was there.

Later Jesus tells them to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. They produce two, and Jesus tells them it is enough...not to protect him from the Romans of course, because he knew he had to go to the cross. And not enough to protect the church, because He would take care of that once Risen, but more than enough for anyone needing personal protection.

Even later in Revelation we see Jesus striking down entire nations with a two edged sword. Why? To protect others (his sheep) a protocol Christians can follow today. Obviously if we do not lift a hand to protect the righteous we should not expect Jesus to do the same.

because Jesus himself will be the one who will carry out the execution of those opposed to God as per 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:11-21.

Until then God has given the nations the sword:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer
​

What God has freely given to His servants, Jehovah Witnesses hope to take away. They rebel against God's established authority because the current system He has allowed does not meet their humanistic ideals.

Besides Matthew 26:52 and Revelation 13:10, there is also what is written at 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 and Luke 6:27-28

But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly,h what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? (Romans 3)​

Again, as stated in scripture, the Watchtower uses human arguments to rail against His established order. Some will say God is unjust to bring His sword, whilst others will say the nations are unjust to bring theirs. Both arguments use humanistic reasoning.

Quite simply, God could not judge the world without His wrath. Neither could nations judge other nations, or even their own citizens without the same. We could not even bring up our own children correctly by sparing them wrath. Sometime that wrath will take the form of a scolding or paddle, but in the most extreme and dangerous of situations, the sword.

Once God comes He will tell us to beat our swords into plowshares. But we do ourselves no favor by jumping the gun before His appointed time. Your Organization has a storied history of "running ahead of the chariot", declaring the dawn of seasons that have not yet arrived.

Ecclesiastes tells us there is a season for everything, even a time to kill and a time to heal (these seasons did not end with Pentecost). Unfortunately it is still "sword" and not "plowshare" season

 

[nPeace]

Zechariah 2:6-12 talks of a time when God is dwelling among us once again, and not simply in our hearts as He is now. This could have occurred when Jesus arrived (God with us) but as you know the final week was delayed (Daniel 9). IMO, it's complete fulfillment occurs when a New Jerusalem descends from the sky.

As for Nebuchadnezzar, he is sent by Jehovah to attack an unrepentant/defiant Judah, not Jehovah Himself, so it is not an arm against Himself.

Had Israel obeyed the Law and commandments Jehovah would not have sent Nebuchadnezzar against them. In other words, if Israel is compliant with the Law God gave them, and Jehovah raises an army to fight them even though they are compliant, then yes, it would be "God's arm against Himself".

The false prophet, Whore and Wild Beast are at war against the Lamb whom we know was, is and will always be compliant and in accordance with God. As such, any army, person or entity raised against him is not an arm of God, even if that army, person or entity attacks the Whore.

Consider the armies of Moab and Ammon who marched against Israel. God sowed confusion so that they attacked each other. However at no time should we consider any of their soldiers as an arm of God even though they are performing something God willed.

Thank you.
So if you don't mind, I will go ahead and extract the nicely said parts.
As for Nebuchadnezzar, he is sent by Jehovah to attack an unrepentant/defiant Judah, not Jehovah Himself, so it is not an arm against Himself.

Had Israel obeyed the Law and commandments Jehovah would not have sent Nebuchadnezzar against them. In other words, if Israel is compliant with the Law God gave them, and Jehovah raises an army to fight them even though they are compliant, then yes, it would be "God's arm against Himself".

Now since these are your own words, please explain how they are different to the argument @URAVIP2ME made.

The Harlot mentioned in Revelation, if she be false religion, which we believe she is, is an unfaithful woman - a woman that was supposed to be faithful to God.
Therefore, God is punishing her for her adultery.
He chooses to use the Wild Beast of Revelation, to do so.
Therefore, the Wild Beast of Revelation becomes his arm, against the Harlot. Not against the Lamb, who is faithful, and does no wrong.
The Wild Beast of Revelation acts on its own accord, against the Lamb.

A scriptural parallel can be seen in the Assyrian attack on Judah.
Who sent Sennacherib the king of Assyria? Isaiah 7:17-20; 8:7
Wasn't he Jehovah's arm against Judah?
Yet when he attacked Israel, why did he fail? Why was Jehovah with Hezekiah? Why did Jehovah send one angel to wipe out nearly all of the Assyrian army?
Why did Jehovah determine to afterward destroy Assyria?

Isaiah 10:5-7, 12-26
5 “Aha! the Assyrian, The rod to express my anger And the staff in their hand for my denunciation! 6 I will send him against an apostate nation, Against the people who infuriated me; I will command him to take much spoil and much plunder And to trample them like mud in the streets. 7 But he will not be inclined this way And his heart will not scheme this way; For it is in his heart to annihilate, To cut off many nations, not a few.

12 “When Jehovah finishes all his work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, He will punish the king of Assyria for his insolent heart and his proud, arrogant gaze.

Spoiler: Read More. It's Quite Interesting.

13 For he says, ‘I will do this by the strength of my hand And with my wisdom, for I am wise. I will remove the boundaries of peoples And pillage their treasures, And I will subdue the inhabitants like a mighty one. 14 Like a man reaching into a nest, My hand will seize the resources of the peoples; And like one gathering abandoned eggs, I will gather the whole earth! No one will flutter his wings or open his mouth or chirp.’” 15 Will the ax exalt itself over the one who chops with it? Will the saw exalt itself over the one who saws with it? Could a staff wave the one who lifts it? Or could a rod lift up the one who is not made of wood? 16 Therefore the true Lord, Jehovah of armies, Will inflict emaciation on his fat ones, And beneath his glory he will kindle a blazing fire. 17 Israel’s Light will become a fire, And his Holy One a flame; It will blaze up and consume his weeds and his thornbushes in one day. 18 He will utterly do away with the glory of his forest and his orchard; It will be as when a sick man wastes away. 19 The rest of the trees of his forest Will be so few that a boy could list them. 20 In that day those remaining of Israel And the survivors of the house of Jacob Will no longer support themselves on the one who struck them; But they will support themselves on Jehovah, The Holy One of Israel, with faithfulness. 21 Only a remnant will return, The remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. 22 For though your people, O Israel, Are as the grains of sand of the sea, Only a remnant of them will return. An extermination has been decided on, And justice will engulf them. 23 Yes, the extermination decided on by the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, Will be carried out in the entire land. 24 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, says: “Do not be afraid, my people who are dwelling in Zion, because of the As·syrʹi·an, who used to strike you with the rod and to lift up his staff against you as Egypt did. 25 For in a very little while the denunciation will come to an end; my anger will be directed to their destruction. 26 Jehovah of armies will brandish a whip against him, as when he defeated Midʹi·an by the rock Oʹreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will raise it as he did with Egypt.

What do you suppose the Assyrian gazed at, so that he got Jehovah's attention, so that Jehovah referred to it as a proud arrogant gaze?
Do you see the parallel?
Is it not the same thing?
How is it different to Jehovah using the Wild Beast of Revelation to destroy the unfaithful Harlot, and then fighting against it and destroying it?
Was Jehovah buddies with Babylon, Assyria, or the Wild Beast? No, but he can show who is boss, can't he?

I don't think I have to tell you what the WT says on this, because you seem to know. However, the two situations are like twin accounts.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

1. Cornelius is shown to be a centurion.
2. He is labeled a devout Christian, not a “so-called” Christian as your Organization would have labeled him.
3. His prayers are heard before God.
4. God responds by sending an angel, and it’s not to ask why he’s still in the army.

capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state​

I think it fairly easy to cite plenty of wars not rooted in capitalism.
Until then God has given the nations the sword:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly,h what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? (Romans 3)...............​

Yipes! First of all, to me John 5:22 makes it clear that God has committed all judging to His Son.
This is also brought out about Jesus at Matthew 25:32-34,40.

Everyone can read Cornelius was a centurion that does Not mean he stayed in military service.
History shows early Christians did Not enlist or stay in military service.
Christians are to be in subjection to the authorities unless there is conflict- Acts of the Apostles 5:29.
In other words, when ' Caesar ' would want a Christian to do something unscriptural then Christians obey God as ruler rather then men.

Wars are in a countries best interest even if it means persons of one religion will go to war against persons of the same religion living in another country.
Clergy in bed with the political have used the pulpit as a recruiting station so parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God.
In the 60's I recall war as being described as good for business.
In high school a teacher mentioned that because of the war the economy here was better.
No connection to communism, but more like Martin Luther King's " After Vietnam " speech in 1967.​

 

[Oeste]

Now since these are your own words, please explain how they are different to the argument @URAVIP2ME made.

The Harlot mentioned in Revelation, if she be false religion, which we believe she is, is an unfaithful woman - a woman that was supposed to be faithful to God.

I don’t want to get to afar from point, but I disagree the Harlot is simply “false” religion, but rather a new world government that has yet to appear. This government will be closely allied with the wild beast or anti-Christ, so of course it will be a theocracy. She is bedecked in pearls and holds a golden cup, so it will be wealthy, and it uses this wealth to corrupt itself with the kings of the earth.

Therefore, God is punishing her for her adultery.
He chooses to use the Wild Beast of Revelation, to do so.

No, God chose to make the 10 kings of one mind…that is, of a mind to give their authority to the beast. Remember, the 10 kings/beast already hate the whore. This hatred was not placed there by God and did not come from God.

The 10 kings have made themselves subject to the Beast by giving the Beast their authority. The Whore has not and still stands as potential rival to the Beast.

Armed with the authority and power of the 10 kings (not God) the beast (anti-Christ) is now strong enough to indulge its hatred against the whore.

They make the whore "desolate and naked" (strip her of power and leave her defenseless) then "eat her flesh and burn her with fire" (utterly destroy her).

Therefore, the Wild Beast of Revelation becomes his arm, against the Harlot. Not against the Lamb, who is faithful, and does no wrong.
The Wild Beast of Revelation acts on its own accord, against the Lamb.

The anti-Christ or beast never becomes Jehovah’s arm against the Harlot. The Lamb is that arm. The beast is an arm or extension of the Dragon. The beast cannot serve two masters and there is no need for Jehovah to recruit and send forth a Beast as His "arm", especially a Beast that has blasphemies against the Divine Name plastered all over it.

A scriptural parallel can be seen in the Assyrian attack on Judah...

...What do you suppose the Assyrian gazed at, so that he got Jehovah's attention, so that Jehovah referred to it as a proud arrogant gaze?
Do you see the parallel?
Is it not the same thing?

No, not a parallel and not the same thing at all!

You are making connection between the Beast and God that simply isn’t there. The Almighty Himself created agency between Nebuchadnezzar and Himself. No such agency exists between God and the beast. The only thing scripture tells us is that He made the 10 kings of one mind and that suited His purpose. The 10 kings ARE NOT the beast. The 10 king do not actually have a kingdom. The beast is an eighth king that arises out of the 7 kings that do have kingdoms. They are not the same. The beast already has “great authority” given to him by the Dragon (Satan) and when the 10 kings give the beast their authority, he is able to kill the Harlot.

God did not send (bring forth) the Beast against the Harlot. The Beast decides to indulge itself and kills the Harlot on its own, not at the behest of God.

How is it different to Jehovah using the Wild Beast of Revelation to destroy the unfaithful Harlot, and then fighting against it and destroying it?

Jehovah is not "using the Wild Beast" to destroy the Harlot. The Dragon sends the Beast and it decides to destroy the Harlot on its own. As such, never do the Dragon, the Harlot or the Beast work in conjunction but in opposition to God, even when they invariably fight among themselves.

If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, 3 demons could be in a pit, and all have “arms of God” each time one takes a swipe at the other!

What is missing from your parallel is any indication that the Beast itself was sent by God. You show it easily for the kings, but not for the Beast, and that’s because there is no agency or master-servant relationship between the Beast and God.

There is simply no way the Beast is working for God while it is in a state of war with the Lamb. There is no such middle ground. Either you serve one or you serve the other. You are opposed to one or you are opposed to the other. You cannot serve both and you cannot be opposed to both. You cannot be in allegiance with Satan yet claim you are the arm of Almighty God.

Was Jehovah buddies with Babylon, Assyria, or the Wild Beast? No, but he can show who is boss, can't he?

Jehovah knows He's boss and has already shown it. The Beast is not boss but deceives many in the world that he is God, and one of the ways it claims authority and worship is by destroying the Harlot.

I don't think I have to tell you what the WT says on this, because you seem to know. However, the two situations are like twin accounts.

The Watchtower claims the Beast is doing God’s work as long as it kills or destroys what they consider are “so-called” Christians and their institutions. Rather than a disgusting thing that God abhors, it now becomes something God likes and supports…a “sign” that paradise is right around the corner.

IMO, it’s a disturbing message, one we’ve heard before, born out of Watchtower animus rather than scripture.

Finally I would like to point out Revelation 13:6 says this about the Beast:

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.​

I simply do not understand how Jehovah Witnesses could look upon such a thing as "an arm of God" unless it's to say "Wrong God".

 

[nPeace]

I don’t want to get to afar from point, but I disagree the Harlot is simply “false” religion, but rather a new world government that has yet to appear. This government will be closely allied with the wild beast or anti-Christ, so of course it will be a theocracy. She is bedecked in pearls and holds a golden cup, so it will be wealthy, and it uses this wealth to corrupt itself with the kings of the earth.


No, God chose to make the 10 kings of one mind…that is, of a mind to give their authority to the beast. Remember, the 10 kings/beast already hate the whore. This hatred was not placed there by God and did not come from God.

The 10 kings have made themselves subject to the Beast by giving the Beast their authority. The Whore has not and still stands as potential rival to the Beast.

Armed with the authority and power of the 10 kings (not God) the beast (anti-Christ) is now strong enough to indulge its hatred against the whore.

They make the whore "desolate and naked" (strip her of power and leave her defenseless) then "eat her flesh and burn her with fire" (utterly destroy her).


The anti-Christ or beast never becomes Jehovah’s arm against the Harlot. The Lamb is that arm. The beast is an arm or extension of the Dragon. The beast cannot serve two masters and there is no need for Jehovah to recruit and send forth a Beast as His "arm", especially a Beast that has blasphemies against the Divine Name plastered all over it.


No, not a parallel and not the same thing at all!

You are making connection between the Beast and God that simply isn’t there. The Almighty Himself created agency between Nebuchadnezzar and Himself. No such agency exists between God and the beast. The only thing scripture tells us is that He made the 10 kings of one mind and that suited His purpose. The 10 kings ARE NOT the beast. The 10 king do not actually have a kingdom. The beast is an eighth king that arises out of the 7 kings that do have kingdoms. They are not the same. The beast already has “great authority” given to him by the Dragon (Satan) and when the 10 kings give the beast their authority, he is able to kill the Harlot.

God did not send (bring forth) the Beast against the Harlot. The Beast decides to indulge itself and kills the Harlot on its own, not at the behest of God.


Jehovah is not "using the Wild Beast" to destroy the Harlot. The Dragon sends the Beast and it decides to destroy the Harlot on its own. As such, never do the Dragon, the Harlot or the Beast work in conjunction but in opposition to God, even when they invariably fight among themselves.

If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, 3 demons could be in a pit, and all have “arms of God” each time one takes a swipe at the other!

What is missing from your parallel is any indication that the Beast itself was sent by God. You show it easily for the kings, but not for the Beast, and that’s because there is no agency or master-servant relationship between the Beast and God.

There is simply no way the Beast is working for God while it is in a state of war with the Lamb. There is no such middle ground. Either you serve one or you serve the other. You are opposed to one or you are opposed to the other. You cannot serve both and you cannot be opposed to both. You cannot be in allegiance with Satan yet claim you are the arm of Almighty God.


Jehovah knows He's boss and has already shown it. The Beast is not boss but deceives many in the world that he is God, and one of the ways it claims authority and worship is by destroying the Harlot.


The Watchtower claims the Beast is doing God’s work as long as it kills or destroys what they consider are “so-called” Christians and their institutions. Rather than a disgusting thing that God abhors, it now becomes something God likes and supports…a “sign” that paradise is right around the corner.

IMO, it’s a disturbing message, one we’ve heard before, born out of Watchtower animus rather than scripture.

Finally I would like to point out Revelation 13:6 says this about the Beast:

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.​

I simply do not understand how Jehovah Witnesses could look upon such a thing as "an arm of God" unless it's to say "Wrong God".

What standard method do you use to arrive at your interpretations.
To my knowledge, beasts in the Bible represents kingdoms, according to the angels' explanations.
An unfaithful wife, or prostitute represented a people belonging to an owner - hence religious.
Revelation 17 and 18 details aspects of the Harlot, that identifies a religious entity, and not a political... among other things.
So it looks to me as though you have no accurate measuring rod for arriving at the correct understanding. Imo, you will be all over the place.

I don't see any way to enhance on my previous post.
Notably though, you have not used a single scripture that would contradict those points, nor support your argument.

 

[Oeste]

What standard method do you use to arrive at your interpretations.

Hermeneutics.

I don't see any way to enhance on my previous post.

Don't worry, I took care of that in my response.

You were attempting to draw a parallel where no parallel exists, specifically Nebuchadnezzar whom scripture expressly states was Jehovah's servant and an "arm of God", and the Wild Beast which ascends out of the abyss, which is never stated to be an "arm of God".

Notably though, you have not used a single scripture that would contradict those points, nor support your argument.

You want me to "proof text". This is where I quote you a bible verse and then you quote me a bible verse, and then I quote you a bible verse, and then....I think we all get the idea.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 tells us:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

However this does not mean we plop a verse while we for for someone else to plop another. The bible also asks us to do something else, and that is to reason together. (Isaiah 1:18-19, Isaiah 43:26).

This is what Jesus attempted to do with the Pharisees (Mark 7), and also Paul with the Bereans (Acts 17:11). It's what we're attempting to do now. Why simply quote text when we can exegete it?

To my knowledge, beasts in the Bible represents kingdoms, according to the angels' explanations.
An unfaithful wife, or prostitute represented a people belonging to an owner - hence religious.
Revelation 17 and 18 details aspects of the Harlot, that identifies a religious entity, and not a political... among other things.
So it looks to me as though you have no accurate measuring rod for arriving at the correct understanding. Imo, you will be all over the place.

Before asking me to put away my measuring rod, have you examined yours? Your measuring rod changes with the wind nPeace. Today, the wild beast could represents one thing, tomorrow it can represent something else, and neither necessarily has to agree with what it represented last week. Scripture never changes but your interpretation will, because it's all based on whatever the Watchtower says the Beast represents.

My measuring rod stays the same. It is your measuring rod that is "all over the place". It sways in the wind (Ephesians 4:14) "tacking" to and fro, as it moves from one sure Watchtower truth to another. But you like your measuring rod. You're used to it. So let's use it to measure and reason out some scripture.

​

According to the WT's current "truth", the “Wild Beast” represents political systems throughout history opposed to God. As described by the WT:

In the Bible book of Daniel, the various beasts represent successive human kingdoms, or empires. The composite beast of Revelation 13:1, 2 symbolizes the worldwide political system, empowered and controlled by Satan.source​

However, at the time of John’s Revelation, the Angel describes the Beast as follows:

Well, on seeing her I was greatly amazed. So the angel said to me: “Why is it that you were amazed? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the wild beast that is carrying her and that has the seven heads and the ten horns: The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. Revelation 17:8​

It seems pretty clear the wild beast was, but is not at the time of John's vision.

Since the wild beast "represents the worldwide political system, empowered and controlled by Satan", the Watchtower interpretation tells us there was no such system controlled by Satan at the time of John's vision because the beast, at that time, "is not".

Using our Watchtower supplied measuring rod, how do we reason this out?

 

[nPeace]

Using our Watchtower supplied measuring rod, how do we reason this out?

To make it easier for you, I have extracted only precise paragraphs, and highlighted main points.

Please see Contending With Two Ferocious Beasts — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Notice the article says...
Revelation portrays oppressive world powers as making up a proud and monstrous wild beast. (Revelation 13:1, 2)

Spoiler: Revelation 13:1, 2

1 And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. 2 Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.

.
...the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss” is of Satan’s design, a living political system of things. Compare Revelation 13:1; Daniel 7:2, 3, 17.

Spoiler: Daniel 7:2, 3, 17

(Daniel 7:2, 3) 2 Daniel declared: “I was watching in my visions during the night, and look! the four winds of the heavens were stirring up the vast sea. 3 And four huge beasts came out of the sea, each different from the others.

This dragon is Satan, “the original serpent.” (Revelation 12:9; Genesis 3:15) ...a seven-headed dragon, ...Those seven heads and ten horns indicate that he is the architect of the political wild beast soon to be described in Revelation chapter 13. This beast also has seven heads and ten horns. Since Satan has a diadem on each head - seven in all - we can be sure that the world powers represented in that wild beast have been under his rulership. (John 16:11) The ten horns are a fitting symbol of the completeness of the power that he has exercised in this world.

The seven heads of this wild beast stand for six major world powers featured in Bible history up to John’s day - Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome - and a seventh world power prophesied to appear later. Compare Revelation 17:9, 10.

True, there have been other world powers in history besides the seven - just as the wild beast John saw was made up of a body as well as of seven heads and ten horns. But the seven heads represent the seven major powers that have, each in its turn, taken the lead in oppressing God’s people.

...the Roman Empire was no more. The huge British Empire, along with the powerful United States of America, held the center of the world stage. This dual world power proved to be the seventh head of the wild beast.

The wild beast has ten horns on its seven heads...
...it is the dragon that “gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Compare Luke 4:6.) The beast is Satan’s political creation among the masses of mankind. Satan is truly “the ruler of this world.” - John 12:31.

Early in the Lord’s day, calamity strikes the wild beast.
Revelation 13:3 I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed, and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration.
This verse says that one head of the wild beast received a death stroke, but verse 12 speaks as though the entire beast suffered.

Spoiler: Revelation 13:12

(Revelation 13:12) 12 It exercises all the authority of the first wild beast in its sight. And it makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first wild beast, whose mortal wound was healed.

Why is that? Well, the beast’s heads are not all in the ascendancy together. Each in its turn has lorded it over mankind, particularly over God’s people. (Revelation 17:10) Thus, as the Lord’s day begins, there is only one head, the seventh, acting as the dominant world power. A death stroke on that head brings great distress to the entire wild beast.


Please now refer to Judging the Infamous Harlot — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
Please note...
Revelation 17:3 And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns.

The article says...
15 This wild beast has seven heads and ten horns. Is it, then, the same as the wild beast that John saw earlier, which also has seven heads and ten horns? (Revelation 13:1) No, there are differences. This wild beast is scarlet-colored and, unlike the previous wild beast, is not said to have diadems. Rather than having blasphemous names on its seven heads only, it is “full of blasphemous names.” Nevertheless, there must be a relationship between this new wild beast and the previous one; the similarities between them are too pronounced to be coincidental.
16 What, then, is this new scarlet-colored wild beast? It must be the image to the wild beast that was brought forth under the urging of the Anglo-American wild beast that has two horns like a lamb. After the image was made, that two-horned wild beast was allowed to give breath to the image of the wild beast. (Revelation 13:14, 15) John now sees the living, breathing image. It pictures the League of Nations organization that the two-horned wild beast brought to life in 1920.

Now, please see An Awesome Mystery Solved — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
It says, in part...
Clearly identifying the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation 17:3 as the League of Nations, N. H. Knorr went on to discuss its stormy career on the basis of the angel’s following words to John: “The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction.” - Revelation 17:8a.
5 “The wild beast . . . was.” Yes, it had existed as the League of Nations from January 10, 1920, onward, with 63 nations participating at one time or another. But, in turn, Japan, Germany, and Italy withdrew, and the former Soviet Union was dropped from the League. In September 1939 the Nazi dictator of Germany launched World War II. Having failed to keep peace in the world, the League of Nations virtually plunged into an abyss of inactivity. By 1942 it had become a has-been. Neither before this nor at some later date - but right at that critical time - did Jehovah interpret to his people the full depth of meaning of the vision! At the New World Theocratic Assembly, N. H. Knorr could declare, in line with the prophecy, that “the wild beast . . . is not.” He then asked the question, “Will the League remain in the pit?” Quoting Revelation 17:8, he answered: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” That is just how it proved to be - in vindication of Jehovah’s prophetic Word!

Ascending out of the Abyss
6 The scarlet-colored wild beast did indeed climb out of the abyss. On June 26, 1945, with noisy fanfare in San Francisco, U.S.A., 50 nations voted to accept the Charter of the United Nations organization. This body was “to maintain international peace and security.” There were many similarities between the League and the UN. The World Book Encyclopedia notes: “In some ways, the UN resembles the League of Nations, which was organized after World War I . . . Many of the nations that founded the UN had also founded the League. Like the League, the UN was established to help keep peace between nations. The main organs of the UN are much like those of the League.” The UN, then, is actually a revival of the scarlet-colored wild beast. Its membership of some 190 nations far exceeds that of the League’s 63; it has also taken on broader responsibilities than its predecessor.

The UN does not have the answers. And why? Because the Giver of life to all mankind is not the UN’s life-giver. Its life span will be short, for according to God’s decree, “it is to go off into destruction.” The UN’s founders and admirers do not have their names recorded in God’s scroll of life. How could sinful, mortal men, many of whom mock God’s name, achieve through the UN what Jehovah God has declared he is about to accomplish, not by human means, but through the Kingdom of his Christ? - Daniel 7:27; Revelation 11:15.

The UN is actually a blasphemous counterfeit of God’s Messianic Kingdom by his Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ - to whose princely rule there will be no end. (Isaiah 9:6, 7)

Does that clear things up for you?
I hope it does, because it should.

 

[Oeste]

To make it easier for you, I have extracted only precise paragraphs, and highlighted main points.

Thanks nPeace. Let's skim through this because the only thing it appears to do is make the Watchtower's position more confusing than ever.

Revelation portrays oppressive world powers as making up a proud and monstrous wild beast.

That's the WT position, sure. But is it biblical? Does it make sense? That's the question we need ask.

...the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss” is of Satan’s design, a living political system of things. Compare Revelation 13:1; Daniel 7:2, 3, 17.

Notice the article says...
Revelation portrays oppressive world powers as making up a proud and monstrous wild beast. (Revelation 13:1, 2)

Okay, I think we've got that. The Watchtower believes the wild beast is a living political system of things and portrays oppressive world powers.

This is what the Watchtower believes and no one is arguing otherwise, so additional cut and paste is not necessary.

But now we need to go back to what the scripture says and find out if any of this makes any sense. That is what I need you to show us nPeace. Let's see the verse in question again:

Well, on seeing her I was greatly amazed. So the angel said to me: “Why is it that you were amazed? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the wild beast that is carrying her and that has the seven heads and the ten horns: The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. Revelation 17:8​

Since the wild beast "represents the worldwide political system, empowered and controlled by Satan", the Watchtower interpretation tells us there was no such system controlled by Satan at the time of John's vision because the beast, at that time, "is not".

There's the problem nPeace. At the time of John's vision the wild beast IS NOT. And what does the Watchtower tell us "is not"? It tells us the worldwide political system, the oppressive world powers, "IS NOT" at the time of John's vision!

John lived in the 1st century. He wrote Revelation sometime between 64-96 AD. Rome was a world political power at the time and yes, it was oppressive. So how can the Watchtower tell us this worldwide political system "is not" at the time of John's vision when it very much "is"?

II appreciate the additional elaboration, but this is a debate forum and a simple Watchtower "this is so" is wholly inadequate. What I'm really looking for is a coherent, cognitive reason the "oppressive world powers" and "worldwide political system opposed to God" "is not" when John is living in a Roman ruled world.

Does that clear things up for you?
I hope it does, because it should.

Well I hope the additional commentary helps to clear up my original question to you. I really believe it should.

Earlier, @URAVIP2ME helped introduced RF readers to a rather inventive Watchtower narrative where Cornelius immediately leaves the military after he's baptized. Hopefully the Watchtower is not as inventive with world history.

 

[savagewind]

@Oeste I think your power of reason is way above normal. Very good!

I would like to simplify it for the Jehovah's Witnesses here, please. @nPeace @Deeje @URAVIP2ME

1. To say that Cornelius just quit the military after his baptism is going beyond what was written. Where did the permission to do that come from?

and

2. Please describe how

the "oppressive world powers" and "worldwide political system opposed to God" "is not" when John is living in a Roman ruled world.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks nPeace. Let's skim through this because the only thing it appears to do is make the Watchtower's position more confusing than ever.


That's the WT position, sure. But is it biblical? Does it make sense? That's the question we need ask.


Okay, I think we've got that. The Watchtower believes the wild beast is a living political system of things and portrays oppressive world powers.

This is what the Watchtower believes and no one is arguing otherwise, so additional cut and paste is not necessary.

But now we need to go back to what the scripture says and find out if any of this makes any sense. That is what I need you to show us nPeace. Let's see the verse in question again:

Well, on seeing her I was greatly amazed. So the angel said to me: “Why is it that you were amazed? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the wild beast that is carrying her and that has the seven heads and the ten horns: The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. Revelation 17:8​

Since the wild beast "represents the worldwide political system, empowered and controlled by Satan", the Watchtower interpretation tells us there was no such system controlled by Satan at the time of John's vision because the beast, at that time, "is not".

There's the problem nPeace. At the time of John's vision the wild beast IS NOT. And what does the Watchtower tell us "is not"? It tells us the worldwide political system, the oppressive world powers, "IS NOT" at the time of John's vision!

John lived in the 1st century. He wrote Revelation sometime between 64-96 AD. Rome was a world political power at the time and yes, it was oppressive. So how can the Watchtower tell us this worldwide political system "is not" at the time of John's vision when it very much "is"?

II appreciate the additional elaboration, but this is a debate forum and a simple Watchtower "this is so" is wholly inadequate. What I'm really looking for is a coherent, cognitive reason the "oppressive world powers" and "worldwide political system opposed to God" "is not" when John is living in a Roman ruled world.


Well I hope the additional commentary helps to clear up my original question to you. I really believe it should.

Earlier, @URAVIP2ME helped introduced RF readers to a rather inventive Watchtower narrative where Cornelius immediately leaves the military after he's baptized. Hopefully the Watchtower is not as inventive with world history.

I hope you did not just skim over the post, because it was clear, and you don't want me to post something just to repeat it, I'm sure.
Step 1
The wild beast that you saw was...

What does that mean? How was it?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If one wants to know what Jehovah's Witnesses think then please go to www.jw.org or www.jwbroadcasting

 

[savagewind]

If one wants to know what Jehovah's Witnesses think then please go to www.jw.org or www.jwbroadcasting

Did you SEE the question? Oh, right, you have to ignore me to save your own life.

 

[savagewind]

What if Jesus actually spoke to us but nobody believes him because they all have their own religion or none at all?