I don't think that Jesus is the rider of the white horse in Re 6, because, among other things, in verse 10, the souls of the slaughtered saints are still waiting for Christ to come and avenge them. So, no, 'nation against nation' is when Jesus comes, and all the tribes of the earth will lose it as they turn on each other, because all is lost. 'Before' 'nation rises against nation,' 'people will lay their hands upon you and persecute you' during the great tribulation, and only after that, 'nation will rise against nation.' Lu 21:12 Math 24:7,7, Mark 13:8, and Lu 21:10,11, are all a pericope about the same event, as indicated by it forming a separate paragraph in the text, because Jesus, when introducing 'wars and rumors of wars' is jumping ahead to 'nation against nation' - which is even more than just 'wars and rumors of wars' - so as not to take as the asked for sign of His coming; hence His side tracking in this pericope to forestall any misunderstanding, and to clarify His point in anticipation of their getting it wrong. The disciples were asking for a sign, while Jesus was more concerned about them being mislead by one. Also, He does not give a sign of what will happen during His parousia, as WT and RK falsely claim, but a sign to take place before His 'coming and consequent presence' with His disciples, and here He is expressly warning them that even 'wars and rumors of war' are not a sign of His coming. There is no 'composite sign' as WT and RK falsely claim; to His disciples - if they are able to use discernment - the standing in a holy place by the disgusting thing causing desolation, will be a 'sign,' but to all the tribes of the earth, the sign of Christ's return will only be given when they see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven in power and great glory, as they beat themselves in grief. Harry
Good question; so, I am familiar with the arguments for why this is supposed to depict Jesus, such as, for instance, that Jesus, according to Ps 110:2, is told to, 'Go subduing in the midst of your enemies,' which I see as the point in time described at Da 7:14, where Jesus is 'given rulership over the peoples' of earth, which then would 'all serve Him,' and 'His rulership' being the 'kingdom of God' that is 'near' [Lu 21:31], when we 'see all these things' [Mat 24:33], such as His 'coming on the clouds of Heaven in power and great glory' [v 30] at the commencement of His parousia, at which point He 'catches away' the chosen ones [1 Thes 4:17; 2 Thes 1:6-10] to Heaven, so that they can then not be crying out to Him, 'Until when, sovereign Lord holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood,' as they are said to do, when the rider of the white horse goes forth in Re 6:2-10. The 'subduing in the midst of His enemies' happens when He, together with the glorified chosen ones, is 'shepherding the people with an iron rod, so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels,' which commences at His coming for the 1000 year parousia, during which all His enemies that have died over the past 6000 years prior to His return, will be resurrected and subdued under His no nonsense kingdom rule. Re 2:26,27 Jesus does not rule in the midst of death and destruction wreaked by the four horsemen, nor does He share rulership of earth with Satan, not even for one minute; Satan is sole god and ruler of this world until he is not, which happens precisely when 'all tribes of the earth see Jesus coming on the clouds of Heaven in power and great glory,' as they beat themselves in grief at their imminent destruction. 2 Thes 1:6-10 He is not battling it out in joint rulership with Satan over the affections of people here on earth, during some sort of transition of power, as both WT and RK want us to believe. In fact, Jesus expressly warned us against anointed ones - 'Christs' - who would claim such stealth, secret, presence of Him in a private 'coming alongside' in the 'inner chambers' or remote 'wilderness,' because His return will be with 'striking observableness,' like lightning, visible to the naked eye of 'all the tribes of the earth.' Lu 17:20-30 By the way, thanks, Hannah, for joining the discussion here; the more views expressed, the more of Christ's Spirit in our midst. Harry
I just noticed this thread says I started it but that is not true. I simply asked you a question in the other post about the white horse and its rider, and now this post is new saying I started it. I think I need to leave this site because I'm not feeling comfortable.
I simply made your question a new thread. I separated it out so that we could have a new conversation on this subject. I will often clean the conversations up. Otherwise, there will be only one thread with dozens of different subjects in them. This allows the search tool to better allow us to search past conversations. I had planned to chime in as well. What makes you uncomfortable? If you wish, I can make his original post you asked the questions about the first post on this thread if it means something to you.
ok, I understand. What made me uncomfortable was that it said at the top of the thread that Hannah started this discussion which isn't true, and I'm new to the forum stuff so I felt uncomfortable that words that I asked were being stated as starting a thread is all. Thats not right to me. Not honest!
Is that better? I made his comment first. Now he can get mad at me I guess...lol I've never had someone object to this before, but that's irrelevant if you do. Next time I'll ask if you mind. Joshua
I guess, but it still says that "Harry" started the discussion, when he didn't. Maybe he won't mind. Not a big deal I guess, as it just keeps the discussion going on a different post.
It's the only way to separate out discussions. Usually, this is desirable. In my experience running this and other forums for a decade and more, it's pretty common knowledge that if the first post contains a reply, that means it was separated from another thread to keep the forum clean. Posters generally prefer to keep their thread on topic. Again, like I said, I understand if you have a difference of opinion on the matter, and I will keep this in mind moving forward. Joshua
Not anymore... If I were to brag, I would say this is the one we can speak freely on, without fear of being banished for having a dissenting view. Joshua
I still feel kinda weird cuz we aren't supposed to look at other sites, but I just don't feel the truth in the organization anymore.
I completely understand. It sounds as though you are newly awoken to the fact that 1914 is a lie. Remember, we serve Jehovah, not an organization. I know you know this, but the WT drilled into our minds that they and only they speak for God. And it can take some time to appreciate that we are all accountable individually to God. Everyone will have their own understanding of who God's people are in the time of the end, but I still believe JWs are God's people. There are God's people all throughout Christiandom, yes, but God seems to have used the WT to accomplish His purpose of preaching the kingdom. They have the truth of who God is, life after death, what the kingdom is, etc. The elders of Jesus' day treated the people poorly, and so it is prophesied that they will do so in the end. You're the lucky one. When the society adopts apostasy, you won't be surprised, and your heart will be protected. Jehovah saw to it that you would understand during that time. "And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder." Dan 11:33 What you are experiencing now will assist our Father in the future... You have a privileged position in His plans... "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds," Jms 1:2 Joshua
I don't know yet. 1914 is a pretty big year in history, probably one of the biggest to be honest. The time makes sense from 607 to 1914 being 2520 years to me, but I'm just not feeling the love anymore in the congregation. Everybody seems so narrow because all they can see is what is being told to them. I wish I could explian it better...
Trust me, I get it... I was in the Truth for most of my life. To me, it's become like Nazzi Germany. Everyone is a spy looking out for the slightest misstep from someone to judge you and tell the elders so they can handle you. It didn't always use to be like that. In the 80s, it seemed more laid-back. No one is allowed to have a personal thought. And the moment you question the GB, you are an apostate. It disgusts me now just thinking about it. If you would like, I could open a new thread about 1914 and share how simple it is to see 1914 as an error. Joshua
I don't feel it's that bad lol. You make it sound like its a communist camp or something. I just meant that it's hard to talk with others about my thoughts because if I do they might label me or something. My first thought was about the man of lawlessness being Judas and then the same man of lawlessness is talked about later trying to be a god. That got me to thinking what if there was a Judas in the congregation, now that would be scary. But I can't talk to others because then i'm questioning, so i'm glad I have a place to at least vent, even if it is kinda scary to do so. 1914 is pretty clear to me. 607+2520=1914 which was one of the biggest years in history when it comes to major events starting off. The world changed that year for sure.
I understand, and you are more than welcome to share all of your thoughts and feelings here. I try to be a good listener, as we all should on this forum. That is the type of environment I wish to foster here. We should all be able to speak our minds without fear of banishment. Again, (although) we speak for ourselves, not for others. Assuming and personal truth was invented in the Garden. Only the speaker can define their meaning. We should all have our own voices, without others thinking they know better than we do what we are saying or what we think. For someone like me who likes to discuss the wrong assumptions in the WT understandings, that is not allowed in the congregation or with the elders. 1914 is based on the premise that the tree in Dan 4 represents the throne of David. That was the wrong assumption. Jesus couldn't have been enthroned in 1914 if the tree didn't represent the throne of David going down when Babylon took Jerusalem captive. Joshua