Peace and Security, Great Tribulation, Armageddon

[Mike047]

Are we not truly thankful that the GB have a handle on this, knowing as they do that Jehovah will not let anything happen before revealing the appropriate details to his servants, as Amos 3:7 reminds us. Throughout the history of Jehovah's people, recorded in Hebrew and Greek scriptures, advance warning kept us ahead of the problem.

 

We know that nothing 'will be late' (Hab 2:3), but when it happens, we will be prepared and have instructions as to how to proceed. We need patience and trust at this time.

[Dhanyel]

3 hours ago, Ahuvah said:

 It's my understanding that the focus has shifted, or perhaps not shifted, but is highlighting the events at Rev 17:17 to be the next goalpost we all see.

 

I'm suspecting that once we see it, it's going to be faster than many think, and that the declaration of Peace and Security will be made to secure the newly formed power of the UN, then the UN gets rid of religion and the GT becomes the new scary normal.

None of this has been spoken, because there's nothing there to hang your hat on. It's just me reading between the lines.

So, the understanding of the cry of peace and Security I don't think has changed, I think perhaps the placement of it has, maybe? 

 

What are your thoughts? 

I share the same opinion as you.

[LeolaRootStew]

12 hours ago, Dhanyel said:

The declaration of peace and security will be a sign that the end of false religion is near and that the great tribulation is about to begin. Is this still our understanding, or has it changed?

 

 

That belief has not changed, we just are also looking for the UN to get power. The cry could happen before or after that event.

[Tortuga]

6 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

That belief has not changed, we just are also looking for the UN to get power. The cry could happen before or after that event.

It will be interesting to see how that finally happens.

 

I know that some people have been looking at cease fires and peace resolutions as stepping stones to an announcement of P&S, but it may turn out to be just the opposite and the kings of the earth give their power to the UN because there isn't any peace in sight. Or, Jehovah may put it in their hearts to give the UN power whether or not the world is at war or at peace. It's really difficult to look at any of the world conditions as leading indicators to a declaration of P&S, because there isn't a clear path to how it will happen.  

 

Current world events are reminders that we are in the last days, we need to stay awake and active. They can't be leading indicators of any announcement about P&S or when the UN gets teeth, because that apparently comes on Jehovah's schedule.

[LeolaRootStew]

4 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

It will be interesting to see how that finally happens.

 

I know that some people have been looking at cease fires and peace resolutions as stepping stones to an announcement of P&S, but it may turn out to be just the opposite and the kings of the earth give their power to the UN because there isn't any peace in sight. Or, Jehovah may put it in their hearts to give the UN power whether or not the world is at war or at peace. It's really difficult to look at any of the world conditions as leading indicators to a declaration of P&S, because there isn't a clear path to how it will happen.  

 

Current world events are reminders that we are in the last days, we need to stay awake and active. They can't be leading indicators of any announcement about P&S or when the UN gets teeth, because that apparently comes on Jehovah's schedule.

 

I think if the UN getting power is some sort of reaction to solve a problem, then some sort of world-wide disaster must precede it. Right now I'm theorizing a global financial collapse (it's been predicted by others) and the only solution they can think of is to unite. The destruction of religion might even be seen as a financial solution. 

[Tortuga]

18 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

I think if the UN getting power is some sort of reaction to solve a problem, then some sort of world-wide disaster must precede it. Right now I'm theorizing a global financial collapse (it's been predicted by others) and the only solution they can think of is to unite. The destruction of religion might even be seen as a financial solution. 

That's an interesting thought but would the UN be the one the nations turn to if there was a disaster or financial crisis? It seems more likely to be a threat of a larger war, perhaps a threat of nuclear retaliation that would affect the world. Then apparently the UN solves or appears to solve the problem. My guess is that the major religions of the world disagree with the UNs solution and ...well, we know what happens next.

 

It will be interesting to one day look back and see how Jehovah put the desire in their heart to give power to the UN. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Tortuga

[LeolaRootStew]

1 minute ago, Tortuga said:

That's an interesting thought but would the UN be the one the nations turn to if there was a disaster or financial crisis? It seems more likely to be a threat of a larger war, perhaps a threat of nuclear retaliation that would affect the world. Then apparently the UN solves or appears to solve the problem.

 

It will be interesting to one day look back and see how Jehovah puts the desire in their heart to give power to the UN. 

 

The UN getting power just means they are working together and/or pooling their resources (to an extreme degree), so it does make sense to me that they would do that in response to a common and severe problem. 

 

The reason war doesn't make sense to me is because all of the nations have to give up their power. Why would Russia or Israel, for instance, join a coalition designed to stop them from doing what they want? It doesn't make sense - they have diverging interests and enough allies that it would more likely turn into WWIII than a coalition. A UN pact to stop war is just pitting enemies against each other - the opposite of a coalition.

 

A financial collapse, however, could affect everyone more or less equally if the result of doing nothing is the complete collapse of their respective countries. Any country who doesn't join the pact would be signing their own death warrant, so even sworn enemies would have an incentive to join together. They would have a clear unity of purpose, like the scripture says, instead of being pitted against each other as with trying to end a war.

 

 

[Tortuga]

1 minute ago, LeolaRootStew said:

The reason war doesn't make sense to me is because all of the nations have to give up their power. Why would Russia or Israel, for instance, join a coalition designed to stop them from doing what they want? It doesn't make sense - they have diverging interests and enough allies that it would more likely turn into WWIII than a coalition. A UN pact to stop war is just pitting enemies against each other - the opposite of a coalition.

True, but there are no winners to a nuclear war, so I can see the aggressors saving face by agreeing to let the UN arbitrate a peace agreement, especially if the aggressor thinks they will get what they want without using nukes.

[LeolaRootStew]

2 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

True, but there are no winners to a nuclear war, so I can see the aggressors saving face by agreeing to let the UN arbitrate a peace agreement, especially if the aggressor thinks they will get what they want without using nukes.

 

But I can't see them giving up their sovereignty just to save face. I can see them doing it if their entire country is on the line.

[Tortuga]

7 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

But I can't see them giving up their sovereignty just to save face. I can see them doing it if their entire country is on the line.

Like if someone is bluffing about their nuclear weapons? They threaten the peace and security of the world and then agree to abdicate power to the UN to save face and get what they want anyway? The other nations agree because they think it is a real threat?

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Jehovah uses world events to cause the kings to give their power to the beast or if it is completely unrelated to world events.

Edited 21 hours ago by Tortuga

[LeolaRootStew]

7 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

Like if someone is bluffing about their nuclear weapons? They threaten the peace and security of the world and then agree to abdicate power to the UN to save face and get what they want anyway? The other nations agree because they think it is a real threat?

 

Why would all nations need to give up their sovereignty just for one country to not use nukes? What would they even need to give up their sovereignty for? If Russia threatened nukes and they went to the UN and Ukraine agreed to give up territory to avoid the use of nukes, that wouldn't necessitate the involvement any other country. Why would Israel, Pakistan, or Japan need to surrender their own sovereignty, and if they did, how would that even help the goal?

 

The nations aren't going to give up their power to the UN symbolically, it's for a purpose. Two warring countries negotiating is not something Australia needs to abdicate its sovereignty to solve, even if they feel threatened by nuclear war. I don't see that as unifying, and I don't see how giving power to the UN is a solution to wars.

[Bruceq]

46 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

abdicate its sovereignty to solve, 

Interesting statement i googled ai and got this:

"The concept of a state "abdicating its sovereignty to solve" a problem refers to a situation where a sovereign nation voluntarily relinquishes or transfers its supreme authority and control to another entity, such as an international organization or another state, in order to address a shared challenge or achieve a specific goal. 

Addressing Transnational Problems: In an increasingly interconnected world, challenges like climate change, terrorism, or economic crises often require international cooperation and coordinated action. States may cede some sovereignty to participate in supranational organizations to address these issues effectively."

 

Perhaps rather than just issues dealing with war or the economy perhaps it will be a polycrisis of several issues at the same time. Which is the way the world seems to be heading at present.

[Julsey]

On 5/31/2025 at 1:43 AM, JennyM said:

Thanks for sharing .. to get old in this system is already too much to handle... Now at 40s, Im struggling from premenopausal symptoms in which I feel so bad physically and mentally. + experiencing job insecurity, the attitude of people are us. .. We dont need  great calamity anymore... living day to day is a calamity itself. 

 

My parents are 65 yrs old, and Im thinking that they only have few years to live. I cant imagine losing my parents especially my mom.. No other humans on earth would ever love and understand me like she does.

 

 

Im not negative about life but this life supposedly not meant for us. 

Wait another 20 years. It gets better. Not!

[trottigy]

3 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

But I can't see them giving up their sovereignty just to save face. I can see them doing it if their entire country is on the line.

 

What if the opposite is true?

 

The Gaza situation and Ukraine war are ended. There is relative peace in the world and during that brief window of finally the dust has settled the nations say – “you know what would prevent the next major one? We could pool all of our armies together under the banner of the UN - INSTEAD of NATO and then things would be “fairer”. There would be “united” front instead of this coalition against that.”

 

Just noting that a huge cataclysm doesn’t have to spark it. It could be the opposite. It could be a quite peaceful opportunity maybe even while the financial markets are also relatively stable – that could cause ones to want that to continue. NOTE: That would make giving power to the UN even more unexpected IMO.

[LeolaRootStew]

1 minute ago, trottigy said:

 

What if the opposite is true?

 

The Gaza situation and Ukraine war are ended. There is relative peace in the world and during that brief window of finally the dust has settled the nations say – “you know what would prevent the next major one? We could pool all of our armies together under the banner of the UN - INSTEAD of NATO and then things would be “fairer”. There would be “united” front instead of this coalition against that.”

 

Just noting that a huge cataclysm doesn’t have to spark it. It could be the opposite. It could be a quite peaceful opportunity maybe even while the financial markets are also relatively stable – that could cause ones to want that to continue. NOTE: That would make giving power to the UN even more unexpected IMO.

 

It would certainly be an act of God.

[Doug]

3 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

The UN getting power just means they are working together and/or pooling their resources (to an extreme degree), so it does make sense to me that they would do that in response to a common and severe problem. 

 

 

The Pact for the Future was adopted by consensus during the Summit of the Future in September '24,  It's stated purpose is to agree that the member nations will grant authority to a United Nations central command in the event of a severe global threat to humanity.

The original UN charter envisioned "working together" (hence United Nations) but the Pact indicates that the nations agree to step aside and let a central command work on the issues that are existential.

It remains to be seen how this will happen, what triggers it, and who are the central command, but the Pact sounds like a step toward the fulfillment of Rev 17:17.

[SteveAus]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

.... will grant authority to a United Nations central command in the event of a severe global threat to humanity.

 

 

Do you have a link to that. Thanks

[SUNRAY]

1 hour ago, Doug said:

remains to be seen how this will happen, what triggers it, and who are the central command, but the Pact sounds like a step toward the fulfillment of Rev 17:17.

Yes..and if there comes to be a real nuclear threat or an actual nuclear bomb is deployed..yeah..it would be good timing for Jehovah to step in with his "one thought"!

[mjcabz]

5 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

I think if the UN getting power is some sort of reaction to solve a problem, then some sort of world-wide disaster must precede it. Right now I'm theorizing a global financial collapse (it's been predicted by others) and the only solution they can think of is to unite. The destruction of religion might even be seen as a financial solution. 

I think UN will get power because of wars. Falling of economy is one of the collaterals damage of war. Wars and threats of war are arise in global regions. Just my thought 😁

[feebee]

3 hours ago, Doug said:

 

The Pact for the Future was adopted by consensus during the Summit of the Future in September '24,  It's stated purpose is to agree that the member nations will grant authority to a United Nations central command in the event of a severe global threat to humanity.

The original UN charter envisioned "working together" (hence United Nations) but the Pact indicates that the nations agree to step aside and let a central command work on the issues that are existential.

It remains to be seen how this will happen, what triggers it, and who are the central command, but the Pact sounds like a step toward the fulfillment of Rev 17:17.

The UN has an emergency platform that it can use to act when there is a threat to international peace and security. So the framework is there. It just needs that extra oomph from its member nations. Brother Jackson reminded us to be ready for "sudden change". Only an act of God, as mentioned above, could cause nations to give up their power and authority to the UN. 

[Ahuvah]

7 hours ago, Tortuga said:

True, but there are no winners to a nuclear war, so I can see the aggressors saving face by agreeing to let the UN arbitrate a peace agreement, especially if the aggressor thinks they will get what they want without using nukes.

This, in a sense, hehe. I think they will commit to 'something', be it a war on paper or something more tangible. Then they've all committed as representatives of their countries, so they either have to go ahead or quit.

 

This is where I may differ a little. Knowing this move with the UN comes from Jehpvah, rather than them seeking the UN out, they find themselves ushered into the arms of the UN. They sigh a sigh of relief thinking they have been delivered, not realizing they've just signed their death warrant.  (Talking death of entities, my hope will be that individuals turn to Jehovah right up to the demise of false religion).

[Shawnster]

5 hours ago, trottigy said:

 

What if the opposite is true?

 

The Gaza situation and Ukraine war are ended. There is relative peace in the world and during that brief window of finally the dust has settled the nations say – “you know what would prevent the next major one? We could pool all of our armies together under the banner of the UN - INSTEAD of NATO and then things would be “fairer”. There would be “united” front instead of this coalition against that.”

 

 

 

 

Does this make it sound like the idea is the nations idea on their own? 

 

It's Jehovah's idea. It's his thought. It's his one thought that he puts into the hearts of the world leaders. 

 

Does Jehovah need the right time to do this? Does Jehovah need to wait for a specific set of circumstances, either near the brink of disaster or a time of peace? 

 

Jehovah can put it into the heart of the nations to give their power to the UN at any moment. It's up to the nations to sell this idea to the people so that they, too, get behind this unprecedented political move. 

 

We are literally, according to our current understanding, waiting for this to happen at any moment. It could be tomorrow Jehovah gives them his thought 

[Doug]

28 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

Does this make it sound like the idea is the nations idea on their own? 

 

Jehovah can put it into the heart of the nations to give their power to the UN at any moment. It's up to the nations to sell this idea to the people 

 

Right.  So, two things going on.  Jehovah is the one who leads all the nations (not just the primary ones, or nuclear ones) to cede their sovereign authority over to the UN, even if only temporarily.

 

But, the nations would need to sell it to their citizens, especially the democracies.  The leaders need to explain their reasons, and Rev 17:17 won't be the explanation     

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Doug
make it better

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, Shawnster said:

Does this make it sound like the idea is the nations idea on their own? 

 

Jehovah may give them the thought, but they are going to think it's their own idea. Deciding to band together during peacetime sounds like the sort of delusional decision that could only come from an outside force imposing His will.

[jwzhang]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:09 PM, JennyM said:

Why not? Russian bros and sis will be in and out of prison for 15 yrs.. 😄

We have almost 50C of temperature in my country for the summer now. 

How will the temp rise up after 15 yrs? 80C ... Maybe a worm will live underground. 

In other news..
Global warming is getting worse: Earth's energy imbalance is off the charts — and if agencies don't keep an eye on it, the world will be 'blindfolded' to the severity of climate change, scientists say | Live Science

Who would've thought?!