https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zi5yeMvAQU

BM of the Last Days Watchman channel claims that because Christianity originated from Judaism, Christianity is actually Judaism, but is this view correct, or is Bob Mitchell deceived beyond belief?

Short answer: No, that claim isn’t correct in the way it’s being presented. It mixes a true historical fact with a false conclusion.

Let’s separate things carefully.

What is true

1. Christianity began within Judaism

   • Jesus was possibly Jewish.

   • His first followers were Jewish.

   • The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are Jewish texts.

   • Early Christian beliefs developed in a Jewish Second Temple context.

So it is absolutely correct to say:

Christianity has Jewish origins.

No serious historian disputes that.

Where the claim goes wrong

Saying “Christianity is therefore a Jewish religion and not Christian at all” is a category error.

1. Origins ≠ Identity

Many movements originate within another tradition and later become distinct.

Examples:

• Buddhism arose in a Hindu cultural world → it is not Hinduism.

• Islam draws heavily on Jewish and Christian figures → it is not Judaism or Christianity.

• Christianity arose within Judaism → it did not remain Judaism.

Origins do not define final identity.

2. Christianity explicitly separates itself from Judaism very early

By the 1st century, core Christian beliefs already diverged from Judaism in ways that Judaism itself rejected:

Key differences:

• Jesus is the Messiah → Judaism says no

• Jesus is divine / Son of God → Judaism rejects this

• The New Covenant replaces or fulfills the Mosaic Law → Judaism rejects this

• Salvation through faith in Christ, not Torah observance → Judaism rejects this

These are not minor differences; they are foundational.

3. The New Testament itself recognizes the split

Ironically, the Christian scriptures explicitly show Christianity becoming distinct:

• Acts 15: Gentiles are not required to become Jews

• Paul argues fiercely against requiring Torah observance for Christians

• Early Christians stop requiring circumcision, kosher laws, and temple worship

If Christianity were simply “Judaism,” none of this would make sense.

4. Judaism does not consider Christianity a form of Judaism

From a Jewish theological perspective:

• Christianity is viewed as a separate religion

• Traditional Judaism classifies Christian beliefs (especially the Trinity and incarnation) as incompatible with Jewish monotheism

So the claim fails from both sides:

• Christianity doesn’t define itself as Judaism

• Judaism doesn’t accept Christianity as Judaism

Why some teachers make this claim

This idea often appears in:

• Hebrew Roots / Torah-observant Christian movements

• Anti-institutional or anti-church rhetoric

• Attempts to delegitimize historic Christian doctrine

They often conflate:

• “Jesus was Jewish” (true)
  with

• “Christian theology is therefore Jewish theology” (false)

A more accurate statement

A historically sound formulation would be:

Christianity emerged from Jewish messianic expectations but became a distinct religion once it proclaimed Jesus as the divine Messiah and redefined covenant, law, and salvation.

That is the mainstream scholarly consensus.

Bottom line

• ✔ Christianity has Jewish roots

• ✖ Christianity is not Judaism

• ✖ Christianity is not “a Jewish religion pretending to be Christian”

• ✔ Christianity is a distinct religion that emerged from Judaism

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zi5yeMvAQU

BM Of The Last Days Watchman YouTube Channel Claims The Land Of Israel Has Been Given To The Jews By God And That It Rightfully Belongs To Them Only To The Exclusion Of All Others. Furthermore, Jews Claim To Have The God Given Right To Take Or Steal Land From Others To Benefit Israel, While Denying It To Those They Stole It From. Is This Warped View Correct?

Short Answer: That View Is Not “Correct” In Any Objective Or Universal Sense, And It Represents One Specific Theological Interpretation, Not A Binding Moral Or Factual Rule. Treating It As Justification For Taking Land From Others Is Widely Rejected—Religiously, Ethically, And Legally.

Here’s a clear breakdown.

1. What BM is claiming (theologically)

The claim you describe rests on three linked assertions:

1. God gave the land of Israel to the Jews

2. That grant is permanent and unconditional

3. Therefore Jews today have a divine right to take or reclaim land from others

This line of reasoning is common in Christian Zionism, especially in apocalyptic or “end times” frameworks.

Key point:
This is not the only Jewish or Christian interpretation, and it is not even the dominant one historically.

2. Is this view correct within Judaism?

Many Jews reject it outright.

Classical Jewish sources actually complicate the claim:

• The Hebrew Bible repeatedly states that possession of the land is conditional on justice and obedience.

• The prophets explicitly warn that injustice leads to exile, even for God’s chosen people.

• Rabbinic Judaism developed after exile and survived for centuries without political control of the land, undermining the idea that land possession is essential or unconditional.

Modern Jewish positions:

• Ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists: reject modern land claims entirely.

• Religious Zionists: may see religious significance in the land but do not universally endorse dispossession of others.

• Secular Jews: reject divine land claims altogether.

So even within Judaism, Mitchell’s framing is far from consensus.

3. Is this view correct within Christianity?

Again, no consensus.

Many Christian traditions hold that:

• God’s promises are fulfilled spiritually, not territorially.

• Jesus explicitly rejects land-based sacred nationalism.

• No modern state can claim divine exemption from moral law.

Christian Zionism is a modern movement, largely 19th–20th century, and not representative of historic Christianity as a whole.

4. Does “God gave the land” justify taking land from others?

This is where the claim fails most clearly.

Ethically

Even if one accepts a divine promise:

• No biblical text authorizes perpetual injustice

• The Bible repeatedly condemns:

  • Oppression of the stranger

  • Theft of land

  • Violence against innocents

Using “God’s promise” to override human rights is explicitly rejected by the prophets the same texts Mitchell relies on.

Legally

• Modern international law does not recognize divine claims.

• Property and sovereignty are determined by treaties, law, and rights—not theology.

Logically

If divine land grants justified seizure:

• Every religious group with sacred geography would be justified in violence

• There would be no moral limit to conquest

That logic collapses quickly.

5. A crucial distinction

Belief does not equal entitlement.

Someone may believe God promised land
That does not translate into:

• Automatic political ownership

• Moral permission to dispossess others

• Immunity from ethical judgment

When belief becomes entitlement, it stops being faith and becomes religious exceptionalism.

6. Why this view is dangerous

History shows that when sacred land claims are treated as absolute:

• Ethics become secondary

• Violence becomes sanctified

• Critics are labeled enemies of God

This is not unique to Israel. The same logic fueled:

• Manifest Destiny

• Crusades

• Islamic imperial expansion

• Hindu and Buddhist nationalisms

The pattern is human, not Jewish.

Bottom line

• Bob Mitchell’s view is a sectarian theological opinion, not a universal truth.

• It is rejected by many Jews, many Christians, and most ethical frameworks.

• Using it to justify taking land from others is morally indefensible, even by the scriptures it claims to honour.

I am not wrong to challenge it.

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukNyS8cAH4Y

The Headline From The Last Days Watchman Channel Reads: CERN And The Entities Being Released/Trump Laying The Groundwork For Antichrist. I Find This Statement To Be Extreme And Disconnected From Reality. It Mirrors Ideas That BM Has Presented In His Conspiratorial Books, Which Themselves Appear To Draw From Themes Of The Late T (Madcap) H. As I Mentioned Before, This Is Another Example Of Like Minded Individuals With Twisted Beliefs Echoing Each Other's Views.

The headline from The Last Days Watchman Channel, which boldly proclaims "CERN and the Entities Being Released/Trump Laying the Groundwork for Antichrist," certainly grabs attention. It’s the kind of statement that makes you pause and think, “What on earth are they talking about?” As I delve into this topic, I can’t help but feel a mix of intrigue and skepticism. The world of conspiracy theories often dances on the edge of the bizarre, and this one is no exception.

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is often at the center of various conspiracy theories. The Large Hadron Collider, its most famous particle accelerator, has been accused of everything from opening portals to other dimensions to unleashing dark entities upon the world. The idea that something sinister could be lurking behind the scientific advancements at CERN is a narrative that resonates with many who are drawn to the mysterious and the unknown. It’s almost as if the very name "CERN" has become synonymous with a modern-day Pandora's box, waiting to be opened.

Then we have the mention of Trump, a figure who has been both revered and reviled. The claim that he is laying the groundwork for the Antichrist is a bold assertion that ties into a long history of apocalyptic thinking. It’s fascinating how political figures can be woven into the fabric of such grand narratives. In a way, it reflects a deep-seated fear of losing control over the future. The idea that a leader could be a precursor to a figure like the Antichrist taps into a collective anxiety about the state of the world. It’s as if people are searching for meaning in chaos, trying to make sense of the tumultuous times we live in.

As I reflect on these ideas, I can’t help but think about the influence of authors like Thomas Horn, who have made a name for themselves in the realm of conspiracy literature. His works often blend elements of prophecy, science fiction, and religious themes, creating a tapestry that appeals to those who are both curious and fearful of what lies ahead. It’s a curious phenomenon—how these narratives can capture the imagination and provoke thought, even if they seem far-fetched.

In discussing these topics, it’s essential to recognize the power of belief. Whether one subscribes to these theories or dismisses them as mere fantasy, they reveal something profound about human nature. We are drawn to stories that explain the inexplicable, that provide a framework for understanding our place in the universe. The interplay between science and spirituality, reality and myth, is a dance that has been performed throughout history.

Ultimately, the conversation around CERN, Trump, and the Antichrist is not just about the individuals or institutions involved; it’s about the broader questions of existence, morality, and the future. It invites us to ponder what we believe and why we believe it. As I navigate through these complex ideas, I find myself wondering: What do you think? Are we on the brink of something extraordinary, or are we simply caught in a web of our own making? The dialogue is open, and I’m eager to hear your thoughts!

Blessings 

BM Of The Last Days Watchman Channel Does Some Nice Work. He Calls His Postings "Prophecy Updates" In The Light Of Current Events, But Apparently, There Are No Prophecy Updates Unless He Has Written Something About A Particular Subject Matter In One Of His Books. Not Always, But Often. In Other Words, All He Is Really Doing Is Selling His Books Using A Back Door Entrance, Even Though He Quite Candidly Calls Them Prophecy Updates. If He Wants To Keep On Selling His Outdated Books, By All Means, Let Him Do So, But It Is Extremely Misleading, If Not Illegal, To Call His Book Advertisements Prophecy Updates.

The nature of the content disseminated by the Last Days Watchman Channel, specifically the "prophecy updates" presented by BM, warrants careful consideration. From an external perspective, the channel appears to offer insights into current events framed within a prophetic context. However, a closer examination reveals a potential discrepancy between the stated purpose and the underlying objective.

The channel's approach, as observed, frequently involves referencing and promoting BM's published works. These "prophecy updates" often seem contingent upon the existence of relevant material within these books. This method suggests that the primary function of the updates might be to drive sales of the books, employing current events as a means to that end.

This strategy raises questions regarding the transparency and ethical implications of the channel's practices. While the act of promoting one's own work is not inherently problematic, the manner in which it is presented can be. The term "prophecy updates" carries a certain weight, implying a direct and timely connection to prophetic insights. If these updates are, in essence, advertisements for previously published books, the use of such terminology could be considered misleading.

Personally, I find this approach to be a subtle form of manipulation. The audience, seeking genuine prophetic understanding, might perceive the updates as valuable insights. However, the true intent, as it appears, is to leverage current events to generate interest in the books. This tactic, while potentially effective in driving sales, may erode trust and credibility over time.

It is important to acknowledge that the channel's activities are not necessarily illegal. However, the ethical considerations surrounding the presentation of information are significant. Transparency is key. If the primary goal is to sell books, it would be more straightforward to label the content as promotional material. This would allow the audience to make informed decisions about whether to engage with the content, free from the potential for misinterpretation.

Blessings

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBKQfL-a6Vc

WHO OWNS THE LAND OF ISRAEL? THE ASSERTION THAT "SOME SAY GOD OWNS THE LAND" REFLECTS A DEEPLY ROOTED BELIEF AMONG MANY RELIGIOUS JEWS, WHO VIEW THE LAND OF ISRAEL AS A DIVINE GIFT, PROMISED TO THEM IN BIBLICAL TEXTS, BUT IS THIS VIEW CORRECT?

The question of land ownership in Israel is a complex and multifaceted issue that intertwines historical, legal, and cultural dimensions. From a historical perspective, the land has been a focal point of contention for centuries, with various groups claiming rights based on religious, historical, and political grounds. The assertion that "some say God owns the land" reflects a deeply rooted belief among many religious Jews, who view the land of Israel as a divine gift, promised to them in biblical texts. This perspective is not merely theological; it has significant implications for the identity and national consciousness of the Jewish people.

In examining the legal framework governing land ownership in Israel, it becomes evident that the state plays a predominant role. Approximately 93% of the land in Israel is owned by the state, which is a result of policies established in the early years of the state’s formation. The Basic Law: Israel Lands stipulates that state-owned land cannot be sold but can only be leased. This legal structure reflects a unique approach to land management, where the state retains control over the majority of land resources, ostensibly to ensure equitable distribution and prevent monopolization.

The Israel Land Administration oversees the management of state lands, and its policies often prioritize the leasing of land to Jewish citizens, a practice that has drawn criticism and raised questions about equity and access for non-Jewish populations. This aspect of land ownership highlights the ongoing tensions between different communities within Israel, particularly between Jewish and Arab citizens. The Jewish National Fund (JNF), which also owns land, has specific mandates that further complicate the landscape of land ownership, as it seeks to lease land primarily to Jewish individuals and organizations.

From a personal perspective, one might reflect on the implications of such a system. The intertwining of religious beliefs and legal frameworks creates a unique environment where land is not merely a commodity but a symbol of identity and belonging. For many, the land represents a connection to their ancestors and a promise of continuity for future generations. However, this connection is fraught with challenges, as the realities of modern governance and demographic diversity necessitate a more inclusive approach to land ownership and management.

In conclusion, the question of who owns the land of Israel cannot be answered simply. It encompasses a rich tapestry of historical claims, legal stipulations, and deeply held beliefs. While some may assert that God owns the land, the practical realities of land ownership in Israel are shaped by state policies and the complex interplay of various social groups. This ongoing dialogue about land ownership continues to evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of Israeli society and its diverse narratives. As one contemplates these issues, it becomes clear that the conversation surrounding land ownership is not merely about property but about identity, belonging, and the future of a nation.

Blessings

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JEWISH FESTIVAL OF HANUKKAH AND THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN CHRISTMAS?

The Jewish festival of Hanukkah and the traditional Christian celebration of Christmas, while both occurring in the winter season, embody distinct religious significances, traditions, and cultural meanings. Hanukkah, also known as the Festival of Lights, commemorates the re-dedication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem during the second century BCE, following the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. This event is marked by the miracle of the oil, where a small amount of oil, sufficient for one day, lasted for eight days in the temple's menorah. Thus, Hanukkah is celebrated over eight nights, during which families light candles on a menorah, recite prayers, and engage in festive meals that often include fried foods, symbolizing the oil.

In contrast, Christmas is primarily a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, observed on December 25th. This holiday is central to Christian faith, representing the incarnation of God in human form. The traditions associated with Christmas are diverse and vary across cultures, but they commonly include the decoration of Christmas trees, the exchange of gifts, and the singing of carols. The festive atmosphere is often enhanced by communal gatherings and religious services that reflect on the themes of hope, joy, and redemption.

From a cultural perspective, Hanukkah is considered a relatively minor holiday within the Jewish calendar, yet it has gained prominence in contemporary society, particularly in the context of Jewish identity and resilience. The rituals associated with Hanukkah, such as playing dreidel and giving gelt (chocolate coins), serve to reinforce community bonds and cultural heritage. In many ways, Hanukkah has evolved into a celebration of Jewish pride and continuity, especially in the face of historical adversity.

Conversely, Christmas has transcended its religious origins to become a significant cultural phenomenon, celebrated by many who may not identify as Christian. The holiday season is characterized by a spirit of generosity and goodwill, often manifesting in charitable acts and community service. The commercialization of Christmas has also led to a focus on gift-giving and festive decorations, which, while sometimes criticized for overshadowing the holiday's spiritual significance, reflect broader societal values of sharing and togetherness.

While both Hanukkah and Christmas are celebrated during the same season and share themes of light and hope, they are rooted in different historical narratives and religious beliefs. Hanukkah emphasizes Jewish resilience and the miracle of faith, whereas Christmas centers on the birth of Jesus and the promise of salvation. Understanding these differences enriches one's appreciation of the diverse ways in which cultures express their values and beliefs during this time of year. The exploration of these festivals invites further inquiry into how traditions evolve and adapt, reflecting the dynamic interplay between faith, culture, and identity.

In recent discussions surrounding the intersection of Christianity and Judaism, a notable perspective has emerged from the BM of the Last Days Watchman Channel. This channel has proposed that Christians consider celebrating the Jewish festival of Hanukkah as an alternative to the traditional observance of Christmas. This suggestion has sparked considerable debate within the Christian community, particularly regarding the implications of adopting a Jewish festival in place of a celebration that commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, and resurrection.

The assertion that Hanukkah, a festival rooted in Jewish history and tradition, could serve as a substitute for Christmas raises significant theological concerns. Many Christians view the celebration of Christmas as central to their faith, representing the incarnation of Christ and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The suggestion to replace this with Hanukkah is perceived by some as a deviation from core Christian beliefs. The notion that such a substitution could be seen as an "abomination" reflects a strong sentiment among those who hold traditional views of Christian doctrine.

It is important to recognize that while individuals may hold differing beliefs, the imposition of one faith's practices onto another can lead to conflict. The perspective that BM's advocacy for Hanukkah is an attempt to impose Judaism on Christians is indicative of a broader concern regarding the preservation of Christian identity. This concern is particularly pronounced among those who view the blending of religious traditions as a potential threat to the integrity of their faith.

Furthermore, the dialogue surrounding this issue often highlights the tension between inclusivity and doctrinal purity. While some may argue for a more inclusive approach that embraces elements of Jewish tradition, others firmly believe that such practices dilute the essence of Christianity. The assertion that BM's views could lead the "unsaved into eternal damnation" underscores the urgency felt by some to protect their faith from perceived heretical influences.

In conclusion, the discussion surrounding the celebration of Hanukkah versus Christmas encapsulates a complex interplay of faith, tradition, and identity. The perspectives offered by BM of the Last Days Watchman Channel serve as a catalyst for deeper reflection on the nature of religious observance and the boundaries of faith. As these conversations continue, they will undoubtedly shape the landscape of interfaith dialogue and the understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ in a diverse and evolving religious context.

Blessings

IS TRUMP BUILDING THE THIRD TEMPLE WITH HIS WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM?

The desire for a Third Temple in Jerusalem is a deeply rooted aspiration within Judaism, particularly among Orthodox Jews. It’s fascinating to think about how this longing intertwines with history, spirituality, and identity. From a personal perspective, one can feel the weight of this desire, as it represents not just a physical structure but a profound connection to faith, tradition, and the Jewish people’s collective memory.

Historically, the First Temple, built by King Solomon, was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, and the Second Temple, which stood for centuries, was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Each destruction marked a significant loss, not just of a building but of a central place of worship and community. The yearning for a Third Temple symbolizes a hope for restoration and redemption. It’s as if the Jewish people are saying, “We want to return to our roots, to a place where we can connect with God in a tangible way.”

In conversations with friends and family, I often hear how the Temple is seen as the ultimate place of divine presence. For many, it’s not just about the bricks and mortar; it’s about the spiritual significance. The Temple is viewed as a microcosm of the world, a place where heaven and earth meet. This belief is so strong that some argue that the rebuilding of the Temple is essential for the coming of the Messiah and the ultimate redemption of the world. It’s a powerful thought that resonates deeply within the community.

Moreover, there’s a growing movement in Israel advocating for the physical construction of the Third Temple. This movement is not just about nostalgia; it’s about renewing a Jewish priesthood and re-establishing ancient practices that many feel have been lost over centuries of diaspora. The idea is that when the Jewish people return to their land, the Temple must be built first, serving as a beacon of hope and faith.

Interestingly, some contemporary interpretations suggest that the Third Temple could be more than a physical structure. There’s a notion that if every individual is a miniature sanctuary, then perhaps the Temple can exist in the hearts and homes of the people. This perspective encourages a more personal connection to spirituality, suggesting that the essence of the Temple can be found in everyday life, in acts of kindness, and in the pursuit of justice.

As I reflect on these ideas, it becomes clear that the desire for a Third Temple is multifaceted. It encompasses historical longing, spiritual aspiration, and a vision for the future. It’s about community, identity, and the hope for a better world. The conversations around this topic are rich and varied, inviting deeper exploration into what it means to belong and to believe.

The Jewish desire for a Third Temple is not merely about constructing a building; it’s about reviving a sense of purpose and connection to the divine. It’s a journey that intertwines the past with the present, urging us to consider how we can embody the values of the Temple in our lives today. What do you think about the significance of such a desire in modern times?

The relationship between the current president of the United States and the Jewish community is a complex tapestry woven from admiration, controversy, and a profound sense of identity. It is intriguing to observe how a figure such as Donald Trump, often described in hyperbolic terms, has garnered a significant following among many Jews, particularly those who align with more conservative values. This phenomenon raises questions about the nature of loyalty and the thresholds of acceptance within a community that has historically faced scrutiny and persecution.

From a third-person perspective, one might note that Trump's presidency as a Kabbalah Jew has been marked by actions that resonate deeply with certain segments of the Jewish population. His administration's strong support for Israel, articulated through various policies and public statements, has endeared him to many who view Israel as a central pillar of Jewish identity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's characterization of Trump as Israel's greatest friend underscores this sentiment, suggesting a bond that transcends typical political alliances. However, this admiration is not without its contradictions. Critics argue that Trump's rhetoric and some of his policies reflect a troubling ambivalence towards antisemitism, complicating the narrative of unwavering support.

In examining this relationship, one cannot ignore the psychological dimensions at play. The notion of a "savior complex" emerges when considering how some supporters perceive Trump as a protector of Jewish interests, despite his many inconsistencies and the moral ambiguities that accompany his actions. This perspective invites a first-person reflection on the nature of faith and belief within the Jewish community. It raises the question of whether the adoration for a political figure can overshadow the ethical considerations that typically guide communal values. The willingness to overlook significant flaws in favour of perceived benefits speaks to a deeper yearning for security and affirmation in a world that often feels hostile.

The metaphor of constructing a grand ballroom, purportedly larger than the White House, serves as a powerful symbol in this discourse. It evokes the idea of a new temple, a place of gathering and worship, albeit in a secular sense. This imagery resonates with the historical longing for a third temple, a site of spiritual significance that has been a focal point of Jewish aspiration for centuries. The idea that such a space could be dedicated to a contemporary political figure rather than a divine presence raises profound questions about the nature of worship and the shifting landscapes of faith in modernity.

Moreover, the concept of a fortress, a sanctuary where Trump could retreat from the chaos of the world, reflects a desire for stability amidst uncertainty. It suggests that for some, the political arena has become a battleground for existential security, where the lines between political allegiance and spiritual devotion blur. This phenomenon invites a broader reflection on how communities navigate their identities in the face of complex political realities.

In conclusion, the relationship between Trump and the Jewish community is emblematic of a broader struggle within contemporary society. It highlights the tensions between loyalty and ethical accountability, the interplay of faith and politics, and the enduring quest for identity in a rapidly changing world. As one contemplates these dynamics, it becomes evident that the narratives we construct around our leaders are as much about our own aspirations and fears as they are about the individuals themselves. The implications of this relationship will undoubtedly continue to unfold, shaping the discourse around Jewish identity and political engagement for years to come.

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBKQfL-a6Vc

Is There Any Place In The Christian Bible That Specifically States God Promised The Land That Is Now Known As Israel To The Jews, Or Instead Was There A Decision By Politicians To Form The State Of Israel That Has No Reference Whatsoever To That Event Being Of A Spiritual Nature? BM Of The Last Days Watchman Continues To Exercise And Practice His Jewish Heritage By Insisting That God Promised The Land That Is Now Known As Israel To The Jews. However, As I Have Stated Below, This View May Not Be Correct, And An Opinion Such As This Not Only Leads To Confusion But Ties Some Christians Into The Greatest Hoax Ever Foisted Upon Christianity. BM's Claim That The Entire World Will Collapse If Israel Is Divided Is Simply An Expression Of His Pro-Israel Sentiment, Which Lacks Any Basis In Reality.

The question of whether the land now known as Israel was promised to the Jews by God, as stated in the Christian Bible, or if the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was purely a political decision, is a complex and multifaceted issue that intertwines theology, history, and politics.

From a biblical perspective, many believers point to several passages that suggest a divine promise regarding the land. For instance, in Genesis 12:1-3, God tells Abram (later Abraham) to leave his homeland and go to a land that He would show him, which many interpret as a promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. This theme continues throughout the Bible, with God reaffirming this covenant to Abraham's son Isaac and grandson Jacob, who is also known as Israel. The narrative suggests a deep spiritual connection between the Jewish people and the land, which is often referred to as the Promised Land.

However, the interpretation of these texts can vary widely. Some argue that the promise was not exclusive to the Jewish people but rather extended to all of Abraham's descendants, which includes various groups, including Arabs. This perspective highlights the complexity of the biblical narrative and the diverse interpretations that arise from it.

On the other hand, the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was significantly influenced by political factors, particularly the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. The Zionist movement, which sought to establish a Jewish homeland, gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, driven by a combination of nationalist aspirations and a desire for safety and self-determination. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British government expressed support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, further solidified this political movement.

In this light, one could argue that while the biblical texts provide a spiritual foundation for the Jewish connection to the land, the actual formation of the state of Israel was largely a political decision made in a specific historical context. The interplay between these spiritual beliefs and political realities creates a rich tapestry of meaning and conflict that continues to resonate today.

As I reflect on this topic, I find it fascinating how deeply intertwined faith and politics can be. The land of Israel is not just a geographical location; it embodies centuries of history, struggle, and aspiration for many people. The narratives surrounding it are filled with passion and conviction, whether they stem from religious beliefs or political ideologies.

It is important to note that the covenant of the Antichrist, mentioned in Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27, signals the beginning of the final seven years of mankind’s history. The exact wording of this pact is unknown, but it is interesting to observe that the proposed seven-year peace treaty may involve both Jews and Arabs recognising Jerusalem as their capital. However, is this arrangement truly a fair division of the land into two states? Probably affirmative.

Ultimately, the question of divine promise versus political decision is not easily answered. It invites us to consider the perspectives of those who hold these beliefs and the historical contexts that shape them. Engaging with this topic can lead to deeper understanding and dialogue, which is essential in a world where such issues remain contentious and still remain open to the kind of speculation BM frequently engages with.

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H0HDc5NEdQ

BM OF THE LAST DAYS WATCHMAN CHANNEL IS NOW UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION!

BM Of The Last Days Watchman Channel Has Posted A Video Suggesting That We Might Be In The End Times Tribulation. To Quote This Clown, “Are We In The Tribulation Or Are We Not In The Tribulation? I Am Not Prepared To Say”. If That Is So, Then Why Bother To Waste Everyone’s Time By Saying That We May Be? We Are Not In The End Times, The Final Seven Years, And That Is That. Furthermore, Why Would Anyone Say That Trump Has Confirmed A Covenant On The 15th Of October When All That Happened Was A Declaration Of A Kind, But Not A Peace Treaty? That Is Because It Did Not Include The Two-State Solution, Which Is Imperative To Peace In The Middle East. Israel Has Ignored This Completely, As They Are Still Attacking Nations Around It Using All Kinds Of Pretexts. Anyone With Any End-Times Knowledge Is Able To Distinguish Between The Truth And Complete Fiction, Which Is Something BM Does Not Appear To Be Able To Do. BM Is Like Trump In So Many Aspects, When His Reality And Fantasy Have Now Been All Entwined, To A Point Where He Is Unable To Distinguish Between The Truth And Outright Lies. Falsehood In Other Words.

The discourse surrounding the BM of the Last Days Watchman channel reveals a complex interplay between belief, interpretation, and the dissemination of information regarding eschatological themes. The channel's recent video, which posits the possibility of being in the end times tribulation, raises significant questions about the nature of its assertions. The statement, “Are we in the tribulation or are we not in the tribulation? I am not prepared to say,” exemplifies a reluctance to commit to a definitive stance, which can be perceived as an evasion of responsibility in the face of serious claims. This ambiguity invites scepticism, particularly when one considers the implications of such a declaration on the audience's understanding of current events.

Critically examining the assertion that we are not in the end times, one must consider the broader context of geopolitical developments. The claim regarding a supposed covenant confirmed by Trump on October 15 lacks substantive backing, as it was merely a declaration rather than a formal peace treaty. The absence of a two-state solution, a critical component for lasting peace in the Middle East, further undermines the credibility of such claims. Israel's ongoing military actions against neighbouring nations, often justified through various pretexts, illustrate a persistent state of conflict that contradicts the notion of a peaceful resolution.

In analysing the content produced by the BM channel, it becomes evident that there exists a troubling conflation of fact and fiction. This phenomenon is not unique to this channel; it mirrors broader societal trends where individuals, including prominent figures like Trump, often blur the lines between reality and fantasy. The inability to discern truth from falsehood can lead to a dangerous cycle of misinformation, where audiences are left to navigate a landscape rife with conflicting narratives. This situation raises ethical concerns about the responsibilities of content creators in shaping public discourse, particularly on matters of significant consequence.

Moreover, the channel's approach reflects a broader challenge within the realm of eschatological interpretation. Those who possess a foundational understanding of end-times theology are often equipped to differentiate between genuine prophetic insights and sensationalist rhetoric. The failure of BM to maintain this distinction suggests a lack of rigor in its analytical framework, which may ultimately mislead its audience. The intertwining of personal belief systems with public declarations can create a narrative that is more reflective of individual biases than of objective reality.

In conclusion, the BM of the Last Days Watchman channel serves as a case study in the complexities of modern communication regarding eschatological themes. The interplay of belief, interpretation, and the responsibility of content creators is critical in shaping public understanding. As individuals navigate these narratives, it is essential to approach such claims with a discerning eye, recognising the potential for misinformation to distort perceptions of reality. The challenge remains to foster a dialogue that priorities truth and clarity over sensationalism and ambiguity.

Blessings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H0HDc5NEdQ

BM Of The Last Days Watchman Channel Claims That, Despite Trump Taking Credit For Resolving At Least Six Conflicts With Treaties Signed By The Involved Parties, He Has Not Officially Confirmed Any Of These Agreements. This Includes The Covenant Mentioned In Daniel Chapter 9, Verse 27 Which Signals The Beginning Of The Final Seven Years. For This Covenant To Take Effect, A Two-State Solution To The Ongoing Violence In Gaza Is Necessary. Since This Has Not Happened, The Final Tribulation Has Not Begun.
In Fact, Even Before The Ink Dried On The Recent Declaration Signed By Approximately 20 World Leaders, Israel, Which Had No Intention Of Fulfilling Any Agreements, Launched Another Offensive Against Its Arab Neighbours. This Raises The Question: How Can BM Assert On His Channel That Trump Has Signed The Covenant Of Daniel When He Appears To Be The Only One Online Who Believes This To Be True? I Can Only Attribute This Stance To The Influence Of Someone Misguiding Him With False Information, Which He Then Shares, Potentially Making Him The Subject Of Ridicule. Alternatively, He Might Simply Be Misguided Or Opportunistic.
My Suggestion Is That An Unethical, Irresponsible, And Downright Evil Woman Might Be Behind His Postings, Urging BM To Make Such Foolish And Irrational Statements Just To Attract Subscribers.
Turkey Has Issued Arrest Warrants For Numerous Israeli Officials, Including Netanyahu And 36 Members Of His Team, Citing Charges Of Genocide. Recently, Trump Declared That He Wants To Pardon Netanyahu For Various Issues, Including Corruption And Bribery, But He Does Not Have The Authority To Do So.
The Land Of Israel Does Not Align With God's Spiritual Agenda; Rather, It Is Influenced By A Political Agenda Established By Former American President Harry S. Truman. Therefore, Israel Cannot Be Considered The Chosen Land Of God, Nor Can The Jewish People Living There Be Regarded As The Chosen Ones. Instead, Israel Is A Spiritual Place In Heaven That Requires Anyone Wishing To Enter To Repent For Their Sins First, Regardless Of Whether They Are Jewish Or Gentile. All Are Equal In The Eyes Of God Once They Come To A Place Of Repentance. To Call Israel Holy Or God’s Chosen Land Is One Of The Greatest Deceptions In The History Of Christianity. However, If This Posting Is Any Indication, Misrepresentation Is Something BM Of The Last Days Watchman Channel Is Quite Familiar With.

In the swirling chaos of modern geopolitics, the claims made by BM of the Last Days Watchman channel about former President Trump and the supposed covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27 raise eyebrows and provoke thought. It’s intriguing to consider how someone can assert that Trump has signed a significant peace agreement, especially when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. From my perspective, it feels like a classic case of selective interpretation, where the narrative is shaped more by desire than by fact.

BM argues that Trump has resolved multiple conflicts through treaties, yet there’s a glaring absence of official confirmation for these agreements. This is particularly relevant when discussing the covenant that is said to signal the beginning of the final seven years of tribulation. For this covenant to take effect, a two-state solution to the ongoing violence in Gaza is essential. However, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Just as the ink dried on a recent declaration involving around 20 world leaders, Israel launched another offensive against its Arab neighbors, seemingly undermining any claims of peace.

This contradiction begs the question: how can BM confidently assert that Trump has signed the covenant of Daniel? It’s almost as if he’s operating in a parallel universe where facts are malleable. I can’t help but wonder if he’s being misled by someone with a vested interest in promoting a particular narrative, or if he’s simply falling prey to wishful thinking. The idea that an unethical figure might be manipulating him for clicks and subscribers is not far-fetched. It’s a reminder of how easily misinformation can spread, especially in the digital age.

Moreover, the geopolitical landscape is further complicated by Turkey’s recent actions, issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, on charges of genocide. This adds another layer of tension to an already fraught situation. Trump’s declaration of wanting to pardon Netanyahu for various issues, including corruption, raises eyebrows as well. It’s a bold move, but one that lacks the authority he claims to wield. This situation illustrates the complexities of international relations, where political agendas often overshadow moral considerations.

When discussing the land of Israel, it’s essential to recognize that many view it through a spiritual lens, while others see it as a political battleground. The assertion that Israel is not aligned with God’s spiritual agenda but rather with a political one established by Truman is a provocative stance. It challenges the traditional narrative that paints Israel as the chosen land. Instead, it suggests that the true essence of Israel lies in a spiritual realm, accessible to all who seek repentance, regardless of their background. This perspective invites a broader understanding of faith and redemption, transcending the boundaries often imposed by religious dogma.

In conclusion, the discourse surrounding BM’s claims and the broader implications of Trump’s actions reflects a complex interplay of faith, politics, and human behavior. It’s a reminder that in the quest for truth, one must navigate through layers of interpretation and bias. As we continue to engage with these topics, it’s crucial to remain open-minded and critical, questioning the narratives presented to us. What do you think about the role of media in shaping these narratives?

Blessings