Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Tower of Babel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    Not at all, actually. Unless you'd care to explain this seemingly non-existent link, you might as well try to argue that the glass of juice that I just drank, or my former neighbor's dog, or a wildflower in Mongolia, are good aids to a true understanding of Biblical eschatology. There is no apparent connection at all.
    There's no possible connection between the Tower of Babel and Mystery Babylon? Ok, if you say so. Just kidding, nothing you say matters, because you're obviously more sarcasm than intelligence.


    Human beings.

    Their hearts were rebellious--God had previously told them to fill the Earth (aka spread across it), so instead of following that command, they stayed in one place, and as a further sign of rebellion, they decided to make a name for themselves by building a tower to the heavens as a demonstration of power and authority that they didn't have.
    So they were directly, consciously and openly rebelling against God, but this has nothing to do with eschatology? Do you think it will go easier or harder for them than for Chorazin and Bethsaida on the day of judgment?

    What do you understand by "tower to the heavens?" Did they mean into the atmosphere or such a tower that heaven could be contacted/interacted with? "Babel" in Babylonian means "gate of God." Here is what Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, understood to have occurred at Babel:

    Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power... Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners [in the Flood]; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion...

    Because it's not a good thing when you have an entire movement of people united against you.
    I see, so your answer is that God was scared? Oh boy.

    God confused their language to shatter the unity that they previously had.
    Finally, a correct answer. Maybe you're not utterly useless.

    Because movements are much weaker when they're disjointed and scattered.
    There you go portraying this as God engaging in guerilla warfare again. Look, God was not scared for Himself, and that's something you need to understand.


    Probably not literally, since, as real life has already proven, people would eventually come to understand different languages and be able to translate words and communicate across them. But the point of the story, expressed through humor, seems to be that mankind is so small compared to God that the tower that they thought would reach to the heavens actually required God to come down in order to see it, and that all God needed to stop their unified rebellion was to confuse their language. So the deeper meaning could be said to permanently apply.
    You find the story humorous? It came immediately on the heels of the Flood that killed millions of people and grieved God's heart. He was not amused, so why are you? The God of unity was not amused by having to make his children incomprehensible to one another so that He didn't have to simply destroy them all again.

    This is an odd question, since it should be manifestly clear to everyone who's bright enough to not be a futurist () that no tower can ever literally reach to the heavens. The tower was never possible, and so it makes no sense to ask if another such tower would be possible. But there can certainly still be mass unified rebellions against God/moral principles.
    If you thought that the people building the tower literally thought they could reach a certain height where God's throne room was, then you definitely missed the point of the story. I'm glad you agree there can still be mass unified rebellions against God, which is one reason why this story is so relevant to eschatology and in particular Revelation, which warns of a mass unified rebellion against God. You got any more juice? I'm parched.

    Can't be any dumber than your completely substance-free post was. I answered all those questions exactly the way I would've answered them when I was a preterist, and exactly the same way I would've answered them when I was a futurist. As I said, there's no apparent connection between the Babel story and eschatology at all, so unless or until you do, I'll just have to assume this bizarre obsession you have with preterism (in which you attribute human qualities to it and whatnot) is part of some underlying psychological problem that probably requires therapy.
    I'm not obsessed with preterism anymore than the Lord was "obsessed" with the Pharisees. There is a preterist horde here who constantly muddle the truth with whom I have to contend.

    You're drawing an awful lot of inferences from a character who's mentioned in only one or two chapters of the Bible, but this doesn't have any connection to preterism or Christianity. For one thing, there was no Christ yet at that time (the historical events that led God to promise to send a Messiah hadn't occurred yet--heck, ancient Israel didn't even exist yet) so there couldn't have been anyone who was anti-Christ. Even if you re-word this to mean that Nimrod represented the future function of an antichrist in the sense of interpreting "Christ" as "anointed" and thereby being anti-anyone who is anointed, it's still irrelevant. Preterism involves a belief that the historical emperor Nero specifically represented a type of antichrist; that someone long before that may have been a similar type of person has nothing to do with it. You haven't shown any indication that you even understand what preterism entails.
    Do you not understand what "type" means? Nimrod was an early example of the sort of individual the Antichrist will be. This statement did not require the concept of the Christ to have been understood in his day, though God Himself gave a prophecy of the Anointed One in the garden which was common knowledge to the humanity of Nimrod's day. But I see you went on to call Nero such a type, so you must have been either feigning ignorance or possess a rather disjointed thinking process, or both.

    Micah 5:5 And he will be our peace
    when the Assyrians invade our land
    and march through our fortresses.
    We will raise against them seven shepherds,
    even eight commanders,
    6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword,
    the land of Nimrod with drawn sword.

    I know you and your ilk think there's a lot of random crap in the Bible (that is, when you even bother reading it), but I happen to think and the Bible asserts that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching. Nimrod is mentioned in this clearly eschatological verse for a reason, not for no reason.

    I would be much more inclined to take this seriously if your OP wasn't so insubstantial and incoherent.
    I can see getting you to follow this pretty simple logic will be like getting you into a round hole, but I'm a patient man.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
      There's no possible connection between the Tower of Babel and Mystery Babylon? Ok, if you say so.
      But I didn't say so. To the contrary, I said that there was no apparent connection between the Tower of Babel and eschatology, not that there couldn't possibly exist a connection. You see, in threads that are supposed to foster genuine dialogue, people who are reasonable and mature are expected to do this thing called "explain and support their claims," not simply make bizarre statements like "The Tower of Babel aids in understanding eschatology" and just leave it at that.

      Just kidding, nothing you say matters, because you're obviously more sarcasm than intelligence.
      But--

      *reads your entire OP
      *reads your quote
      *head explodes due to irony overload

      You have some nerve to accuse OTHER people of being more about sarcasm than intelligence.

      So they were directly, consciously and openly rebelling against God, but this has nothing to do with eschatology?
      There's no apparent connection to eschatology, unless you want to insist that every Biblical instance of people directly, consciously and openly rebelling against God has to do with eschatology.

      What do you understand by "tower to the heavens?" Did they mean into the atmosphere or such a tower that heaven could be contacted/interacted with?
      I always figured they were trying to do both--build a tower that extended high into the sky for symbolic spiritual purposes.

      "Babel" in Babylonian means "gate of God." Here is what Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, understood to have occurred at Babel:

      Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power... Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners [in the Flood]; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion...
      That's nice. I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots and explain exactly what your point is, how it's relevant to everything else you've said, and why I should care about this Josephus quote.

      I see, so your answer is that God was scared? Oh boy.
      Might want to get those eyes checked, because nowhere in my response did I even hint that "God was scared." That's completely you reading things into my post.

      Finally, a correct answer. Maybe you're not utterly useless.
      Ah, the poster who refuses to explain things has the nerve to call OTHER people "utterly useless."

      There you go portraying this as God engaging in guerilla warfare again. Look, God was not scared for Himself, and that's something you need to understand.
      There you go coming up with bizarre interpretations of my posts again. Look, I never said that God was scared for himself, and that's something you need to understand.

      You find the story humorous? It came immediately on the heels of the Flood that killed millions of people and grieved God's heart. He was not amused, so why are you? The God of unity was not amused by having to make his children incomprehensible to one another so that He didn't have to simply destroy them all again.
      That's nice. But I didn't say that I found the story itself humorous, but rather the way in which it was expressed. The story uses humorous hyperbole--that the tower that human beings said would reach to the heavens was actually so small that God needed to come down to see it--to express the magnitude of God compared to men. You might notice that attributing this sort of power and greatness to God implies that God would be the opposite of scared when he saw the men.

      If you thought that the people building the tower literally thought they could reach a certain height where God's throne room was, then you definitely missed the point of the story.
      I'd be fascinated to know how you know that the people building the tower definitely didn't believe that. In any case, that's only a narrow facet of the overall interpretation of the story.

      I'm not obsessed with preterism anymore than the Lord was "obsessed" with the Pharisees.
      Chuckle.

      There is a preterist horde here who constantly muddle the truth with whom I have to contend.


      Yeah, you definitely have an obsession, especially since nearly all your posts on the old site AND on the re-vamped version have consisted of you throwing insults at preterists and preterism, and saying even more bizarre things like attributing qualities of manliness to futurism.

      Do you not understand what "type" means? Nimrod was an early example of the sort of individual the Antichrist will be.
      As others have noted, the fact that you needed to draw upon extra-biblical traditions for this claim (since the Bible itself certainly doesn't contain that much specific detail about Nimrod) means that it's hardly obvious.

      This statement did not require the concept of the Christ to have been understood in his day, though God Himself gave a prophecy of the Anointed One in the garden which was common knowledge to the humanity of Nimrod's day. But I see you went on to call Nero such a type, so you must have been either feigning ignorance or possess a rather disjointed thinking process, or both.
      Or it could be (hint: it is) the case that I have no clue from your post how the fact that Nimrod may have been a precursor to an antichrist is relevant to the common preterist belief that Nero was the specific type of antichrist mentioned in Revelation.

      I know you and your ilk think there's a lot of random crap in the Bible (that is, when you even bother reading it)
      I'm fairly certain that you don't know what my beliefs are, so I'm baffled by this mention of "[my] ilk."

      but I happen to think and the Bible asserts that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching. Nimrod is mentioned in this clearly eschatological verse for a reason, not for no reason.
      Yes--because it's referring to a land that he's believed to have founded. That's hardly a significant reason for tying him to the end of the world.

      I can see getting you to follow this pretty simple logic
      That's quite an unorthodox way of saying "veiled and seemingly non-existent logic."
      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

      Comment


      • #18
        I think the notion of seeking genuine dialogue was thrown out the window with his needless provocation at the end of the OP. I don't make unrelated posts and say "Oh, yeah, YEC is wrong." That would do nothing but detract from whatever point I wanted to make.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          But I didn't say so. To the contrary, I said that there was no apparent connection between the Tower of Babel and eschatology, not that there couldn't possibly exist a connection. You see, in threads that are supposed to foster genuine dialogue, people who are reasonable and mature are expected to do this thing called "explain and support their claims," not simply make bizarre statements like "The Tower of Babel aids in understanding eschatology" and just leave it at that.
          You're right. There's no apparent connection between the Tower of Babel and Mystery Babelon. I thought I was being reasonable, but I need to keep in mind how little preterists know their Bible.

          But--

          *reads your entire OP
          *reads your quote
          *head explodes due to irony overload

          You have some nerve to accuse OTHER people of being more about sarcasm than intelligence.
          It's different when we smart people use sarcasm. Our sarcasm tends to underscore the point, whereas when you dumbdumbs use sarcasm, it tends to overshadow your point, because you don't really understand your point to begin with.

          There's no apparent connection to eschatology, unless you want to insist that every Biblical instance of people directly, consciously and openly rebelling against God has to do with eschatology.
          Again, this is an instance of you not knowing your Bible, despite my spelling out the point quite clearly to those that do.

          Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

          Jesus Christ Himself connected direct, conscious and open rebellion by large groups of people to eschatology, but He was just a silly futurist.


          I always figured they were trying to do both--build a tower that extended high into the sky for symbolic spiritual purposes.
          You thought they broke their backs building such a Tower for "symbolic" purposes? Can you name any other monolithic structure built for "symbolic" purposes in the ancient world? You're pretty bad at "figuring."

          That's nice. I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots and explain exactly what your point is, how it's relevant to everything else you've said, and why I should care about this Josephus quote.
          The 1st century Jews, who were far closer to the event than you, understood it [building the Tower] to be an act of defiance against God led by Nimrod and one which He felt it needful to stop personally lest "nothing they plan to do ... be impossible for them." Can you imagine what the world would be like if the wicked banded together and nothing they imagined were impossible for them? Why, I doubt if any flesh could survive such a world--even the elect--unless God intervened personally.

          That's nice. But I didn't say that I found the story itself humorous, but rather the way in which it was expressed. The story uses humorous hyperbole--that the tower that human beings said would reach to the heavens was actually so small that God needed to come down to see it--to express the magnitude of God compared to men. You might notice that attributing this sort of power and greatness to God implies that God would be the opposite of scared when he saw the men.
          The story itself is not humorous, but the story sounds funny. Sounds like a preterist distinction, like Nero not being the Antichrist, but being the beast.

          As others have noted, the fact that you needed to draw upon extra-biblical traditions for this claim (since the Bible itself certainly doesn't contain that much specific detail about Nimrod) means that it's hardly obvious.
          Genesis 10:8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.

          From those four verses, I can deduce:

          1. Nimrod was an enemy of the Lord
          2. Nimrod was a king
          3. Nimrod founded Babylon, the name used throughout the Bible and indeed all of history as synonymous with the enemies of God
          4. Nimrod founded Assyria, another empire which was an enemy of God and God's people
          5. Nimrod ruled over the plain of Shinar, where the Tower was built
          6. Nimrod is called a gibborim (the Hebrew word for mighty), a word also used to refer to the Nephilim, the half angelic, half human hybrids of Genesis 6

          So I repeat, you and people like you may read such things as your eyes skim lazily over the page and YOU may not make the logical connections which suggest themselves and assume that the Bible is randomly lingering over this otherwise insignificant figure, but some of us know our Bible, and that Nimrod trivia encourages a closer look and an examination of his connection with Biblical eschatology. Extra-biblical tradition can help fill in some blanks, but it should never be used to create a belief from whole cloth.

          Or it could be (hint: it is) the case that I have no clue from your post how the fact that Nimrod may have been a precursor to an antichrist is relevant to the common preterist belief that Nero was the specific type of antichrist mentioned in Revelation.
          Nero did not encourage people to rebel against God. That's probably the most glaring reason he was not the Antichrist. Aside from the fact that he only persecuted Christians in one locality, not the worldwide dominion the Antichrist is declared to have. And like Nimrod had.

          I'm fairly certain that you don't know what my beliefs are, so I'm baffled by this mention of "[my] ilk."
          I'm fairly certain that your beliefs are wrong, whatever flavor. I can tell from how dumb you sound here.

          Yes--because it's referring to a land that he's believed to have founded. That's hardly a significant reason for tying him to the end of the world.
          "What does Babylon have to do with Mystery Babylon?" Ummmmmmmmmmmm

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
            You're right. There's no apparent connection between the Tower of Babel and Mystery Babelon.
            No, no, no. You still seem to have trouble reading and reproducing posts. I said that there was no apparent connection with the Tower of Babel and eschatology. Of the entire field of eschatology, how am I supposed to know that you were referring to the one aspect that is mystery Babylon? You didn't mention mystery Babylon in your OP, and besides, eschatology encompasses so much more than that.

            I thought I was being reasonable
            You should probably do some more critical self-analysis if you thought that being so vague and then expecting people to understand what you mean qualifies as being reasonable.

            It's different when we smart people
            You have failed to make a convincing case that you belong in this group.

            Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

            Jesus Christ Himself connected direct, conscious and open rebellion by large groups of people to eschatology, but He was just a silly futurist.
            That's quite a stretch. Jesus simply said that Chorazin and Bethsaida will be ultimately be judged severely. That doesn't entail that every "direct, conscious, open rebellion by large groups of people" has to do with the end of the world. And even if it did, how does this favor one particular side either way?

            You thought they broke their backs building such a Tower for "symbolic" purposes? Can you name any other monolithic structure built for "symbolic" purposes in the ancient world?
            Temples. Ziggurats. Things like that. They all were intended to fulfill a symbolic spiritual purpose.

            The 1st century Jews, who were far closer to the event than you
            They were still far removed from when the event would've taken place. Proximity isn't significant at that magnitude.

            The story itself is not humorous, but the story sounds funny.
            It uses a joke to express a serious point. That shouldn't be such a foreign concept.

            Genesis 10:8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.

            From those four verses, I can deduce:

            1. Nimrod was an enemy of the Lord
            2. Nimrod was a king
            3. Nimrod founded Babylon, the name used throughout the Bible and indeed all of history as synonymous with the enemies of God
            4. Nimrod founded Assyria, another empire which was an enemy of God and God's people
            5. Nimrod ruled over the plain of Shinar, where the Tower was built
            6. Nimrod is called a gibborim (the Hebrew word for mighty), a word also used to refer to the Nephilim, the half angelic, half human hybrids of Genesis 6
            Hardly. Nowhere in that passage does it say Nimrod was an enemy of God. The fact that the kingdom that he started later went bad doesn't necessarily mean that he himself was bad.

            So I repeat, you and people like you may read such things as your eyes skim lazily over the page and YOU may not make the logical connections which suggest themselves and assume that the Bible is randomly lingering over this otherwise insignificant figure, but some of us know our Bible, and that Nimrod trivia encourages a closer look and an examination of his connection with Biblical eschatology. Extra-biblical tradition can help fill in some blanks, but it should never be used to create a belief from whole cloth.
            Uh, you seem to have this backwards. You absolutely cannot draw all these presumptuous conclusions about Nimrod, let alone make a definitive judgment about eschatology, merely from these chapters of Genesis. You, in fact, are the one who has to rely on extra-biblical tradition if you're trying to make this argument.

            Nero did not encourage people to rebel against God. That's probably the most glaring reason he was not the Antichrist.
            His reign certainly didn't encourage people to worship God as they pleased--he's believed to have persecuted them, in fact, basically threatening them with death if they didn't live a different way, one that, similar to his own lifestyle, could certainly be characterized as one of rebellion against God.

            Aside from the fact that he only persecuted Christians in one locality, not the worldwide dominion the Antichrist is declared to have. And like Nimrod had.
            Nimrod had worldwide dominion? That's news to Biblical scholars. I'm also curious as to what leads you to definitively believe that antichrist had to have a worldwide dominion that persecuted Christians all over the world.

            I'm fairly certain that your beliefs are wrong, whatever flavor. I can tell from how dumb you sound here.
            The ease with which I can rightfully apply this statement right back at you is amusing.

            "What does Babylon have to do with Mystery Babylon?" Ummmmmmmmmmmm
            "Shouldn't it be obvious that I'm talking about Mystery Babylon when I didn't mention it anywhere in the OP or in the relevant section of my follow-up post?"


            No, it shouldn't be. We're two pages into this thread now and no one understands what you're getting at because you've barely explained anything. No explanation of WHY preterism supposedly "can't even begin to answer these questions," or for how futurism supposedly can. No explanation of exactly how you feel the character of Nimrod, who's believed to have lived thousands and thousands of years before Jesus was born, fits into the large scheme of the New Testament passages about eschatology. You clearly have an unhealthy obsession with preterism (or a caricature of preterism, it seems) that you express by venting irrational anger at people and the position, rather than actually taking the time to thoroughly teach and explain things. Not everyone's cut out to be a debater or educator, but I'd prefer that those who aren't would realize their own limitations.
            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
              No, no, no. You still seem to have trouble reading and reproducing posts. I said that there was no apparent connection with the Tower of Babel and eschatology. Of the entire field of eschatology, how am I supposed to know that you were referring to the one aspect that is mystery Babylon? You didn't mention mystery Babylon in your OP, and besides, eschatology encompasses so much more than that.
              The book of Revelation centers around the destruction of Babylon, but I need to spell out the connection between the Tower of Babel and the fall of Babylon? Admit it, you look silly and you're trying to save face by feigning ignorance. Not that fools like you ever admit any such thing.

              Revelation 18:21 Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:


              “With such violence
              the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
              never to be found again.

              ...

              23 The light of a lamp
              will never shine in you again.
              The voice of bridegroom and bride
              will never be heard in you again.
              Your merchants were the world’s important people.
              By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
              24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
              of all who have been slaughtered on the earth
              .”


              Yea, seems like Mystery Babylon/Babylon the Great aren't all that important in the scheme of things, eschatologically speaking.


              That's quite a stretch. Jesus simply said that Chorazin and Bethsaida will be ultimately be judged severely. That doesn't entail that every "direct, conscious, open rebellion by large groups of people" has to do with the end of the world. And even if it did, how does this favor one particular side either way?
              Every "direct, conscious, open rebellion by large groups of people" in the Bible probably has something to do with the Bible's depiction of the day of judgment/Day of the Lord. That fact doesn't necessarily "favor one side", but it does favor a correct understanding of eschatology, if one properly incorporates and harmonizes seemingly disconnected portions of the Bible that are in fact connected.

              Temples. Ziggurats. Things like that. They all were intended to fulfill a symbolic spiritual purpose.
              Nope. They were intended to literally house the gods they were built for. Epic fail.

              They were still far removed from when the event would've taken place. Proximity isn't significant at that magnitude.
              You're right. How can we have any idea what happened 2,000 years ago?

              It uses a joke to express a serious point. That shouldn't be such a foreign concept.
              I use jokes all the time to express serious points. But the problem is that you are accusing God of making a joke about a very serious matter in the middle of an entirely serious account, because the seriousness of the account is entirely lost on you. The Tower of Babel was not merely a case of a bunch of drunken yokels letting off some steam. It was the entire ancient world at that time banding together in a concerted effort to not only mock God, but rebel against Him. One that God felt He could only stop Himself. There are ramifications to this that appear to be going way over your square head. Ramifications which directly relate to the repetition of history known as the end days.

              Hardly. Nowhere in that passage does it say Nimrod was an enemy of God. The fact that the kingdom that he started later went bad doesn't necessarily mean that he himself was bad.
              More ignorance. The phrase "before the Lord" would be more precisely translated "against the Lord." "Before" in that context meant "in His face." It wasn't saying that Nimrod's ability to hunt game impressed God a lot.

              Uh, you seem to have this backwards. You absolutely cannot draw all these presumptuous conclusions about Nimrod, let alone make a definitive judgment about eschatology, merely from these chapters of Genesis. You, in fact, are the one who has to rely on extra-biblical tradition if you're trying to make this argument.
              The fact that you continue to claim that the founding of Babylon has nothing to do with the endtime enemy called Mystery Babylon/Babylon the Great makes you either intentionally deceptive or unintentionally stupid or both.

              His reign certainly didn't encourage people to worship God as they pleased--he's believed to have persecuted them, in fact, basically threatening them with death if they didn't live a different way, one that, similar to his own lifestyle, could certainly be characterized as one of rebellion against God.
              Nero's persecution was capricious, half-hearted and left the Jews largely alone, something the Antichrist's persecution explicitly will not do. And again, the fact that it was localized and not worldwide unquestionably disqualifies it from being described as "the possible end to all flesh" that the Great Tribulation is described as by the Lord Jesus Christ.


              Nimrod had worldwide dominion? That's news to Biblical scholars. I'm also curious as to what leads you to definitively believe that antichrist had to have a worldwide dominion that persecuted Christians all over the world.
              It's not news to Bible scholars, unless you count yourself among them. Nimrod is frequently equated with Ninus by Biblical scholars. And if you're truly curious about why I would have the impression that the Antichrist would have worldwide dominion, then your ignorance is more pitiable than I first imagined.

              Revelation 13:3-4, 7-8, 16-17 The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

              7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

              16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

              No, it shouldn't be. We're two pages into this thread now and no one understands what you're getting at because you've barely explained anything. No explanation of WHY preterism supposedly "can't even begin to answer these questions," or for how futurism supposedly can. No explanation of exactly how you feel the character of Nimrod, who's believed to have lived thousands and thousands of years before Jesus was born, fits into the large scheme of the New Testament passages about eschatology. You clearly have an unhealthy obsession with preterism (or a caricature of preterism, it seems) that you express by venting irrational anger at people and the position, rather than actually taking the time to thoroughly teach and explain things. Not everyone's cut out to be a debater or educator, but I'd prefer that those who aren't would realize their own limitations.
              I don't cast pearls before swine, nor did the Lord explain His parables to any but the disciples. I say enough for people who know their Bibles to understand and be convinced by, but if you don't know your Bible, while claiming to be Christian, then you're probably a preterist and I don't care if you don't understand me, since you condemn yourself.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                The book of Revelation centers around the destruction of Babylon
                The field of eschatology encompasses more than just the book of Revelation.

                but I need to spell out the connection between the Tower of Babel and the fall of Babylon?
                No, you need to specify that of the entire subject of eschatology, you're talking about Revelation's discussion of Babylon, thereby allowing people to draw a connection from the Tower of Babel story.

                Admit it, you look silly and you're trying to save face by feigning ignorance. Not that fools like you ever admit any such thing.
                Say what you want, but this certainly belies your earlier claim that "I asked legitimate questions hoping for legitimate answers. I will try to indulge less in voicing my revulsion for preterism so the point is not lost." To the contrary, it seems that you're entirely fixated on voicing revulsion.

                Nope. They were intended to literally house the gods they were built for. Epic fail.
                Sad that you think these answers are mutually exclusive. Epic fail. They may have been intended to physically aid the gods, but men also used those structures for functions that had symbolic spiritual purposes.

                I use jokes all the time to express serious points. But the problem is that you are accusing God of making a joke
                No, I'm concluding that the human writer of the story was using a bit of exaggerated satire to convey a serious point about God's magnitude compared to human beings.

                about a very serious matter in the middle of an entirely serious account, because the seriousness of the account is entirely lost on you. The Tower of Babel was not merely a case of a bunch of drunken yokels letting off some steam. It was the entire ancient world at that time banding together in a concerted effort to not only mock God, but rebel against Him. One that God felt He could only stop Himself. There are ramifications to this that appear to be going way over your square head. Ramifications which directly relate to the repetition of history known as the end days.
                Your presumptuousness and attempt at insults are so overbearing that they're almost funny.

                The fact that you continue to claim that the founding of Babylon has nothing to do with the endtime enemy called Mystery Babylon/Babylon the Great makes you either intentionally deceptive or unintentionally stupid or both.
                That would certainly be news to me, since I never made that claim anywhere. What I've said is that YOU neglected to specify that when you simply said "eschatology," you were actually referring to a specific facet of eschatology containing to the concept of Babylon the Great. Obviously I would've drawn the connection if you'd said "An understanding of the circumstances surrounding the Tower of Babel is a good aid to a true understanding of the eschatological concept of Mystery Babylon." The fact that you continue to misrepresent my posts makes you either intentionally dishonest or unintentionally stupid or both.

                Additionally, I'm getting dragged down a path in this thread that I didn't want to traverse. I have no intention of arguing for or against any eschatological view. I responded to your OP mostly in an effort to stop you from being such a pompous [word that'll probably get censored].

                I don't cast pearls before swine, nor did the Lord explain His parables to any but the disciples. I say enough for people who know their Bibles to understand and be convinced by, but if you don't know your Bible, while claiming to be Christian, then you're probably a preterist and I don't care if you don't understand me, since you condemn yourself.
                Ah, there's that amusing presumptuous and arrogance again. You clearly didn't intend to start a fruitful dialogue in the spirit of rational inquiry, so I do wish that you'd just admit it instead of acting like you genuinely want to reach out to educate other people for the glory of God. If at any point you change your mind and decide that you do want to genuinely foster reasonable discussion and debate, I strongly suggest that you drop the gratuitous insults and take the time to carefully explain and connect all your points of argument. Clarify WHY you believe the bizarre statement that preterism is unable to address those questions, and why futurism allegedly can. Address others the way you personally would want to be addressed if you genuinely wanted to discuss things for the sake of discovering truth.
                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                  You clearly didn't intend to start a fruitful dialogue in the spirit of rational inquiry...
                  that
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    that
                    Which is why no one who know Darfius will respond to his posts....
                    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                      I don't cast pearls before swine, nor did the Lord explain His parables to any but the disciples. I say enough for people who know their Bibles to understand and be convinced by, but if you don't know your Bible, while claiming to be Christian, then you're probably a preterist and I don't care if you don't understand me, since you condemn yourself.
                      I guess the verse about how preterist, not finding salvation, is only found in the Darfius Approved VersionTM and not in the 'heretic' version of the Bible? Please, do tell where you found that one out at.
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                        The field of eschatology encompasses more than just the book of Revelation.
                        Revelation 1:1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

                        Not only is Revelation the only book of the Bible explicitly dealing entirely with eschatology--unlike the prophecy scattered throughout the rest of the books--but it contains an express benediction upon those who carefully read and "take to heart what is written in it." In other words, blockhead, it is of supreme importance to eschatology. Obviously.

                        No, you need to specify that of the entire subject of eschatology, you're talking about Revelation's discussion of Babylon, thereby allowing people to draw a connection from the Tower of Babel story.
                        I am primarily attempting to help people draw their own conclusions, not merely expound upon my own. I believe in the Socratic method of instruction, which encourages a reasoning alongside rather than to. I am always prepared to answer people's questions in depth, but people do not necessarily respond better to being lectured at than being spurred into defending wrongly held beliefs or examining new, challenging beliefs. That is why there were so many questions in my OP, rather than a lengthy exposition.

                        Those who have eyes to see will see, and those with ears to hear will hear.

                        Say what you want, but this certainly belies your earlier claim that "I asked legitimate questions hoping for legitimate answers. I will try to indulge less in voicing my revulsion for preterism so the point is not lost." To the contrary, it seems that you're entirely fixated on voicing revulsion.
                        To the contrary, it seems that I made arguments you are unable to answer, and so like many others in your position, you are whining that my insults were wittier than yours and that therefore you must taketh your ball and walketh home.

                        Sad that you think these answers are mutually exclusive. Epic fail. They may have been intended to physically aid the gods, but men also used those structures for functions that had symbolic spiritual purposes.
                        There's that preterist penchant for "spiritualizing" things away, now reaching unto monolithic structures. Symbolic purposes aside, what physical reason did the builders have for constructing the Tower?

                        No, I'm concluding that the human writer of the story was using a bit of exaggerated satire to convey a serious point about God's magnitude compared to human beings.
                        I see. So was the human writer inspired of God or not? I am being courteous and giving you a chance to stick your foot in your own mouth this time.

                        Your presumptuousness and attempt at insults are so overbearing that they're almost funny.
                        There's no reason I can't be right and funny at the same time.

                        That would certainly be news to me, since I never made that claim anywhere. What I've said is that YOU neglected to specify that when you simply said "eschatology," you were actually referring to a specific facet of eschatology containing to the concept of Babylon the Great. Obviously I would've drawn the connection if you'd said "An understanding of the circumstances surrounding the Tower of Babel is a good aid to a true understanding of the eschatological concept of Mystery Babylon." The fact that you continue to misrepresent my posts makes you either intentionally dishonest or unintentionally stupid or both.
                        The point is that no accurate understanding of this "eschatology in general" that you oddly separate from Mystery Babylon (the Mother of abominations) can be had without an understanding of Mystery Babylon, which is obviously connected to Babel. In your haste to respond sarcastically to my OP (belying your intention to engage in civil, reasonable discussion...hey, you still haven't given me any of that juice), you missed the connection that is obvious to anyone even reasonably familiar with the Bible.

                        Additionally, I'm getting dragged down a path in this thread that I didn't want to traverse. I have no intention of arguing for or against any eschatological view. I responded to your OP mostly in an effort to stop you from being such a pompous [word that'll probably get censored].
                        Not everyone who speaks with authority is pompous. Often, those with valid authority are perceived as pompous by those who envy their authority but despise the wisdom that grants the authority.

                        Ah, there's that amusing presumptuous and arrogance again. You clearly didn't intend to start a fruitful dialogue in the spirit of rational inquiry, so I do wish that you'd just admit it instead of acting like you genuinely want to reach out to educate other people for the glory of God. If at any point you change your mind and decide that you do want to genuinely foster reasonable discussion and debate, I strongly suggest that you drop the gratuitous insults and take the time to carefully explain and connect all your points of argument. Clarify WHY you believe the bizarre statement that preterism is unable to address those questions, and why futurism allegedly can. Address others the way you personally would want to be addressed if you genuinely wanted to discuss things for the sake of discovering truth.
                        I wish that you'd just admit that you were just as sarcastic and "pompous" from your initial post and that this sudden cry of indecorum coincides rather neatly with your inability to even attempt to answer my arguments at this point.

                        I do indeed follow the golden rule and if you ever muster up the ability to either make a valid point or concede that I've made mine, I shall respond accordingly. For now, I'll treat you as the whiny hater that you are.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          I guess the verse about how preterist, not finding salvation, is only found in the Darfius Approved VersionTM and not in the 'heretic' version of the Bible? Please, do tell where you found that one out at.
                          Good to see you again, pixie. I did not say that all preterists go to hell. I imagine some might be saved "as through the fire." But that's a topic for another thread.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                            Good to see you again, pixie. I did not say that all preterists go to hell. I imagine some might be saved "as through the fire." But that's a topic for another thread.
                            So a few people, who dare disagree with you, just might squeak by. How nice of you...
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                              Additionally, I'm getting dragged down a path in this thread that I didn't want to traverse. I have no intention of arguing for or against any eschatological view. I responded to your OP mostly in an effort to stop you from being such a pompous [word that'll probably get censored].
                              I think Jackass is the word you are looking for and that should be perfectly fine.

                              oh and the Amen to your post is for the last 2 paragraphs I do not agree with you that The Tower of Babel incident just a story I do accept it as history, most orthodox preterists like me do. It may only be the unorthodox, heretical full prets that don't'. I think Darfius is trying to paint us with too broad a brush and he needs understand our view before he unreasonably accuses us of not reading the bible in its full context. me thinks he is the one that isn't doing that.
                              Last edited by RumTumTugger; 12-28-2014, 10:19 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Darfius View Post
                                Not only is Revelation the only book of the Bible explicitly dealing entirely with eschatology--unlike the prophecy scattered throughout the rest of the books--but it contains an express benediction upon those who carefully read and "take to heart what is written in it." In other words, blockhead, it is of supreme importance to eschatology. Obviously.
                                I wonder what Darfius would make of the fact that Revelation was the latest book of the Bible to be accepted into the canon of scripture*, being that "it is of supreme importance to eschatology" and all....

                                *doesn't feature in Eastern Orthodox liturgy to this day
                                Last edited by OU812; 12-28-2014, 07:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X