Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

What do you think will occur during the great end battle?

All the nations of the earth will combine against Israel.

Israel will hold off their attacks mainly through miracles performed by two prophets who will preach in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 years.

At that point, the prophets will be killed through the power of Satan and their bodies will lay in the streets for 3 days while the world rejoices and most of Jerusalem is burned.

At 3 and a half days, they will be resurrected and ascend into heaven, an event that will be witnessed worldwide.

The Jews will be forced to flee to a mountain (the name escapes me now) and are trapped.

Jesus will arrive, split the mountain in two (allowing the Jews to escape), and He will destroy the armies gathered to fight against the Jews.

The Jews will look towards their Deliverer to praise Him and thank Him for saving them.

They'll notice the wounds in His hands and feet and realize that it is Jesus, the very One they crucified and refused to accept centuries before, and they'll weep.

Jesus will usher in a 2000 year period of worldwide peace.

Good times had by all (most).

_________________

Mt. Sinai?

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

When the great battle comes, I hope to see my friends. I will do my best to join the Israelites in their fight, but who's to say that I won't fall pray to the earlier onslaughts of the devil and his forces? If the battle happens in my lifetime, I will drop everything to search for those who will join the battle on the side of good.

What exactly do you think it will be like if you were there?

Eh!Steveo! is that you?
welp, it will all be one huge Firey meltation when the sun grows huge.

_________________

I don't believe there will be one. I believe that some large catharsis of the political, cultural, and spiritual oppositions that I have been noticing rise steadily will come at some point this century (hey, maybe those 2012 guys are right?), but I don't think it will be the end of the human race or anything--I think it will be a dramatic change in the way we all live and see each other, a great leap in our overall maturity, even if at the cost of countless lives in war.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I agree with that. This planet is stressed out. We need to release this tension some way. I hope it is in a peaceful manner. I don't think the world is going to end, I think it will keep going until the sun goes out in another 4.5 billion years.

_________________

My personal views of the Book of Relevation are that it was likely already fufilled in a sense, that this is a fufilled prophecy.

I'm inclined to believe from reading the book that the visions were highly symbolic of the Roman Empire and its persecution of Christians, that the prophecy fortells--at the time it was written--of a bright future when the Roman Empire would collapse and Christians would be free to practice their religion in peace. After all, it was under the Roman government that Jesus was executed, and until Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313, Christians got it bad.

Where does this fit with the battle of Armegeddon as prophecied? As I understand it, there was a gathering of the Roman army at this Armegeddon, as a staging ground for one of their assaults on Jerusalem in the latter 100's.

_________________

I tend to agree with Trev. Many of the events described in Revelation were very likely fulfilled in the early centuries of the church. For example, there is a very strong case that the Mark of the Beast (666) was an indirect reference to Nero and the cult of emperor worship that he started during his reign, and continued until the time of Constantine.

_________________

Is Revelations 11 included in your "many of the events"?

_________________

Much of what is written in Revelation is cryptic and hard to understand. But that part about the earthquake in the city could be a reference to the earthquake that nearly destroyed Antioch in the 4th century, killing thousands of Christian pilgrims during a holy feast.

But what we do know is that the Beast from Revelation 13 is Rome. We know this from Daniel, who described four great beasts: a Lion (Babylon), a Bear (Persia), a Leopard (Greece under Alexander the Great), and a Terrible Beast with multiple heads and horns. Now, a little history goes a long way. Although Daniel never reveals the name of that last beast, Rome is the most obvious answer to that riddle, since they were the next great empire in the succession to rule over the Holy Land.

Further, we can be fairly sure that 666 is a reference to Nero based on the alternate reading, 616. Nero's name, if transcribed into Hebrew and the letters converted to corresponding numbers, adds up to 666. But if you transcribe it into Greek characters and do the same, it adds up to 616. John tended to think in Hebrew, even when he wrote in Greek. But certainly, his Greek-speaking readers would have caught the reference.

_________________

Aside from the obvious fact that the seven-headed beast alludes to the Emperors of Rome, isn't it also true that there's seven hills in the city of Rome? At least, from the time of the Empire ...

_________________

The "Armagedon" refered to in The Book of Revelations DOES NOT refer to a coming event. The events mentioned in Revelation 16:17-21 refer to the events that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It's not even special that the author is describing the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, considering he probably lived about three hundered years later.

The book you call "Revelations" (the actual title of the book is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ ... unto his servant John") is written in the style known as "apocalyptic literature." This style was a new genre of prophetical writing that developed in post-Exilic Jewish culture and was popular among millennialist early Christians. I could go on forever in describing what "apocalyptic literature" is becasue it's very, very far removed from any style of liturature that you are lilely to be familiar with. However, there's one thing that "apocalyptic literature" is not, and that's prophecy.

Nearly all theologins who have examined this book using the critical methodology (as opposed to merly doctrinal or literalist methodoloy) have concluded that any meaning one is to take from the passages is so obscured that it's value as a work for moral guidance, or ethical instuction, or spiritual edification is essentialy null and void. The idea that a book could contain a prophecy fortelling some distant future calamity flies in the face of what we know of how divine revelation works. On top of that, the book reads like a fabricated fairy tale. The work has more paralles with Gnostic liturature than with the Epistles or the Gospels, or even the non-biblical works atributyed to the early church fathers.
More than that, the idea that Revelations details the end of the world directly contradicts the words of Jesus. Mat; 25:13-WATCH THEREFORE, FOR YE KNOW NEITHER THE DAY NOR THE HOUR WHEREIN THE SON OF MAN COMETH. That's right, you don't know: Jesus said so. Put that in your bible and stroke it.

Frankly, speculating on how the world shows me that you've missed the point entierly. Did not get the message about eternal life? Were you away during the seminar on the golden rule? Did you miss the section detailing the Sermon On The Mount? Do I have to assign you extra "Ten Commandments" homework? If so, you can start with an reflection on "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and work your way up from there.

_________________

Actually, John lived during that time (he died around 93 AD). Where in the world do you get this "three hundred years later" stuff from?


Actually, as I understand it, the critical method essentially discounts the whole idea of divine revelation to begin with. In other words, it begins with the false assumption that this is not prophetic, and then proceeds to tell us how we should understand it apart from it being divinely inspired. I would ask you, then, as someone who seems to trust the critical method, according to your perspective, exactly how does divine revelation work?

As for apocalyptic literature in general, you do have some valid points: apocalyptic literature does tend to speak in sort of a coded language, drawing on prophetic sources for imagery. However, this does not necessarily nullify its value as either prophetic or moral instruction.


Whom exactly are you addressing with this?

But I will give you this: modern people should concern themselves less with trying to decypher the End Times and more time concerning themselves with living according to God's will in this day and age, regardless of whether it is the Last Day or not. Martin Luther was once asked the question, "If you knew that Jesus was coming back tomorrow, what would you do today?" And he answered, "I'd plant a tree." His point? That the Lord has not called us to concern ourselves with knowing the future, but with living our lives today.

_________________

You're got the wrong John there, buddy. You're thinking of John the Apostle, I'm refring to the one who wrote the last book fo tghe bible. Not the same person at all.


No, you've got it backwards. Critical reasoning begins with NO asumptions, while literalism asumes that everything witten in the Bible is litteraly true. Fundamentalism just plain makes it up as it goes along.

I said that Revelations flies in the face of what we know of how divine revelation works. I didn't say I know exactly how it works. If you want my honest option on the matter, I don't agree with the notion that the writers of the bible (especialy John) dictated their works as if it was dictated to them from on high. That complete nonsenese.
Perhaps one man is wiser than another, certainly some are saner than others, and I know some are less deluded than others. What tips me off (and I'm not alone on this) about Revelation being so much fantasy and mystic crap is all the fantasy elements and the copious ammounts of mystic crap in it. I mean, really: What other book of the bible could you turn into a pshycadelic avant-gaurd student film without altering the text?
In no other book of the bible does god purportedly talk to us in language we can't understand. Every other time God speaks in the bible it's very clear, no ambiguity, no cryptic baloony.


Sure it does. It has too: There isn't any moral or ethical or spirtual instruction in the whole work (Barring the short section in the first chapter, which most literary scientists agree was not written by the same author, but rather was tacked on later) so I don't see how you can say it's moral instruction isn't nullified. It;s hard to nullify something that's not there in the first place. Nada. Ziltch. None of the above.

Nobody makes any point about how one should live, nobody says that something is a good to do or exponds on a principle one should take to heart. There's just punishment for those that are wicked and eternal rejoicing for the saved. That's not moral or ethical instruction, that's fearmongering and mystic nonsense.


Sorry, there was a typo in there. That should have read:
<Frankly, speculating on how the world ends shows me that you've missed the point entierly. Did not get the message about eternal life? Were you away during the seminar on the golden rule? Did you miss the section detailing the Sermon On The Mount? Do I have to assign you extra "Ten Commandments" homework? If so, you can start with an reflection on "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and work your way up from>
So, I was adressing all of you who were wasting time discussing how your end-of-the-world fanatasy will play out.


Yeah, especialy since there's nothing to decipher. Well, nothing that applies to anthything past the first century, anyways.

Oh, and you do realise that the whole idea of "Secret Knowledge" lying hidden in the Book Of Revelations is a herasy, don't you? There is no secret knowedge. If you don't understand the books of the bible, that doesn't give you the right to start making stuff up. That's the Jehova Witnesses job. (and also the Moromons, the Scientoligists, and the Republicans.)


Now there's a point that hits the mark. It's more important that Jesus can live in you, through what you do, than anything else you might learn or know or see. Don't waste time with speculation about the fantastic when the mundane aspects of everyday life can be so much more rewarding. I'd not have spent any time on the subject myself, but it's actualy a very dangerous heresy: Like all Gnostic heresys, it gets you to think that the world has some secret to it. That undercuts everything Jesus taught becasue he already gave us everything we need to know.

_________________

Actually buddy, while some people argue that these Johns are different people, the traditional view is that they are the same person. Either way, it's not definitive enough to be calling other people wrong over it. Also, everyone pretty much agrees it was written sometime between 68-96 AD.



Frankly, I find this more than a little religiously insensitive and uneducated, and to be honest, a bit offensive.

_________________

Thank you Didy. That is basically the point that people miss when they become so wrapped up in the Endtimes. Two factors are often overlooked when trying to put some sort of date on them or on idividual events.

First off, Jesus said the the second coming would be like "a thief in the night" - at a time nobody expects it to. Regardless, it will come in acordance with the perfect timing of God's plan, so "trying to bring Armagedon" or predicting dates doesn't hold much value.

Another thing is this: Jesus stated that the end times will be during an era in which there is famine, earthquakes, wars, rumors of wars, widespread evil and wickedness, and more (Matthew 24 if you want to check it out.) Hmm... that sounds familiar. Those things are happening now! But wait, they were also happening a hundred years ago. And a thousand years ago. In fact, these events have always been occuring during the couse of history. The gist of his message is this: he is coming back at any moment, so be prepared for it, and don't be found faithless when he returns. We are called to live our lives as Christ would have, just as we have always been called to do.

_________________

aside from all the speculation, If you did believe in the final battle, What do you think it would be like? This thread refers to the battle itself, not the speculation that it won't happen, or has already. If you do have a description on what you think will happen, please mention, if not: I don't really care.

So, that being said: let's get the ball rolling instead of popping it.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IT WOULD LOOK LIKE?

Oh I strongly disagree. The literary criticism I've read places this book being written far outside that time period. Natualy this doesn't agree with your "the traditional view" that you cite, but that's not surprising.


You've got to be kidding me. The JW's are a cult who's bible reads like a badly written comic-book, the Mormons were founded by a known con artist, the Scientologists were founded by a failing Sci-Fi writer who realised he could make money by founding his own religion (and that's exactly what he did), the current incarnation of Republicans the most successfull tellers of untruths known to man, and you're offended but my quote about how they make stuff up?

_________________

What I love is how it's just fine to attack Christian faiths, but if you go after Muslims, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, whatever, you're a bigot.

Way to show your true colors, Sarge.

_________________

Sorry, the data I got was from Wikipedia, so it was probably incorrect and biased. It is interesting to note there that they cite people debating the authenticity of the book as far back as 165 AD. This strikes me as a bit unusual, since you claim the book wasn't written for at least 150 years after that date.

And to be honest, I'm a bit too ticked off about the rest of your post to respond to the last part rationally. I just think you are showing an appalling lack of respect for others.

_________________

Well, it's certainly open to debate. Literary criticism isn't an exact science, and we since we don't have the original text you can't just carbon-date the thing and be done with it. It's entirely possible that I've beed the victim of a convincing (yet false) argument regarding the 300-year mark. Still, the way the author writes the text and the similarity between his style and the style of others writing around 300 AD seems fairly convincing to me.

_________________

I wasn't attacking the christians. I was attacking religion in general and the cultic spin-off of christianity in passing. If you knew anything about the four cults I denounced, you'd know that only the Mormons bear any resemblance to Christianity in it's theology or ideology.
The JW's bear the trappings of christianity on the surface, but they're really the development a doomsday cult that was founded in the 1870s. They are constantly re-imaging themselves: If you look at JW doctrinal literature from even as recently as the 1970's, it's signifigantly different from what the JW's doctrinal liturature says now. If you examine their liturature all the way back to their origins, you'll see them for what they really are.
The Scientologists aren't even remotely connected to christianity; They're a completely made-up religion. Made up out of whole cloth by L. Ron Hubbard becasue he was getting about a penny-a-word as a sci-fi writter and he decided that founding his own religion was much more profitable. Aparantly, beliving that Humans evolved from clams, that aliens who blew up volcanoes with hydrogen bombs are now the casue of all evil in the world... this passes for a beliveable bassis for faith amongst some people.
The Mormons are a bit more of a grey area. They operate like conventinal chruch for the most part, and as they've progressed they've beome more and more mainstream in their practices and beliefs. However, knowing what I do about their theology, I have to say that I can't offer them much more respect than I do the JWs or the Scientologists. There's good evidence that the whole "Book Of Mormon" is an utter fabrication, even evidence that the author, Smith, plagurised some parts of it from other works.
The republicans... oh hell, they're just evil. Two rigged elections, war under false pretenses, propaganda 24/7 on Fox News, co-opting the fundamentalist right-wing christians for their own purposes, robbing the treasury seemingly at will... what can I say about these guys? They are very good at lying.

_________________

You are bitter, sarge. You are a Tumor on the back of society. I only say this because you seem to have no preferences at all. You are a bully of the scholars world. You strive to prove each and every person wrong while saying you are correct. Granted that you have good points at some times, you're still not a welcomed part in a debate where a side must be taken. I don't understand why you have nothing better to do then criticize the intellect of others, but such behavior is not to be accepted in this realm of thought. If you wish to idolize yourself, I suggest that you for your own thread.

Thank you.

The evidence I have suggests they are one and the same person. Linguistic evidence, first and foremost. St. John, it is known, was not exactly what you would call a Greek language scholar. One of the characteristics of his writings is that, though he uses Greek words, he often resorts to Hebrew idioms and syntax. This characteristic is found in Revelation as well.

Incidentally, here are some Papyrus Fragments of Revelation, dated to the late 3rd Century (about 200 years before your cited estimates): http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/vo ... s/4499.htm.
and
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/vo ... s/4500.htm


If it is TRULY critical. However, most of the “critical” scholars I have studied do in fact begin with the assumption that the Scriptures are not divinely inspired. The interesting thing is that manuscript evidence, as well as textual critical studies, are starting to prove some of the assumptions of the historical critical method incorrect. For example, papyri fragments are showing that the writings of the apostles were written far earlier than historical critical scholars were willing to acknowledge early on. I believe it was Trog-Dork who once claimed that the Gospel of John was written in the 4th century, when there is a fragment of a papyrus dating to the early 2nd century. Even when I pointed out his error and even posted a link to the papyrus, he refused to admit he was mistaken. But Trog-Dork was an extreme example of someone who claimed to be strictly critical, and yet operated under numerous incorrect assumptions.


That’s funny. None of the scholars that I know have ever claimed it was written at a later date. And I’ve studied under some of them. Can you cite me a name of a scholar I can consult to verify that this is indeed the consensus of textual scholars? Dr. Brighton, Dr. Gibbs, and Dr. Kloha of Concordia St. Louis, as well as Dr. Blackburn of Atlanta Christian College, might take exception.


Funny, I don’t remember “secret knowledge” being one of the key ideas that we are supposed to learn from Revelation. In case you missed it, there are three central themes to Revelation: (1) Christ is coming back, (2) we don’t know when, and (3) be ready. Now, the language used is somewhat cryptic, but this isn’t “secret knowledge.” These are central ideas in Christian theology, discussed in plenty elsewhere in Scripture.


Who said anything about making stuff up? What I’m talking about is understanding the book in its historical context, knowing the history of the time period, understanding some of the idioms that St. John used in his writing. I am convinced that he was writing for the church of his day, not primarily for the 21st century. As such, I contend the book is better understood in its early context, but that it still offers application for the church today. We are still waiting for Christ to return. He could come any day now. And we are to live out what he has called us to do here on earth in the mean time.

_________________

The thing is, we do know about stuff. You aren't more educated than the rest of us. [sidenote: Republicans are a cult?] None of your attacks contain any new or revolutionary information. And based off your attacks against Mormonism, I can tell that at least in that regard, almost all of your information is 3rd hand at best, and hardly conclusive. For instance, you have recited decades-old attacks against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that been refuted multiple times as if there was never any response to the criticism. You state that there is good evidence that the whole thing is garbage. I paraphrased there. But you don't mention that most of that evidence has been adequately refuted, and that there is lots of evidence that the Book and Joseph Smith are exactly what they claim to be. Of course, I don't suppose you have done any actual research to find this kind of stuff out. I'm not saying the book is closed one way or the other, but there has been loads of additional scholarship on both the sides of Mormonism and against it that has moved on way beyond what you are claiming here. I only present this as evidence that you have a tendancy to read something that you like, and assume that is the end all of the subject. It's direct proof to everyone else that a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Oh, and to paint the toast, lahimatoa, if I remember right, it's supposed to be the Mount of Olives that splits in two.

_________________

Sarge, you go on my hate list.

I suggest that you lay off Sarge and stop flaming. Save that for PMs, man. Toastpaint.

_________________
Dag, yo.

I only state why I started this thread: I didn't start it to argue, I wanted it to be a friendly "Imagine this" thread. I only wished to try and see what others thought the end battle would be like, not to start a debate on wheather it would happen, or for some guy to say: You're stupid cause I think you're wrong. Now, please: stop with this pointless arguing, life is too short.