The Second Beast of Revelation 13 - Abu Mazen

[SlyFrog]

Even if you believe in the rapture, second coming, etc., it seems so arrogant to believe it will happen in your lifetime.

[DocCathode]

@tomndebb

It depends on what you see God doing.

If you subscribe to the notion promoted by Bible Man

You should build yourself a high tech set of armor, a light saber, a talking computer, and a Bible Cave. Then, you should go forth and fight evil (in the form of cheezy cardboard villains in cheap latex make up). You should also quote scripture (being sure to give the book and the chapter and verse numbers) no less than once every thirty seconds.

[jayjay]

@DocCathode

You should build yourself a high tech set of armor, a light saber, a talking computer, and a Bible Cave. Then, you should go forth and fight evil (in the form of cheezy cardboard villains in cheap latex make up). You should also quote scripture (being sure to give the book and the chapter and verse numbers) no less than once every thirty seconds.

It also helps if you look like Willie Aames.

[asterion]

@DocCathode

Given the many Kabbalah references used in Japanese pop culture, you’re probably right.

I’m sure he is. The question is, is he talking about the summoning of Meteor or the attack I originally thought of, Supernova, where the animation basically shows Sephy destroying the entire planet (though you’d expect such an attack to deal more damage than it does.)

So the real question is, if we summon Knights of the Round six times against Abu Mazen, will that take him down? And will we have time in the middle of the battle to get up and get a sandwich?

Or if we’re going pull out bad interpretations of the Kabbalah, I want Eva 2. Though I don’t know if I could put up with its pilot.

[Wolfian]

@asterion

I’m sure he is. The question is, is he talking about the summoning of Meteor or the attack I originally thought of, Supernova, where the animation basically shows Sephy destroying the entire planet (though you’d expect such an attack to deal more damage than it does.)

Yep. Sorry about the confusion. I was actually thinking of Supernova in which Sephy knocks a comet out of its’ orbit and sends it into the sun (destroying several outer planets on its way), causing the epnoynmism supernova (which destroys Mercury), and badly burning your characters (though you’d think that the sun going supernova would, you know, kill you). This whole battle takes place because Sephiroth has triggered a doomsday scenario by summoning a giant world-destroying Meteor.

The references to Nibelhelm (the main character’s hometown) and Raganok (his ultimate weapon) set me down that path of thought.

[asterion]

Well, then again, you’d think that a dragon using a beam weapon from outer space would cause severe structural damage and that you definitely wouldn’t want to have it happen while you’re in a submarine at the bottom of the sea, but nothing happens then either.

Is anyone else really glad that Square made it possible to speed up or eliminate the cutscenes for summoning spells? And what kind of ultimate weapon deals damage depending on your HP? That makes the thing worse than useless if you take a lot of damage. The Vikings would be disgusted.

[Bible_man]

@ITR champion

I have a question.

Suppose we accept that God did in fact inspire the entire diverse collection texts now known as “the Bible”. If so, He would surely have arranged for them to be as clear as possible to human readers. Thus, he would surely have used the same word for a given person, place, or thing every time. This would give maximum clarity, whereas using multiple different words reduces clarity. Hence he would not have used three (or more) different words to designate the person now commonly known as “the Antichrist”. Instead, he would have used only one word.

Am I not right?

This is a partial list of the Names\Symbols\Descriptions given to the same Bible Character. Did God give these to confuse or to clarify?

The Alpha and Omega
The Anointed One
Our Passover Lamb
The Great Shepherd
King of Kings
Lord of Lords
Lamb of God
The Way
The Truth
The Life
The Word of God
The True Light
The True Vine
The Living Stone
The Last Adam
The Good Shepherd
The Door
The Beginning and the End
The Rock of Ages
Prince of Peace
The Physician
The Light of men
Messiah
Man of sorows
Merciful and faithful High Priest
The Morning Star
The Resurrection and the Life
The Righteous Judge
Savior of the world
Wonderful Counselor
The Wisdom and Power of God
The Living Stone
Son of the Most High God
The Master
Lord of the Sabbath
Living Bread from heaven
Light of the World
Immanuel
The Hope of Israel
The Holy One of God
Head over every power and authority
He Who searches hearts and minds
Firstborn from among the dead
Faithful and True Witness
The Chief Cornerstone
The Bridegroom
Author of Life
The Nazarene
The Bright & Morning Star
The Chief Shepherd
The Consolation of Israel
Friend of sinners
Lord of the harvest
Master
Son of Man
The Sure Foundation
The only God our Savior

[BrainGlutton]

@Bible man

This is a partial list of the Names\Symbols\Descriptions given to the same Bible Character. Did God give these to confuse or to clarify?

Not to clarify, at any rate. There has been a lot of ink spilled (not to mention the blood) over the question of whether all these names do refer to the same character – i.e., whether Jesus really is/was identical with God. It’s a settled question now – modern Catholics, Orthodoxers and most Protestants are trinitarians – but it was not always so.

[Bible_man]

@BrainGlutton

You are assuming that John the Apostle, to whom the Gospel of John and the three Epistles of John are attributed, was the same person as John of Patmos or “John the Divine,” to whom Revelation is attributed. Do you have anything to support that assumption?

The assumption is based on the fact that John was referred to as the disciple that Jesus loved and that there is no one the risen Christ would have trusted more to deliver a message to His bride than the one He entrusted with the care of His mother.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bible man

The assumption is based on the fact that John was referred to as the disciple that Jesus loved and that there is no one the risen Christ would have trusted more to deliver a message to His bride than the one He entrusted with the care of His mother.

That’s one interpretation, but there are others – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloved_disciple:

Since the Beloved Disciple does not appear in any of the other New Testament gospels, it has been traditionally seen as a self-reference to John the Evangelist. The gospel writer indicates (in John 20:24) that the Beloved Disciple is testifying to the accounts told in John’s gospel. Others see John the Apostle as the Beloved Disciple. An issue in the identification of the Beloved Disciple with John is whether the apostle is the same man as John the Evangelist (please see the Authorship of the Johannine works for more information on this unresolved issue).

Other interpretations contend the disciple whom Jesus loved refers to a different individual. It has been suggested the Beloved Disciple was Mary Magdalene, although John 20 has these two figures together and Jesus tells his mother the Beloved Disciple is her son.

Another more recent interpretation draws from the Secret Gospel of Mark. In this interpretation, two scenes from Secret Mark and one at Mark 14:51-52 feature the same young man or youth who is unnamed but seems closely connected to Jesus. As the account in Secret Mark details a raising from the dead very similar to Jesus raising of Lazarus in John 11:38-44, the young man is identified as Lazarus and fixed as the Beloved Disciple. There are two main theories as to what the figure of the young man might imply, both of which are controversial. The first is that Jesus is initiating either a real or a symbolic figure into a mystery religion (implying that the original form of Christianity was a mystery religion). The second is that Jesus and the young man have a homosexual relationship, which is described euphemistically as an initiation rite when what is actually involved is sex. This second theory then supports the idea that Jesus was what we would today refer to as gay or bisexual. Thus, the Beloved Disciple is meant to be Jesus’ boyfriend.

I find the latter theory strangely persuasive. After all, this was Jesus – he loved everybody, right? All his disciples, all his enemies, and everybody else in the whole world. Why single out one disciple as “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” unless there was something, you know, special about their relationship?

Furthermore, there is some controversy over whether “John the Disciple” is the same person as “John the Evangelist,” even if you don’t throw “John of Patmos” into the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

[Bible_man]

@BrainGlutton

That’s one interpretation, but there are others – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloved_disciple:

I find the latter theory strangely persuasive. After all, this was Jesus – he loved everybody, right? All his disciples, all his enemies, and everybody else in the whole world. Why single out one disciple as “the Disciple whom Jesus loved” unless there was something, you know, special about their relationship?

Furthermore, there is some controversy over whether “John the Disciple” is the same person as “John the Evangelist,” even if you don’t throw “John of Patmos” into the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works

-Jesus quoted, taught from, and endorsed all the writings of Moses, the Law, and the prophets. All their writings condemn homosexuality, calling it an
“abomination”, and point those who engage in such practices to God’s judgement of Sodom and Gommorah. If Jesus endorsed those writings as being true and reliable, He could not act oppositely to their teachings without being disqualified as the Messiah (the Passover Lamb must be without blemish ie, no sin).

-The type of love in the case of John was “agape” and resulted from John’s more complete surrender of his life to Christ. John began as one whom Jesus called one of the “sons of thunder”, who desired to call down fire from heaven on a town of Samaritans who had rejected Christ. He ended as one of the most compassionate because of his close walk with Christ; he took on Christ’s character. This extra closeness is exhibited in the marked spiritual depth of his gospel over the synoptics. He doesn’t just relay the accounts of Christ’s 3-year ministry in his gospel, he reveals the much deeper spiritual meanings behind the events. This greater love for Christ also enabled him to overcome his fear and be the only disciple to stand with Christ at the foot of the cross.

-The writings you mentioned were\are deemed spurious and not accepted in the Canon of Scripture that we possess. The books that compose the Bible are there because they form an integrated, consistent message, without contradictions, from beginning to end.

-There has always been ongoing speculation about whether certain writings should be included in the Canon of the Scriptures. One thing is for sure, many people risked and sacrificed their lives to assemble and disseminate the Bible that we now have. They absolutely considered it to be the inspired and innerrant Word of God, and were willing to be tortured and killed for that belief. I doubt that the writings you mentioned would motivate anyone to buy an extra tank of gas to distribute them around town or to bear the pain of neighbors and friends shunning them because they believed them to be true. The plain fact is, that no one is willing to suffer for what they know to be a useless lie.

-Getting back to the thread, despite who penned the book, the Revelation is Christ’s, was given to Him by God the Father, and was for dissemination to the churches (Rev1:1). The real author of the book is God Himself. Which John wrote it down for us is of little importance. The substance of the book, however, is of great importance to believers.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Bible man-The type of love in the case of John was “agape” . . . [/QUOTE]

My mind reels with obscene puns . . . say, what ever happened to Goatse?

[jayjay]

@Bible man

-There has always been ongoing speculation about whether certain writings should be included in the Canon of the Scriptures. One thing is for sure, many people risked and sacrificed their lives to assemble and disseminate the Bible that we now have. They absolutely considered it to be the inspired and innerrant Word of God, and were willing to be tortured and killed for that belief. I doubt that the writings you mentioned would motivate anyone to buy an extra tank of gas to distribute them around town or to bear the pain of neighbors and friends shunning them because they believed them to be true. The plain fact is, that no one is willing to suffer for what they know to be a useless lie.

I’ve never quite understood this particular argument for the accuracy of scripture or Christian belief. People died for Christianity and the Bible…so? People have died and been martyred for just about every belief system ever created. If we follow this logic (that people dying for a belief = belief’s accuracy and truth) then the suicide bombers should witness the accuracy and truth of extremist Islam and hatred for Israel, right? When are you converting, Bible Man?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bible man

The assumption is based on the fact that John was referred to as the disciple that Jesus loved and that there is no one the risen Christ would have trusted more to deliver a message to His bride than the one He entrusted with the care of His mother.

There is nothing anywhere in the NT which identifies the “Beloved Disciple” as John and nothing which identifies either of them as the author of anything.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bible man

-Jesus quoted, taught from, and endorsed all the writings of Moses, the Law, and the prophets. All their writings condemn homosexuality, calling it an
“abomination”, and point those who engage in such practices to God’s judgement of Sodom and Gommorah. If Jesus endorsed those writings as being true and reliable, He could not act oppositely to their teachings without being disqualified as the Messiah (the Passover Lamb must be without blemish ie, no sin).

Do you eat pork? Do you wear cotton blends? Isn’t there supposed to be a new covenant now?

By the way, you’re completely wrong in your assertion that “all their writings” condemn homosexuality. There is only one verse which appears to address homosexuality (Leviticus) and it is debatable whether that verse really condemns all homosexuality per se or whether it is only a condemnation of certain Canaanite cultic temple practices. The judgement Sodom and Gomorrah was for inhospitality, not homosexuality, and neither Jesus nor anyomne else in the NT had anything to say about it.

There has always been ongoing speculation about whether certain writings should be included in the Canon of the Scriptures. One thing is for sure, many people risked and sacrificed their lives to assemble and disseminate the Bible that we now have. They absolutely considered it to be the inspired and innerrant Word of God, and were willing to be tortured and killed for that belief.

People die for all kinds of religious beliefs all the time [cough…9/11…cough]. So what?

Incidentally, there isn’t a shred of historical evidence that direct followers of Jesus were martyred for their beliefs or even that a single apostle ever claimed to ahve witnessed Jesus perform a miracle or come back from the dead.

[Bible_man]

@BrainGlutton

Not to clarify, at any rate. There has been a lot of ink spilled (not to mention the blood) over the question of whether all these names do refer to the same character – i.e., whether Jesus really is/was identical with God. It’s a settled question now – modern Catholics, Orthodoxers and most Protestants are trinitarians – but it was not always so.

You were able to identify the Bible Character as Jesus from that list of names itles \descriptions, yet none of them uses His Name directly. This indicates that the Bible’s use of various symbols, names, and descriptions for the same entity leads to clarity and not confusion, which was your original premise.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Incidentally, there isn’t a shred of historical evidence that direct followers of Jesus were martyred for their beliefs or even that a single apostle ever claimed to ahve witnessed Jesus perform a miracle or come back from the dead.

Well, there’s that bit in Josephus’s Antiquities, about the killing of James, brother of Jesus. Isn’t that considered authentic?

[FriarTed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

neither Jesus nor anyomne else in the NT had anything to say about it.

About what? Homosexuality or that S&G were destroyed for that?

RE the former, Paul in Romans 1 & I Corinthians 6- may be pagan cultic practices or it may be just gay sex that he condemns- Church Tradition accepted by Catholic & Orthodox & Reformed Churches have held the latter until recent generations.

AS to S&G being destroyed for that- I agree with you. But it wasn’t just “inhospitality”- it was gang-rape, which I think we all might agree that a society which allows that deserves the ol’ fire & brimstone treatment.

RE Leviticus 18- does it forbid incest or just Canaanite-cult-related incest?

And Jesus doesn’t mention gay sex because it wasn’t a debatable issue to his Jewish audience- he doesn’t condemn incest or bestiality either (not to equate them, but he doesn’t) because there was a clear Jewish consensus.

When Paul went to evangelize our heathen ancestors tho…

[FriarTed]

@Captain Amazing

Well, there’s that bit in Josephus’s Antiquities, about the killing of James, brother of Jesus. Isn’t that considered authentic?

Oddly enough, Josephus doesn’t tell us why the High Priest Ananus has James killed. That’s in Eusebius citing Hegissipus I think.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

All of the various names for God and Jesus are unambiguously identified as such within the text. I’m not sure why you think this is a convincing proof for anything anyway. The fact that one entuty has multiple names in the bible does not prove that you can therefore connect any other two names you want. There is absolutely no reason to conflate the “antichrists” (plural) mentioned in the Epistles of John with the Beast of Revelation (AKA the Emperor Domitian). They are completely different entities.