Talk:Armageddon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] The Anti-Christ
The Anti-Christ is speaking in Aramaic in the book Celestine Prophecy is coming to TV in Mar. 2006.The beast will be released on TV by James&Sally Redfield by using synchronicity which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics of disorder,chaos,heat death Carl Jung said snychronicity is from the deamon Mercurius who in the west is the DEVIL w
I kept the information on Armageddon, the theological concept, and Megiddo, the ancient city and battle (and redirected Megiddo to here) because I felt they were intimately related, that to inform about Megiddo, you needed to describe Armageddon, and vice versa, so why not keep them together, instead of separate entries? Ortolan88Jun 02
Theoretically a good idea, however Megiddo (and Megiddo Junction, the bus terminus) are viable geographical locations which have no mythological associations e.g. if you wished to discuss the recent suicide bombing at Megiddo it is markedly unhelpful to do so in the context of Armageddon. Perhaps these two could be simply disentangled with a marker between them, i.e. in Armageddon mention its relationship to Megiddo and link it and, of course, vice versa. sjc
So that's why not. I agree.
I'll do it like this Armageddon will ref Battle of Megiddo and vice versa. Reserve Megiddo (currently redirected) for contemporary Meggido, about which I know nothing. (I don't think demons from hell will be showing up any time soon, but it is kind of neat, don't you think, first battle/last battle?) I started on this because the entry on Armageddon as I found it didn't even mention the Battle of Megiddo!Ortolan88
[edit] Sin vs. Filth
This is an article (from a mostly Christian perspective) about a future event. The Christian perspective is not that the Earth is filth or covered with filth. It is a world fallen from the perfection of it's creation and existing in rebellion to God, i.e. sin. The world as created was good (c.f. Genisis ch. 1 & 2 where God repeats "...and it was good." after each phase of creation. Treat as allegory if needed.) The Earth and the things in it are good, not filth. Yet it will all be destroyed because of sin. This is a Biblical perspective on a future Biblical event (or allegory). This is not Zoroastrian stuff and I am not the one who made the original edit that you corrected. And with the exception of this one word I agree with your edit. However if you still have problems with this, please respond here and lets reach a consensus.
Thanks! - DavidR 13:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You should have just changed that one word from my edit. I thought you were trying to reinsert the Zoroastrian baloney (which your edit had the effect of doing), since that was all I remember changing. That stuff was all I had a problem with; there's no problem with your latest edit. --168.215.149.103 06:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Zoroastrian baloney? It is because of POV "scholars" like you I've given up on Wikipedia. Either you're innocently ignorant of Zoroastrian doctrine and its influence upon eschatology, or you're protesting too much, unable to reconcile comparative religion with your own faith. It deserves to at least be listed in 'see also'. End times, coming of a world redeemer, battle between good and evil, final judgement, fulfillment of prophesy. No, certainly Zoroastrian "baloney" has not the slightest relavence to this article. The focus should remain on the Christian belief of course; but Zoroastrian references seem suspiciously lacking considering Bahá'í and Rastafarian ones are included. I'm sorry and ashamed if I've drawn the wrong conclusions and displayed bad faith in my opinions, thereby unduly judging user's motives. 68.32.211.183 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Church of Ouzo
There are two words that are original to the book of Revelation: "Nicolaitanes" and "Armageddon". Christ said he hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. "Nicolaitanes" is an anagram for "O satanic line," a reference to the beast line of the Ouzo Cross (see"The Ouzo Prophecy"). Armageddon is the location of the final battle between good and evil. "Armageddon" is an anagram for "Dame Dragon," a generalized personification of evil, similar to other generalized personifications such as Mother Nature and Lady Luck. Anagrams are related to gematria in that both are number/letter codes, anagrams being based on ordinal numbers and gematria on cardinal numbers.
Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo
bobevenson@yahoo.com ___________________________________________________________________
Even if this "numerology" and "gematria" stuff were true, they wouldn't be amagrams IN ENGLISH. Let's get serious and do what's best for the article and not push crank theories. _____________________________________________________________________
The book of Revelation was written for all peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues, and since English is becoming a universal language, I believe the book of Revelation, as translated and edited as of 1946 in the KJV, was indeed written for an English-speaking audience. This is not a crank theory, O my brothers in tribulation.
Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo
bobevenson@yahoo.com
[edit] Armageddon Clock
Is such a section suitable for this article or a new article with this subject should be created?
Any way we can link this to the George W. Bush article? ;)
- No.
That clock is a load of bull. As it says in the Bible, no one can predict the exact time. So that whole clock is a. educated guesses based on current conflict and possible outcomes, or b. made by people who are joking around. --66.218.22.85 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
~~ True. Nowhere in the Bible is there a reference to an "Armageddon Clock". It mentions signs of end times, but no clocks. Also, look at the parables that Christ gave about the end sneaking up on man like a thief in the night. I can't remember the exact quote, but when asked by his apostles what will the end be like, Christ explained people will still be giving into marriage til the very end - which implies that people will still be living their normal lives til the end. You have to be careful how you analyse things, because we have so many "heretics" sprung up out of people analysing the same text. There are prophecies by Fathers of the chruch who predicted things as well which do not contradict the Revelation, but rather enlightens the analysis giving into account current political state of affairs. ApplesnPeaches ~~
[edit] JW's
I intend to cleanup this section soon, no references, many incorrect assumptions. george m
[edit] Judgement day?
This is a realted subject but may need its' own article. Aynone care to comment? George 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
~~ I think you're right. It should have it's own topic. Judgement Day and the War of Armageddon are not the same topics. Maybe a link to both topics could be added at the bottom of both pages? ApplesnPeaches ~~
[edit] "the" antichrist is not a person
How many times have the conspiracy theorists tried to make the ridiculous claim that a certain politician is the antichrist? This was common when Reagan was president based on the childish belief that each of his names -- Ronald Wilson Reagan -- contained 6 letters, hence the 666 (mistakenly referred to as the sign of the devil, which it is not -- it's the sign of man, taken in relation to the perfect 777, which is God).
The antichrist -- or "the Beast" which is the more appropriate term, is or will be, in my opinion, a nation. If we consider that possibility that the beast is on the planet today, it would likely be the nation of Islam, based on their unquenchable thirst for innocent blood.
Trying to connect George W. Bush with "the antichrist" is not even good enough to be considered sophistry.
Well, he technically is. the antichrist is supposed to be a leader who gains trust by everyone. That rules out George Bush.
- What people believe can be amusing. Jesus plainly stated that there were many antichrists and that there would be many antichrists. Anyone who tries to take the place of Jesus as the means of salvation by God is an antichrist. Reading the Bible would make that plain. George 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Can we please try to keep this scholarly?
- If we stick to the text, by which I mean Revelations, the designation har megiddo, meaning mountain of Megiddo, might simply be poetic usage, much as the word mount is used in English Bible translations to mean any place of raised earth.
- Nuttyskin 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I don;t know what you mean by your comments, could you elaborate? BTW I thought I was being scholarly by pointing out what the text of the Bible says about the antichrist. I think this is the source of the term. George 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
You are being scholary? I understand from your "...it would likely be the nation of Islam..." that you consider yourself a representative of Christianity. very well. all this discussion is under the the heading of the antichrist. unquenchable thirst for innocent blood? just like cannot and do not present george bush as a model Christian, we do not forward some radical groups as ideal Muslim. secondly, plz tell me, what do you know about the Islamic concept of armageddon? and Antichrist? ANTIchrist? you seem quite a scholar. pick a copy of Koran and find me one verse about Jesus in Koran that you disagree to. and as to the definition you give of term anti-christ, tell me WHY do you expect Jesus to be the last Prophet? arnt u following the Jews on the same path considering what they think of Jesus?
~~ What I think George may be trying to convey is: Well according to the Christian Bible, Christ is not a prophet, He is the Son of God. As Christ said: Only through Me can someone get to the Father. Therefore, it seems that George is a Christian. So, as a Christian the term Anti-Christ refers to anyone that tries to take Christ's place in religion. Christ said you can only have one master, which also implies, you're either with God - the right path, or against God - on the wrong path. So, Anti-Christ is anyone or anything (ideology like communism) that tries to take over God and Jesus Christ's role in your religious life. I think that's where George is coming from. Am I right? A historical example of this theory, perhaps is: During the Turkish Ottoman Occupation, for the Christians of the occupied territories, the Turkish faith of Islam (muhamedans) was likened to the Anti-Christ because it was enforced as a superior faith. To those people, it was the end times. It was the end of their world. See the Byzantines and the fall of Constantinople. ApplesnPeaches ~~
- Who are you talking to? BTW your ID shows up in the changes. George 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
~~ But the Book of Revelations, the Apocalypse, states that he is a person. And that his name is not printed in the Bible not to give him the honour of being mentioned. Also, I have read in the Bible that there will be many "antichrists" but one most terrible and he will appear to serve satans final battle against christianity. This is not heresay, it's in the Bible of which this whole theory is discussed. So, to say he is not a person is incorrect. Hence: "Wise is he that deciphers his name". Also interesting to note that no one will be able to buy or sell without his name marked on each person - the barcoding system uses the code 666 in it - although I have read that, when questioned, officials don't have an answer as to why this code is used - they reply it's an international code. Can someone ellaborate on this? Sounds like people will eventually be forced to take on their body a type of bar coding system or insert a chip that reads a code of some sort. Applesnpeaches~~
[edit] Difference?
What the difference between this and apocalypse?
- Apocalypse is the English rendering of the Catholic name for the Bible book commonly referred to as Revelation. It means 'uncovering'. So to answer your question, no. The word apocalypse has had its' meaning corrupted over the years so the misunderstanding is understandable. :D George 18:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
~~ About George's comment: Sorry, that's terribly wrong. Apocalypse is a Greek word that means TO REVEAL. Hence the term used in English is Book of Revelations and in the Greek version of the bible it's still called: Apocalypse (Pronounced: Apokalipsi). As for the topic question, what do you mean? The difference between Armageddon and Apocalypse? Armageddon is the final battle and Apocalypse is the name of the chapter in the bible dealing with the Revelations or Predictions of future occurrences. ApplesnPeaches~~
-
- AnP, what the hell are you talking about? "uncover" and "reveal" are synonyms.KrytenKoro 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
~~ You sound angered. What I was referring to was: (quote from George's comment: "Apocalypse is the English rendering of the Catholic name for the Bible book commonly referred to as Revelation..."). What I was saying is that apocalypse is not an English rendering of the Catholic title, but it's the Greek term for Revelation/Reveal. As far as I was aware, the English version of the bible also uses: Book of Revelation. Nowhere am I arguing that reveal and uncover are different. I put Greek in caps so that it was obvious that I was referring to origin of the term. Also, note that the Book of Revelations was written on the isle of Patmos in Greece. Hope this clarifies. ApplesnPeaches~~
[edit] List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armageddon does not seem to be part of the Catholic Church catechism.
[edit] Jehovah Witnesses
The amount of material about the Jehovah Witnesses seems way out of proportion to me. There should be something about Dispensationalism, since this probably the interpretation that has had the greatest impact on in recent times, with the Hal Lindsey books and so forth. Also, I think the article needs popular culture section. Kauffner 13:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
~~ I agree. There seems to be quite a bit of information on the outlook on the Jehova's Witness group. Also, wouldn't it not be wise to add information given by fathers of the Church on the topic of Armageddon? Pre church split and Post church split? by ApplesnPeaches~~
I put in an important section and "weighed-in" on this page in a major way so I hope that both of you appreciate my work.---- MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Armageddon vs. Battle of Megiddo
There is no doubt that the "Armageddon" of Rev 16:16 is nothing but an approximate Greek transliteration of Har-Megiddo. There is no need to provide any citation proving that “Megiddo was the location of many decisive battles in ancient times”: they are already amply provided at the various Battle of Megiddo sub-entris. Consequently I am going to remove the relative “citation needed”.
Miguel de Servet 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Going literal will allow for a new scenario that complies with Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelations; the armies assemble at Armageddon, they ascend to Jerusalem and take it only to die on the mountains of Israel.Radical man 7 05:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Radical man 7. I left a comment on your discussion page. Whichever message you receive first: this one or the other, a response when you get a chance would be appreciated, thank you.---- MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
