Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues

Answering Rob Skiba on Tower and Other Issues · Chuck MIssler on the Demonic, some Complementary or Corrective Comments by me · On Not Demonising Internet · Matthew 24 and Genesis 6

The Tower of Babel and Confirming the Nimrod - Osiris - Orion - Apollo Connection [MODIFIED]
Rob Skiba | 4.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GULAzoduU

I

Do you know how 666 looks like in Babylonian numerals?

660 = 11 = a corner to the left and a wedge perpendicular.

Last 6 = three wedges perpendicular over three other wedges perpendicular, and it is placed after the signs which by itself could be 11.

Looks like a space rocket to me.

Confirming my theory, that is what Nimrod was trying to build.

"a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven" = looks like a tower before take off, only step three gets into space, compatible with non-flat cosmologies.

However, Nimrod may not have known how far up Empyraean Heaven is, it being beyond fix stars, and these being probably at least 1 light day up.

Hence Obadiah 1:4, Luke 14:28.

In other words, Nimrod's tower was going to succeed as far as take off and as far as getting to some spaces in space is concerned, but he had not counted what it really takes, which is less than what we have. Even if Empyraean Heaven is only one light day up.

II

2:35 "plains of Shinar" says where?

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

Finding "a plain" suggests it is higher up than in the plain land around South Shinar (Babylonian kingdom).

How about North Shinar, where there is "a plain" with Göbekli Tepe where it touches hills undulating again?

III

dialogue:

Narn

so God was worried that they were going to climb up and kill him?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

More like, Nimrod's prototype rocket was as useless as a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and much more dangerous for bystanders, so God post-poned rocketry until we had time to learn about rocket fuels.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl prototype rocket? you for real?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis Read the text.

and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:

If you were naming a space rocket, couldn't refer to firework rockets, and couldn't borrow from another language, what noun would you use and how would you explain the difference from the more usual object?

Plus, have you heard that Graham Hancock considered Göbekli Tepe looked like sth for a space launch?

Seems Mad

It was of no threat to the Most High, other than in the minds of those wicked men........laughable. It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action. I believe the threat was that individuals would have become a part of a hive mind, losing free will, which is necessary for Father to restore all creation to perfection and not violate His perfect righteousness. He has a plan, and ALL things, ALL events, ALL actions of EVERY being, work toward the perfect completion of that plan....period. May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and keep you in the days ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Seems Mad "It was a threat to His beloved creation, and as such, He took action."

Exactly.

A rocket project back then, based on Uranium as rocket fuel would have given a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and bringing it to the point would have drafted too much of mankind (as it did for some 40 years) to a project of no use, and uselessly globalist collective.

trintdaddylandis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not saying it's not possible.. i suppose it is.... do you know of any concrete evidence that supports the idea they would've had any type of technology even close to a rocket? are we talking about ancient alien/vimana type stuff here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@trintdaddylandis There is a difference between having a rocket functional and planning one. As there is a difference between a Leonardo da Vinci airplane and the planes that exist since Brothers Wright.

My point is, Nimrod was a man of ideas, but somewhat going on bungling them in the realisation. God was saving mankind from disaster.

The evidence?

The wording of Genesis 11:4 (a tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven).

The look of Göbekli Tepe.

The fact that GT carbon dates fit perfectly in with where Babel would be in Biblical chronology, once the carbon dates are made to match it.

AND the fact that we have different traces of such a project after Babel.

Stonehenge and Nabta Playa among other stone circles are about astronomic observation. Makes sense if the judgement from God could be taken as observations weren't good enough. "So let's make better ones," they may have said.

Egyptians make Horus and Greeks make Perseus and Andromeda go up to the stars - a religious version of a rocketry project, just as the modern rocketry project is a secularised version of this dream. Makes sense if one wanted to esotericaly keep the dream alive.

Chinese have firework rockets, a kind of miniature of the planned space rocket, which also later did serve as a model for our space rockets, and that makes sense if it was meant to serve so (after a somewhat tedious search for useful gunpowder).

Isaiah's words to Satan in chapter 14 (I think it was) make sense if Satan was instigating Nimrod to a rocket project.

Obadiah's words in verse 3 make sense if some type of Edomite was going to be involved in rocketry projects:

Though thou be exalted as an eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars: thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.

Each by itself makes sense otherwise too. But together they make even more sense with my interpretation.

Perhaps most : skyscrapers have already been tried (though 9/11 found them wanting in security), so, a blunder in rocketry makes more sense in why God stopped it all than a skyscraper project. Yes, we do have rockets, but probably much safer than the one Nimrod was planning. And also able to work, which has was probably not. My hunch (with a hint from Mahabharata taken as pre-Flood times), is nuke bombs were known, Nimrod wanted to exploit the energy in a more peaceful way (peaceful between men, that is, or those sharing his project).

IV

9:43 You know, I have done a few essays to refute Zeitgeist, especially back when their spoekeswoman Acharya was alive.

Sad she died without converting, as far as we know.

Like here:

somewhere else : No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ...
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-true-enough-acharya-varro-did-not.html

V

10:03 So you agree with the errors of Acharya on Catholicism giving a Pagan Jesus?

Why? Bc of "December 25th"?

Earliest known pagan feast held on that date is Sol Invictus. It is so young, the emperor (Aurelian, I think) could very well have tried to hijack Christmas. As already existing among Christians. (Yes, Aurelian is before Constantine).

ANY older Pagan feasts than that are uniformly either on another Roman date (Saturnalia Dec 17 - 21, later 17 - 23), or not in Roman calendar at all, and since Roman calendar was the first to have 365.25 days per medium year, translating from one calendar to another is meaningless, unless you pick a particular year for the translation.

Probably, December 25 is a translation from Hebrew calendar from the year Christ was born, and that being 15 months after 2nd week of Tishri, if not day of Atonement itself. (One Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, actually considered Zacharias as High priest and the sacrifice of incence as sacrifice in the Holy of Holies on that precise day ... may have been an error).

10:10 No Pagan rituals involved in the substitutions.

St. Thomas has a list of OT feasts and how they correspond to NT feasts of the Church, each feast of OT having a precise NT counterpart. Sabbaths - Sundays. Newmoons - Feast of the Blessed Virgin Conceiving on March 25. Pesach of Exodus - Catholic Pascha (Easter) of Death and Resurretion. Pentecost of Old Law - Pentecost of descent of Holy Spirit. Feast of Trumpets - feasts of Apostles. Expiation (Atonement?) - Feasts of Martyrs and Confessors. Feast of Tabernacles - feast of Church dedication (each Catholic parish celebrates the feast when its Church is dedicated). "the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows." - I don't know what "assembly and collection" feast is.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum of Theology I-II (first part of second part), Q[uestion] 103, A[rticle] 3, ad [=reply to objection] 4.

No, as said, December 25 is not the "day of dying and resurrecting Sun gods of antiquity".

Hislop, Acharya and yourself are simply wrong on history here.

VI

10:37 I very much agree "do this in remembrance of me" is very key.

However, we take it as Christ ordering His first Catholic priests to do "this" thing He had just done, namely turn bread into His Body and wine into His Blood, and to do this in remembrance of His death.

And how do we know He had in fact done so? Well, because we take what He just previously had said literally.

Your theory on "do this" meaning "celebrate Passover" is a subsidiary argument on why Catholic Easter changes from the Easter of Exodus, but it cannot be the most important thing, since it doesn't involve anything like an explanation for the words where He said, "this is my body" or "this is the chalice of my blood".

Catholic theology perfectly matches every word, and especially "the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:20) matches the first Eucharist at Last Supper being already the sacrifice of Calvary taken place. It was going to be shed next day, but its New Covenant was already there.

10:42 There is no mystery which is known to resemble the Eucharist.

Bacchus mysteries have a certain resemblance of idea, and while we are at it, Moses is a better candidate than Nimrod for ultimate (though misunderstood) model for Bacchus. But no good resemblance in form, since St Paul upbraided Corinthians for doing what came too close to a Bacchanal.

10:48 "look at those good Catholics up there"

There was no Catholic there. Presbyterians aren't Catholics and Presbyterian communions are not real Eucharists, neither valid nor intended to be so.

"Aldrin’s lunar communion has since become shrouded in mystery and confusion, but the rite itself was relatively simple.The astronaut was also an elder at Webster Presbyterian Church, and before he headed into space in 1969, he got special permission to take bread and wine with him to space and give himself communion."

Updated:Aug 29, 2018· Original:Jul 31, 2018
Buzz Aldrin Took Holy Communion on the Moon. NASA Kept it Quiet
NASA worried the Christian ceremony may draw unwanted scrutiny.
Erin Blakemore
https://www.history.com/news/buzz-aldrin-communion-apollo-11-nasa

Webster Presbyterian Church was not a Catholic parish, nor is it now.

VII

12:06 Apollo 11 / Saturn V as projected on Washington Monument looks a bit like a tower, right?

And only the top of it reached into Heaven, while the rest dropped into the Ocean (or at least first step did, but step two was discarded as well, perhaps burning in atmosphere).

Note, if Nimrod had been allowed to try that, he would just have made a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe ... that's my theory on what he was trying to do.