It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DANIEL and the Destruction of Rome

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
DANIEL 9:24-27
“Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city:Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed.
Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks, during sixty two weeks it shall be rebuilt with streets and trenches in a time of affliction.
After the sixty two weeks an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city; And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary, then the end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed for one week he shall make a firm compact with the many Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation; On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror. “

This is the Knox version of the prophecy not the KJV, Knox predates the KJV, and no political or ideological influence was present when the Knox version was translated. The KJV is shortened leaving out key words and actually places its own description of the “anointed leader” as “Messiah” in its version of the prophecy

The following is my opinion of the prophecy, I am not attempting to change its meaning in anyway it’s just how I see this prophecy

Firstly the time frame must be established to decipher this prophecy 70 weeks from the formation of the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem to the time of Christ
Its important to point out that it is an approximate time line, as the prophecy falls within the lives of the described figures not at any definitive point in their lives as the prophecy of Christ shows, it is one describing his whole life not just his “anointing”

“Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed”

We know when Christ walked the earth 0-33 AD (aprox) so the question is when were the Jews formed? At the building of Jerusalem? The prophecy does include the “city” but the “people” long pre-date the city. Moses? Well Moses didn’t form the Jews he just lead them out of Egypt and gave them the Mosaic Law, but the people still predate Moses.

I believed the formation of the Jewish peoples was the covenant with Abraham and the seventy weeks are from his time until “vision and prophecy ratified, and a most holy will be anointed” Christ

This to me brings more power and beauty to the story of Abraham it is Christ that is telling him to “look at the stars”, it is also Christ who becomes the centre point of the covenant history which also makes sense, as it is Christ that returns after Daniels prophecy is fulfilled
So the estimated year of Abrahams life is around 2100-1900 BC (aprox) if one divides the number 2100 (the earliest estimate) with 70 the number 30 is given, which is of Hebrew significance, 360 degrees divided by 30 give 12 , 12 months, 30 days, 360 days of a perfect cyclical year, a prophetically significant number, also the age when Christ began his mission on earth

But the Hebrew years and numbers aren’t that important to decipher if we have point A and point B, another reason to disregard the Hebrew time frame is because our “modern” historical time frame is based on a different time scale being 365 days of the year 31-32 days of month ect ect its varying as well, as does the Hebrew calendar, so point A to B is a better guide as the 70 weeks doesn’t have a variation of time length… seemingly. I stress this is my personal interpretation

CONT...




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Points C to D can also be deciphered to correlate with A (Abraham) to B (Christ)
“Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks”

Following a rational time length with the prophecy, there is a pause after Christ and a continuation at the utterance “Jerusalem was to be rebuilt” giving us the first pointer, the destruction of Jerusalem! We also know the year this occurred 70 AD (aprox) and the second pointer “an anointed and a leader”

Using the points time line A to B 2100/70 = 30, 30*7weeks = 210yrs, 210yr + 70AD (destruction of Jerusalem) 280AD (aprox)
If you were to search for a definitive “anointed and a leader” in this time period (note the two are separated in the prophecy, a figure of Church and State!) a no more definitive figure can be found than Constantine the 1st 270-337AD

en.wikipedia.org...

the first Holy Roman Emperor an anointed and a leader, a man that received a vision from Christ that he must champion the faith, why would Christ choose this man at this time period? I believe to fulfill Daniels prophecy further

Now the prophecy moves into a long period forward into history, the rebuilding of the city for 62 weeks, streets and trenches, the Church on earth is being re-established the new centre has been founded and the auxiliary infrastructure being put in place “in a time of affliction” the Church on earth has never been at peace, it is constantly tested and persecuted as was Christ

Using the points time frame of aprox 30 years to a prophetic week, 62*30=1860yrs (aprox) so 1860+210= 2070 AD(aprox)
“After the sixty two weeks an anointed shall be cut down when he does not possess the city”

An “anointed” only, a figure of Church only! I see this figure as a Pope. A Pope will be “cut down” when not in possession of the city, firstly the Vatican will be destroyed and then a Pope will be murdered! How do I come to this conclusion? Firstly Revelations is in harmony with Daniels

Prophecy Rev 12:3-7

The Vision of a Woman Dressed with the Sun
1A spectacular sign appeared in the sky: a woman dressed with the sun, who had the moon under her feet and a victor's crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and was crying out from her labor pains, the agony of giving birth.
The Vision of the Red Dragon
3Then another sign appeared in the sky: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on its heads. 4Its tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky and knocked them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that it could devour her child when it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a boy, who is to rule [a] all the nations with an iron scepter. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where a place had been prepared for her by God so that she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

isv.scripturetext.com...

Next are the prophecies of St Malachy

“In 1139 he went to Rome to give an account of the affairs of his diocese to the pope, Innocent II, who promised him two palliums for the metropolitan Sees of Armagh and Cashel. While at Rome, he received (according to the Abbé Cucherat) the strange vision of the future wherein was unfolded before his mind the long list of illustrious pontiffs who were to rule the Church until the end of time.”

He accurately described every Pope from his day to ours and according to his prophecies only one Pope remains to come after the current Pope Benedict, this is his account of last Pope Peter the Roman



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
“In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & Judex tremêdus judicabit populum suum. Finis.
(In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.)”

www.catholic-pages.com...

Lastly another prophecy that confirms my view is the third prophecy of Fatima

“"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."

www.fatima.org...

to continue with the prophecy of Daniel

“And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the sanctuary, then the end shall come like a torrent; until the end there shall be war, the desolation that is decreed for one week he shall make a firm compact with the many Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and oblation; On the temple wing shall be the horrible abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the horror. “
The reign of the Antichrist! The same as Revelations described. A 30yr reign beginning after the destruction of Rome and the murder of St Peter’s successor, during half of his reign he will abolish Christian worship and take his seat in the original temple in Jerusalem
I stress this is my interpretation and I understand my “points time line” is not a clinical science, but I certainly believe this is possible in 50 odd years I don’t have a great deal of hope for the global environment considering who has the money the power and the intent to establish a global dictatorship similar to the early Roman Empire based on paganism lead by men that saw themselves as gods.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I disagree with your math on this.
This timeline goes from the Decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, and is mainly about God sending the Messiah to fulfill his covenant with man for salvation. I tend to agree with John Wesley’s notes on prophecy, as he was accurate enough to know that the “wounding of the first beast and the Rise of the second beast”, as mentioned in Revelations, were occurring around the time that he was writing his notes. I will put up each verse followed by his interpretation below:


Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

John Wesley’s exploratory notes on the Bible:

Dan 9:24 - Seventy weeks - These weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years. To finish the transgression - The angel discovers first the disease in three several words, which contain all sorts of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption. He shews the cure of this disease in three words. To finish transgression. To make an end of sin. To make reconciliation: all which words are very expressive in the original, and signify to pardon, to blot out, to destroy. To bring in everlasting righteousness - To bring in justification by the free grace of God in Christ, and sanctification by his spirit: called everlasting, because Christ is eternal, and so are the acceptance and holiness purchased for us. Christ brings this in, By his merit. By his gospel declaring it. By faith applying, and sealing it by the Holy Ghost. To seal up - To abrogate the former dispensation of the law, and to ratify the gospel covenant. To anoint - This alludes to his name Messiah and Christ, both which signify anointed. Christ was anointed at his first conception, and personal union, Luk_1:35. In his baptism, Mat_3:17, to his three offices by the holy Ghost, King, Mat_2:2. Prophet, Isa_61:1. Priest, Psa_110:4.



Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

John Wesley’s exploratory notes on the Bible:

Dan 9:25 - From the going forth - From the publication of the edict, whether of Cyrus or Darius, to restore and to build it.



Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

John Wesley’s exploratory notes on the Bible:

Dan 9:26 - And after - After the seven and the sixty two that followed them. Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation. And the people - The Romans under the conduct of Titus. Determined - God hath decreed to destroy that place and people, by the miseries and desolations of war.



Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

John Wesley’s exploratory notes on the Bible:

Dan 9:27 - He shall confirm - Christ confirmed the new covenant, By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias. By his preaching. By signs and wonders. By his holy life. By his resurrection and ascension. By his death and blood shedding. Shall cause the sacrifice to cease - All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever. And that determined - That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, 'till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.


This has all happened in the past, and was completed in Christ’s ministry for 3 years, death on the cross to fulfill Gods Covenant, and the destruction of the City and Temple by Titus in 70AD. I do not believe that any of this has anything to do with the supposed Antichrist, or a peace treaty, as those who follow Jesuit Futurism try and twist it to mean.

Historicists such as Wesley, Calvin, and Luther all taught that the “End of the World” started in 70AD, and has no set time to complete. It simply goes on until Christ Returns. 70AD, is a significant marker in time, as it ends the “Age of the Jews” and starts the “Age of the Church”, or the “End Times”. Christ told his followers to concentrate on saving as many Jews as possible for a set period of time after his death, this time period ended when Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin. That was the final act of rejection of Gods covenant by the remaining Jews, that sealed their fate in 70AD, and ended that age. If you notice even John writing after that period of time states that it is the “end times” during his lifetime:

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


So if you are trying to calculate out when the “End Times” are to come, there is no need to bother as they are already here, and have been for almost 2000 years.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
"Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

This is the KJV, the translator has put his own interpretation of the prophecy over the original text

Messiah the Prince
Is
An anointed and leader

in the original translation, this changes the whole context of the prophecy





"Historicists such as Wesley, Calvin, and Luther all taught that the “End of the World” started in 70AD, and has no set time to complete. It simply goes on until Christ Returns. 70AD, is a significant marker in time, as it ends the “Age of the Jews” and starts the “Age of the Church”, or the “End Times”. Christ told his followers to concentrate on saving as many Jews as possible for a set period of time after his death, this time period ended when Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin. That was the final act of rejection of Gods covenant by the remaining Jews, that sealed their fate in 70AD, and ended that age. If you notice even John writing after that period of time states that it is the “end times” during his lifetime:


Luther despised Catholicism and sought to change many interpretations on the gospel that the original Church held
If your view is based on these “Historicists “and the King James Bible then we might as well start quoting Shakespeare



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
wheres the link to the news reporting on this?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
But i must concede my math was not perfect as it was not the base of my interpretation more my interpretation of the prophecy then i constructed the math from there



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Fett Pinkus, sorry news reporting on what?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Notroh est
Fett Pinkus, sorry news reporting on what?


You've posted this as 'Breaking News'
With the best will in the world and creative interpretation, this is neither of those things.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


the destrution of Rome

last I looked everything was still standing.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
hehe, oops. hopfully it'l get moved.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Notroh est
 


I don’t know what version of the Bible that Wesley was using, I am not sure if the KJV existed in Wesleys time. If you notice in the above quotes from his exploratory notes, he explains exactly what you are talking about:

To anoint - This alludes to his name Messiah and Christ, both which signify anointed. Christ was anointed at his first conception, and personal union, Luk_1:35. In his baptism, Mat_3:17, to his three offices by the holy Ghost, King, Mat_2:2. Prophet, Isa_61:1. Priest, Psa_110:4.



Originally posted by Notroh est
Luther despised Catholicism and sought to change many interpretations on the gospel that the original Church held If your view is based on these “Historicists “and the King James Bible then we might as well start quoting Shakespeare

Funny that I am not quoting Luther, isn’t it…
Luther was dead on the money about Rome though. At first he was trying to help Rome to reform its incorrect teachings, he was a Monk after all. Later, after he realized that the Pontifex Maximus (the true title of the Holy Pontiff) was the person mentioned as the “Little Horn” in Daniel, the break became pretty well permanent. Luther did not change any of the interpretations of the Bible, but what he did do was catch Rome changing the interpretations of the Bible then declaring it a crime for non-clergy to own a bible to try to hide their abuses. Luther made the first readily available Bible translated in the tongue of the common man, any mix ups in the translation had more to do with the lack in uniformity of the German language in those days then anything else. Luther basically had to not only translate the bible, but to structure the German Language as well. Luther's Bible was therefore used as a Reading Primer, as much as it was used for actual study and worship.

I also find it funny how if Luther changed so much of the Bible, as Catholics Claim, why Lutherans today don’t use Luther’s Bible. I have never even seen a copy of Luther’s Bible translated to English; I can only find it in German. Lutherans today use either a RSV or KJV bible, and we go strictly from what is contained in the Bible.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Oh, btw…
It was also not Luther who tried to change the Churches stance on Prophetic interpretation, it was actually 180 degrees the opposite:

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible's antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, took on the challenge. Like Martin Luther, Ribera read the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast. But he came to different conclusions than Luther did. He decided that the prophecies applied, not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to one diabolical figure at the end of time. This viewpoint quickly became the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist.

It was the church trying to shut up Luther who came up with the two competing schools of prophetic interpretation, Preterism, and Futurism:

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:
· Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
· Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
· Abolish the Christian religion.
· Deny Jesus Christ.
· Be received by the Jews.
· Pretend to be God.
· Kill the two witnesses of God.
· Conquer the world.



Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
· Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
· Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
· Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   


I don’t know what version of the Bible that Wesley was using, I am not sure if the KJV existed in Wesleys time.


I accept he could have been using any translation but his interpretation aligns itself with the KJV and with Luther’s anti Pontifical stance, so I believe Wesley’s view politically motivated and tainted
do some basic historical research and you will find the KJV predates Wesley significantly




Oh, btw… It was also not Luther who tried to change the Churches stance on Prophetic interpretation, it was actually 180 degrees the opposite


The translation i am using is from the original languages that predates Luther and the Catholic theologians you make reference to, I make mt interpretation based on the original texts and the other prophecies that correlate with my interpretation

I did state this is my interpretation and I know completely that my human reasoning is flawed and fallible just the same as Wesley, Luther and Francisco Ribera the Cathothlic theologian you mentioned

are all your sources Lutheran? Please state where you get this information? Sorry if I take protestant sources with a grain of salt but they tend to make ridiculous one sided claims, just as did Luther



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   


Funny that I am not quoting Luther


hhmm



Historicists such as Wesley, Calvin, and Luther all taught that the “End of the World” started in 70AD, and has no set time to complete.


i don’t believe i said you did quote him but you definitively made mention of him and also that Wesley is of Luther's doctrine on this subject

hence...



If your view is based on these “Historicists “and the King James Bible then we might as well start quoting Shakespeare



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Notroh est
I accept he could have been using any translation but his interpretation aligns itself with the KJV and with Luther’s anti Pontifical stance, so I believe Wesley’s view politically motivated and tainted
do some basic historical research and you will find the KJV predates Wesley significantly

I will admit that the other night I was being lazy, and did not feel like looking up the date on the KJV, but even if it was written before 1760 it does not mean that Wesley was using it.

John Wesley was an Anglican who became the founder of the Methodist Church, he had nothing to do with Luther, though he may have studied Luthers works. He lived from 1703 to 1791, and he wrote his notes on the bible around 1760. John Calvin, lived at the same time as Luther (1509-1564), and was the founder of the Presbyterian Church. Luther and Calvin did correspond, but did not agree on everything, and eventually had a complete falling out between them.

So we are talking about three distinct people, each the founder of a distinct church, who all held similar interpretations of this same material.


Originally posted by Notroh est
The translation i am using is from the original languages that predates Luther and the Catholic theologians you make reference to, I make mt interpretation based on the original texts and the other prophecies that correlate with my interpretation

I fail to see what you think is so different about your translation, the wording is different, but it conveys the same ideas. If your big difference is that it says “Anointed one” as opposed to “Messiah”, well... Messiah means “Anointed one”...

From Strong's Concordance:

Messiah
1) anointed, anointed one
a) of the Messiah, Messianic prince
b) of the king of Israel
c) of the high priest of Israel
d) of Cyrus
e) of the patriarchs as anointed kings


You are really splitting hairs trying to say that it means something different then the KJV of the text.


Originally posted by Notroh est
are all your sources Lutheran?

So far I have not used a single Lutheran Source in this thread. You want to know Luthers stance on who the antichrist is?

LCMS
43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation -- these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)


Originally posted by Notroh est
Please state where you get this information?

Everything above this post is all from the Bible, Historical fact, and John Wesley's Exploratory Notes.


Originally posted by Notroh est
Sorry if I take protestant sources with a grain of salt but they tend to make ridiculous one sided claims, just as did Luther

Luther did a heck of a job handing the RCC its own hat. What Luther was saying was dead on the money right, which is why they could not put a stop to him. The common man back then could clearly see how Rome was twisting and abusing its interpretations of the Scripture, once Luther made the bible available to the common man. You ever wonder why it was a death sentience offense under Rome to even own a Bible? Its for this very reason. If you had a Bible back then you were sent to the torture chambers of the Inquisition.

Here is what Luther told them when they asked him to Recant:
“I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or the Councils, because it is clear as day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or on plain and clear grounds of reason, so that conscience shall bind me to make acknowledgement of error, I cannot and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything contrary to conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other. May God help me. Amen.”

Soooo...Yep, Luther was one sided, he was on the side of the Scripture, not the financial/political sides that Rome was on.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Notroh est


Historicists such as Wesley, Calvin, and Luther all taught that the “End of the World” started in 70AD, and has no set time to complete.

i don’t believe i said you did quote him but you definitively made mention of him and also that Wesley is of Luther's doctrine on this subject.

You misunderstand, I was not quoting anyone at that point other then John Wesleys notes. I was simply stating that these three men, and their churches all came to the same conclusions on prophecy.


[edit on 1/25/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   


Everything above this post is all from the Bible, Historical fact, and John Wesley's Exploratory Notes


its KJV fact, not historical. if you cannot see the manipulation of the KJV over the original translations of the bible, and the manipulations of the bible by the followers of Luther im afraid you will never see the bible in its true form



As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.


Your anti pontifical position revealed, i can not accept your tainted view on this subject

We both accept Christ as King, but my Church is the Church founded by Saint Peter commissioned by Christ Himself, yours whether Anglican, Methodist, Mormon or Presbyterian… im afraid your Church was founded (directly or indirectly) by Luther and I prefer to return to the original Church when in search for the original message of Christ not the message of any man that has come after



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Notroh est
its KJV fact, not historical.

Actually much of my information comes from historical fact, as a matter of fact I intend to give you a good history lesson later in this post...



Originally posted by Notroh est
if you cannot see the manipulation of the KJV over the original translations of the bible

The KJV is about the same as any good translation, as long as it conveys the true message then choosing one definition over another really has no effect other then to clarify the message.


Originally posted by Notroh est
and the manipulations of the bible by the followers of Luther im afraid you will never see the bible in its true form.

Luther wrote the first German Bible used in the 14th century, and did the best he could with the books available to him. You realize that he did not have the Vatican Library at his disposal I assume. His work on the Bible did nothing in the way of altering the way that the Bible stands today, as he was not involved with writing any of the commonly used versions now in existence. What Luther did do was take away the restrictions of the Church to keep common man from having access to the scripture. Once he did that, he open the doors for other scholars to write better versions of the Bible such as the KJV.


Originally posted by Notroh est
Your anti pontifical position revealed, i can not accept your tainted view on this subject

I personally don't have an Anti-Catholic bone in my body, and even went to Catholic School, but that does not change the fact that the Pontiff is the person mentioned in prophecy. That is simply fact, not my choice, as I will show you. I am guessing that you are a Catholic, which I did not know at the beginning of this thread, and I don't have anything personal against you either. I am simply stating facts.


Originally posted by Notroh est
my Church is the Church founded by Saint Peter commissioned by Christ Himself

History lesson 1, coming up...
Peter was the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the original Christian Church in Rome, and enemies of the Roman Empire. The Holy Pontiff is not the descendant of Peter, rather he is descended from the Roman Emperors, and thus is an Enemy of the true Christian Church. Peter would have never accepted the Title of Pope, Pontiff, or as it was known in his time Pontifex Maximus.

The Roman Empire was a Polytheistic Religion, including deifying certain Emperors. The head of the Roman Church of those days was a position known as the Pontifex Maximus, and this position was normally bestowed on the Emperor himself. If you notice the similarity in the name Pontifex and Pontiff, you can already see where this is heading. Some of the worlds most evil men such as Nero, Julius, Augustus, Calligula, and Titus held this title, including men who considered themselves “god on Earth”. This job included the following duties, which are going to be important later on when compared to actual scripture:


The immense authority of the sacred college of pontiffs was centered on the Pontifex Maximus, the other pontifices forming his consilium or advising body. His functions were partly sacrificial or ritualistic, but these were the least important. His real power lay in the administration of jus divinum or divine law; the information collected by the pontifices related to the Roman religious tradition was bound in a corpus which summarized dogma and other concepts. The chief departments of jus divinum may be described as follows:
1.The regulation of all expiatory ceremonials needed as a result of pestilence, lightning, etc.
2.The consecration of all temples and other sacred places and objects dedicated to the gods by the state through its magistracies.
3.The regulation of the calendar; both astronomically and in detailed application to the public life of the state.
4.The administration of the law relating to burials and burying-places, and the worship of the Manes or dead ancestors.
5.The superintendence of all marriages by conferratio, i.e. originally of all legal patrician marriages.
The administration of the law of adoption and of testamentary succession.


The Roman Empire never died, in fact you cannot find a date when it actually ended, because instead of ending it became a religion. A religion that found it was easier (and cheaper) to control people through fear of their salvation then it was by maintaining a standing army. This is why every King in Europe had a Roman Catholic Bishop standing by his side to ensure that their rulings were in alignment with the wishes of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Pontiff. This transfer of power started in 530AD with Emperor Justinian's codifying the law under Corpus juris civilis, which gave tremendous power to the Church, including using military power to eradicate heretics.

The Title of Pontifex switched from the Emperors over to the Church during the reign of Emperor Gratian, who decided it was not a title that a Christian should hold (the same way that I am sure St Peter would feel about it):

Under the influence of Ambrosius, Gratian prohibited Pagan worship at Rome; refused to wear the insignia of the pontifex maximus as unbefitting a Christian; removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate House at Rome, despite protests of the pagan members of the Senate, and confiscated its revenues; forbade legacies of real property to the Vestals; and abolished other privileges belonging to them and to the pontiffs. Nevertheless he was still deified after his death.

Pope Damasus I took the title that was refused by the Emperor, and he became the new Pontifex Maximus.

So there is your real true line of Popes, not to St Peter, but a line of men that stretch back into the Pagan Roman Empire, and its Polytheistic Religions. Men who have killed more Christians then any other entity on the Planet, men who “Wore out the patience of the Saints”.


Pontifex Maximus
With the accession of Augustus, the election of the Pontifex Maximus ceased as each successive emperor held the office. (Emperor list) In 382 AD, when the Eastern emperor Theodosius established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, the Western Emperor Gratian relinquished the office to the Christian Popes of Rome, who have held it since that time.


The reason why Rome relates back to Babylon in prophecy is because Babylon was also a Polytheistic society. Rome never removed their pagan traditions, they simply canonized them and brought them into the church, intermixing them with True Christianity. Their Vestal Virgins became the RCC's Nuns (and didn't even change the uniform much
). Their Pagan Holidays became the Christian Holidays we now observe. Their Goddess Venus comes from the goddesses: Ishtar, Isis, Astarte, and finally Aphrodite, all known as “the Queen of Heaven” which became the RCC's Mary “Queen of Heaven”. The other Gods became saints who were placed in charge of certain things, such as travel, sickness, etc...

These things are historical facts, please look them up for yourself, I have provided many links for you to start your search with. I learned all of this through my own research, I was not taught any of it in any of the religious institutions I attended over the years. You can easily find the same information if you don't listen to the RCC's spin on why its ok for them to do things that the Bible clearly states as forbidden. I wish you luck.


One last thing.
I mentioned that you should pay attention to that list for the Pontifex Maximus, here is why:


Dan 7:24-25 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.


The Duties of the Pontifex Maximus, and later the Pontiff included:
Setting the Calendar. (Changing the Times)
Setting jus divinum or divine law. (Changing the Laws)
Speak Great words. (can be either Papal Authority, Emperor Worship, or both)
Wear out the Saints. (Put Christians to death in either the Arena, or the Inquisitions. Rome has killed more Christians then any other organization in history)

Pretty well points to one person in history, doesn't it?
I guess Luther was not that far off on his facts then, was he?


Originally posted by Notroh est
I prefer to return to the original Church when in search for the original message of Christ not the message of any man that has come after

Then I recommend joining the Orthodox Church.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The pope is the emperor of Rome.
So therefore Rome could not have died.
If you think about it, why would the so called most holy place, with the so called most Holy person, be in Rome?
In the "Holy See"?
It would be in the middle east where it all happened.
Not in Italy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join