Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[John317]

JOHN3:17-- >>NOTE.-Describing the Roman conquests, Gibbon uses the very imagery employed in the vision of Daniel 2. He says: "The arms of the republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean;<<

However, not beyond...

True. The Germanic tribes were ones that the Romans never could defeat. In fact, it was basically the Germans that defeated the Romans.

This interesting info from wikipedia about the Germanic peoples:

The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of North Western Europe, such as the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, and English.

Migrating Germanic peoples spread throughout Europe in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Germanic languages became dominant along the Roman borders (Austria, Germany, Netherlands, and England), but in the rest of the (western) Roman provinces, the Germanic immigrants adopted Latin (Romance) dialects. Furthermore, all Germanic peoples were eventually Christianized to varying extents. The Germanic people played a large role in transforming the Roman empire into Medieval Europe, and they contributed in developing a common identity, history, and culture which transcended linguistic borders.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I take the Lion of Daniel 7 to represent today’s Kingdoms British Isles, America, and sundry other – basically, English-speaking peoples.

>>Why? Can you show from the Bible and history why the lion should be understood as representing the English speaking people?<<

Moreso, than one might show the lion symbolized Babylonia.

>>I have heard Herbert W. Armstrong and the Radio Church of God teach something similar about English speaking people being in prophecy. Are you familiar with what he believed on that and do you agree with him?<<

Yes, and no, I do not agree with him except in general terms and in several particulars. I take issue with a man who encouraged marriages based on one or more divorced spouse(s) – to be sundered.

After years imposing such a requirement upon his congregation, it seemed that his infatuation with his secretary led to – a ‘revelation’ which showed his previous views to have been error. Last I heard he married his secretary – which said marriage was itself later ‘sundered’. That is only one reason

I cannot subscribe to such a ministry that might be thought cultish...

Take my view – with a large fistful of salt – cast over your left shoulder. :-o

However, that said,

I’d certainly like to own the rights to the performances held in the Ambassador Auditorium. (I remember a recital given by Cecilia Bartoli – sold out two years before her performance) :-o

[jasd]

>>Let us just add the last 10 tribes, with the ones removed (3 are taken down by the little horn).<<

One wonders: why could not Maxwell, Smith, and Anderson agree upon the list of ten?

After all, it is a suggestively easy matter, yes?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Fausto

Lombardi/Italians

Quote:John317

What's really interesting, ...

Ahh, yes, the inconvenient Long beards vis-à-vis postulations re the Papacy

[jasd]

>>The fact remains it was teh papacy who took europe through the dark ages, unless of course

you close your eyes and do not want to see it. I mean there are people out there who do not want to acknowledge Auschwitz and what Hitler did, no wonder general McArthur said, "photograph as much as possible because someday some fool is going to say it never happened"<<

Umm, lest I be mistaken, and the above is not pejorative, allow me to parse it...

>>The fact remains it was teh papacy who took europe through the dark ages,>.

The statement seems fraught with disapproval. I’d like to add to it in a manner that might ameliorate it somewhat.

The fourth century AD began a period of catastrophic turmoil (meteoric showers) that saw great privation descend upon not only Europe but upon the entire world. It was, indeed, the church, which shepherded Europe through the ‘Dark Ages’. It (without my going into other aspects) was practically alone in its endeavour to secure the Biblical MSS, such as they were, for posterity – the same posterity includes you and me. Remember,

that this time of privation included, famine, disease, extreme cold, migrations, societal collapse, etc – and, as one writer of the period noted – the Summers were too cold and too short to allow agriculture. For extended periods the sun could not be seen; instead, the sky was a pale reflection of cold.

This calamity spanned several centuries and saw a mini ice age engulf Europe.

>>...you close your eyes and do not want to see it.<<

That might be undeserved – as everyone of us tend to perceive in ways differing from one another.

"Not "Revelation" 'tis that waits, But our unfurnished eyes." –Emily Dickinson

>>I mean there are people out there who do not want to acknowledge Auschwitz and what Hitler did,<<

I don’t think there are many who discount the Holocaust; though, one might be justified in questioning its extent. Example: It is knowledge, commonly available, that

the ovens of Auschwitz were built post WWII by the invading Soviets – using German slave labor. And, then, there is the conundrum of

the fact that the Death Camps were on the other side of the Iron Curtain – before that fact became publicly bruited about. (I note these facts because this generation of Germans, though having carried reparation costs through the present – are continually maligned. At what point shall the German be let off the hook? per disparagement?)

>>...no wonder general McArthur said,”

Disabuse should I err, but – didn’t Gen MacArthur serve in the Pacific Theatre?

>>"photograph as much as possible because someday some fool is going to say it never happened"<<

I’m assuming you refer, for the most part, to photographs of those pitifully starved in the camps and those heaps of bodies, yes?

Perhaps, it might do justice to the German peoples to realize that the Allies had, during the latter stages of the war, ‘carpet-bombed’ Germany and German-held territories. That would have included,

all roads, all railroads, bridges, ports; and, most importantly, all food storage, processing, and distribution; etc. You’ve never seen “photographs” of the German population, have you? They suffered the same lack of foodstuff, medicines, and other curatives to treat the shared –

TYPHUS epidemic!

Read up on typhus... :-o

(The immediately above is not to excuse the known excesses/atrocities committed during the war; however, perspective is always good)

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I take the Lion of Daniel 7 to represent today’s Kingdoms British Isles, America, and sundry other – basically, English-speaking peoples.

>>Why? Can you show from the Bible and history why the lion should be understood as representing the English speaking people?<<

Moreso, than one might show the lion symbolized Babylonia.

Check out the pictures of lions used as symbols in ancient Babylon. Pictures of lions were all over the walls of that ancient city. It was a common symbol, which is almost certainly why God chose to represent that empire by the lion.

All of this proves without question that the lion was a very common and popular symbol of ancient Babylon and that no more appropriate symbol of Babylon could have been selected to represent that empire. The Babylonian Kingdom saw themselves as being properly symbolized by the lion.

1) The ancient lion of Babylon on the Ishtar Gate was made of molded brick with polychrome glaze and appeared along the side of the 'Processional Way' in Babylon around 604-562 B.C. The 'Processional Way' led out of the city through the massive Ishtar Gate, the lion was the symbol of Ishtar, the goddess of war and fertility. There were some 120 lions such as this one decorated along the walls. This painting is from a wall relief at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. It is 90.3 cm high and 230.5 cm wide. It was purchased in Berlin in 1931. The Hebrew captives entered Babylon, the city of idols, and as they saw this lion deity there is no doubt that many of them believed that God had forsaken them, or perhaps God had been defeated by this war deity. But God had forewarned the Jews continually through His prophets. He spoke through Jeremiah that they would only be captives in Babylon for 70 years. Ezekiel spoke about Israel's future and Isaiah spoke about the ultimate defeat of Babylon.

See the picture of the lion as it is on this ancient Babylonian painting: http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/babylon/1-lion-babylon-bb.html

2) "The Lion of Babylon, large and splendidly carved in basalt, reminds us again that the lion was the symbol of the goddess Ishtar. In the sculpture, the lion's back has marks indicating that it was meant for a precious saddle upon which the goddess Ishtar would stand."

3) From articles referring to Babylon:

a) Regarding Rumsfeld's trip to Babylon---"Rumsfeld is depicted leaning back reading papers, with combat-boot-clad feet propped up on a ruined building. Beside him is a weathered image of the Lion of Babylon -- potent symbol of Iraq's illustrious past -- atop a ruined plinth."

From Sean Hannity's website describing his tour of ancient Babylon: "There were no fewer than 575 reliefs located throughout the ruins: of lions (symbols of Ishtar)..."

4)

About The Lion of Babylon

http://www.babylondates.com/lion_of_babylon.html

The legendary city of Babylon is certainly the most famous ancient city in the whole world. It was the capital of ten Mesopotamian dynasties starting with the dynasty of King HamAmurabi (1792-1750 BC), the 6th king of the 1st dynasty.

Babylon reached prominence as the capital city of the great kingdom of Babylonia. It reached its zenith during the reign of its 2nd king, Nebuchadnezzar II (605-563 BC) to whom most of Babylon's magnificent buildings and monuments belonged. The Lion of Babylon was one of these monuments.

The 2,500 year old Lion of Babylon was the symbol of the city of Babylon. This large monument was splendidly carved in basalt and reminds us that the lion was the symbol of the goddess Ishtar. On the lion's back are carved markings indicating that it was meant as a precious saddle upon which the goddess Ishtar would ride.

[Fausto]

was practically alone in its endeavour to secure the Biblical MSS, such as they were, for posterity – the same posterity includes you and me. Remember, that this time of privation included, famine, disease, extreme cold, migrations, societal collapse, etc

I can hardly believe you'd make such a quote, I mentioned the deaths in their (chruch) dungeons, through the heaviest of persecution, through torture, burning at the stake, etc, etc. Do you really want to ignore the Catholic church's endeavours, what about Loyola who was he? You need to go and read the Fox's book of martyr's my friend, then you will start understanding what was behind the scenes.

I owe nothing to the catholic church, except for the fact that I was thrown "holy" water on my head much to my disapproval I can show youthe photos, besides I could not voice my opinion then!

Besides all this, and I am no bible student...no...really! The lion being babylon...well Daniel himself interprets that for us, why should we forsake it?

[John317]

>>Let us just add the last 10 tribes, with the ones removed (3 are taken down by the little horn).<<

One wonders: why could not Maxwell, Smith, and Anderson agree upon the list of ten?

They are in perfect agreement on the fact that Rome was the fourth beast and that Rome broke up into approximately 10 different kingdoms or nations. See their lists below.

The divided nations went by different names at times, and there were also more than 10 tribes or peoples that were involved in the division of the Western Roman Empire, so it should not be surprising that some prefer one name over another.

Maxwell: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alemannians, Heruls, and the Sueves. (The Amazing Prophecies of Daniel, Mervyn Maxwell, pp. 71, 72).

Roy Allen Anderson, (giving the list of nations as written by Elliott in his book, Horae Apocalypticae)

Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, [color:#3366FF]Bavarians, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Alemanni, Heruli, and the Suevi. (Unveiling Daniel and Revelation, Anderson, p. 93.)

Uriah Smith: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Bergundians, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Huns, Heruli, and Suevi. (Daniel and Revelation, Uriah Smith, p. 58) (Also see Daniel, Desmond Ford, p. 158, where Ford compares the lists as given by Joseph Mede, Bishop Newton, Uriah Smith, Sir Issac Newton, and E.R. Thiele.)

If you compare the above lists, you will see that they agree except in two instances, where Anderson has Bavarians whereas Maxwell and Smith have Lombards. Also, Smith gives Huns whereas Maxwell and Anderson have Alemanni, or Alemannians.

A footnote in Smith's book says, "In harmony with seven leading commentators, the author includes the Huns as one of the ten kingdoms. Others, however, with historical precedent, name the Alamanni, or Germans, instead of the Huns." (Daniel & Revelation, Smith, p. 58.)

A Jewish Adventist scholar, Jacques B. Doukhan, wrote in his book, Secrets of Daniel, pp. 105, 106, "The 10 horns represent kingdoms emerging from the fourth kingdom symbolized by the beast (verse 24). As in the dream of the statue, the fourth kingdom ends up being divided.

"History confirms this. In the last half of the fourth century, the Germanic tribes would follow the initiative of the Huns and invade the then decadent Roman Empire, establishing upon its ruins 'close to ten kingdoms.' The list of the kingdoms varies, but most historians would opt for 'the Franks, the Burgundians, the Allaman [or Huns], the Vandals, the Suevi, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and the Heruli.'

"What the 10 kingdoms exactly represent is not really the issue. We must regard the number 10 in Daniel as symbolically alluding to a number beyond which it is impossible to count (cf. 18). The tenth also represents the smallest part (Isa. 6: 13; Lev. 27: 30), thus the kingdom could not be any more divided than it already is. In the statue dream of chapter 2 this period of division especially stands out, since it emerges from an era of unity and peace.

"Actually, in the final analysis the kingdoms are of no relevance. The prophet is not interested in them, but rather in the bizarre little horn in their midst." (Secrets of Daniel,pp. 105, 106.)

Desmond Ford wrote, concerning the same topic, "We would offer a caveat regarding the interpretation of the ten horns. The number ten should no more be pressed in this context than in 1: 20. It is a round number frequently used in Scripture. The reality must, however, be more than five or six, or the round number four would have been used. What is represented may indeed rise to a dozen or fifteen and not transcend the symbolism. This precisely fits the situation after the fall of the Roman Empire. The resulting fragments were sometimes more, sometimes less, and rarely stable for long. Thus the lists usually used to illustrate the prophecy differ slightly one from another." (Daniel, Ford, pp. 148, 149.)

[John317]

>>The fact remains it was teh papacy who took europe through the dark ages,>.

The statement seems fraught with disapproval. I’d like to add to it in a manner that might ameliorate it somewhat.

The fourth century AD began a period of catastrophic turmoil (meteoric showers) that saw great privation descend upon not only Europe but upon the entire world. It was, indeed, the church, which shepherded Europe through the ‘Dark Ages’. It (without my going into other aspects) was practically alone in its endeavour to secure the Biblical MSS, such as they were, for posterity – the same posterity includes you and me. Remember,

that this time of privation included, famine, disease, extreme cold, migrations, societal collapse, etc – and, as one writer of the period noted – the Summers were too cold and too short to allow agriculture. For extended periods the sun could not be seen; instead, the sky was a pale reflection of cold.

This calamity spanned several centuries and saw a mini ice age engulf Europe.

Some useful information on the "Dark Ages" from the wikipedia:

In European historiography, the term Dark Age or Dark Ages refers to the Early Middle Ages, the period extending from the overthrow of the last Roman Emperor in 476 to approximately AD 1000. The concept of a Dark Age was created by the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope.

The following history of some of the popes during the Dark Ages is taken from the book, The History of the Roman Church, a link to which I give here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/popes_and_church/PandC-3.html

.............The traitors were punished in the amiable fashion of Papal Rome. Two days later Leo crowned Charlemagne, creating for him the" Holy Roman Empire" (which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire); and the grateful monarch confirmed the temporal power and showered gold and jewels upon the Church.

Paschal I, a few years later (823), was reported to Charlemagne as having blinded and beheaded two of the leading Papal officials in his palace. Paschal heatedly asserted his innocence, but as he prevented the Emperor's representatives from holding an inquiry, saying that the men were "rightly put to death," and that the men who killed the accused were clerics and not subject to lay jurisdiction, and as the murders certainly occurred in the Lateran Palace, we easily draw our own conclusions. When Paschal died the Romans angrily refused to grant him the usual Papal funeral, and there was a mighty struggle at the election.

Vice and violence continued to rule Italy, in fact the whole of Christian Europe, while the Arabs set up a brilliant civilization in Spain. No less than forty-two Popes in the Dark Ages (600-1050) did not reign two years. At last another "great Pope" comes on the scene. But just as the "spiritual" Pope Hadrian had avoided vice and crime and encouraged forgery, so did the spiritual Nicholas. In his day (about 850) was perpetrated one of the greatest forgeries of the Middle Ages, the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals (commonly called "the False Decretals"). This is a collection of early decisions of Popes and Councils, an enormous proportion of which are forged, garbled, or put centuries before their proper date. It was fabricated in France, not in Rome, and its direct purpose was to justify appeals of distressed clerics to Rome against unjust prelates or lay authorities. It was written in the interest of these clerics. But it greatly increased the Papal power, and it also gave local prelates a basis for evading the commands of their secular rulers. It was an appalling ecclesiastical fabrication.

The fight continued under Nicholas's successor, Hadrian II, and the great bishops more successfully resisted his attempts to handle kings and prelates as if they were lackeys. Charlemagne had treated the Pope in very cavalier fashion. In a work published in his own name (The Caroline Books) he had spoken quite contemptuously of the Pope's opinion and the Roman practice in regard to image-worship. No Pope had dared to rebuke his notorious morals. But the successors of Charlemagne were generally weak and foolish men, and the power of the Papacy spread over them. Another forgery was added to its fraudulent foundations, and the age was too grossly ignorant to detect the imposture. Clerics, who monopolized what culture there was, did not expose each other to the laity.

This short period of comparative respectability soon came to a close, and a darker night than ever settled upon the Papacy. At the death of Nicholas Rome had witnessed a revival of the stormy passions of the partisans: a clear proof that there had been no moral reform. Blood had reddened its streets. Nuns had been raped in their convents. Under Hadrian II a Roman had lost his eyes; the wife of another had been whipped, half-naked, through the streets. Hadrian's wife and daughter (he had married in earlier life) were murdered by the son of a bishop who had abducted the daughter. Under John VIII, a violent scatterer of anathemas, there was a conspiracy to kill the Pope, and there was a tradition (not well authenticated) that John was eventually murdered. Then there began a quarrel which makes the Papal record hideous, and inaugurates nearly a century and a half of degradation.

John VIII had excommunicated Bishop Formosus, of Porto, and on this ground, and because he was already a bishop, he was ineligible for the Papacy. But with the aid of the German faction he attacked the deacon Sergius, who had been elected (at the death of Stephen V), drove him and his party out of Rome, and secured the Papacy. Sergius headed the Italian faction, or those who would bestow the imperial crown upon an Italian prince. They fled to the provinces for aid, and, after another battle, they imprisoned and would depose Formosus. The Pope, however, got help from Germany, drove them from Rome, and ended his brief reign in peace. His successor, Boniface VI, a gouty and disreputable man, died in a fortnight, and the Italian party now obtained power and elected Stephen VI. Their vengeance upon Formosus is a revolting and familiar page of Papal history. The putrid body of the Pope was dragged from its grave, put on the pontifical throne, and judged. The sacred vestments were torn from it, three mouldering fingers were cut from the right hand, and the corpse was thrown contemptuously into the Tiber. No one questions these statements of the Bishop of Cremona, Liutprand, in his Antapodosis (i, 50).

In a very short time Pope Stephen quarrelled with Deacon Sergius and his other supporters. He was, as his own epitaph and a contemporary writer of high character (Flodoard) tell, thrown into a dungeon by them and strangled. Two Popes then occupy the throne for a few obscure weeks, and obscurely disappear. After them comes John IX, of the Formosan faction, and Sergius and his friends are again expelled and excommunicated. John dies in the year 900, and is for three years followed by the obscure Benedict IV. At his death in 903 — no one can tell how many of these Popes were murdered — Leo V comes out victor in the truculent fight for the highest spiritual office in Christendom, but after two months Leo is deposed by the priest Christopher, who flings him into prison and occupies his place. Christopher enjoys his ill-gotten honours only a few months, when the truculent Sergius fights his way into Rome at the head of Italian troops, deposes and imprisons the usurper, and attains the object of his long and criminal ambition.

Such is the bare chronicle of those stirring and repulsive years which the biographer of the Popes bequeaths us. Behind those few lines we can easily perceive a city and a Papacy in a state of utter degradation, and a few references in other trustworthy writers confirm our estimate. Sergius was a man utterly devoid of moral scruple. For nearly ten years he had fought for the Papacy; he was the leading spirit in the revolting trial of the corpse of Formosus; he snatched the Papal crown at the point of the sword. We can, therefore, well accept — and even Catholic writers like Duchesne accept—the assurance of the contemporary Bishop Liutprand that he had notorious immoral relations with one of the fastest women of the new Roman nobility — "the shameless whore" Marozia, as Cardinal Baronius calls her — and was the father of the later Pope John XI. We can have no just ground to hesitate to accept the statement of another contemporary writer, Vulgarius, that Sergius murdered, or caused the murder of, his two predecessors. [1] Yet Sergius is merely the first of many such men who will now enter the gallery of the Popes.

We know little in detail about the pontificate of Sergius, but the contemporary writers make it clear that under him began what some Catholic historians have called "the rule of the courtesans" — that is to say, the control of the Papacy by women so promiscuously immoral and unscrupulous that the older Catholic historians freely call them "whores" (scorta). These were, principally, the young woman Marozia, to whom I have referred, and her mother Theodora, wife of one of the highest officers of the city. While Marozia was mistress of the reigning Pope, her mother had a liaison with the fascinating Bishop of Ravenna, and, when the brief reigns of Sergius's two successors were over, she and her husband secured the Papacy for this man (914).

John X was not of the truculent type of Sergius, but in passing from the bishopric of Ravenna to that of Rome he committed the same breach of the regulations as Formosus had done, and his relations with Theodora are described by Bishop Liutprand. In the end he quarrelled with Marozia, and he soon learned that "the rule of the courtesans" was a very real thing. Marozia and her latest lover were angry because John gave so much power and wealth to his brother Peter, and before long their men burst into the Lateran Palace and laid Peter dead at the feet of the Pope. They put John in prison, and he died soon afterwards. We can easily accept the assurance of some of the chroniclers that he was murdered.

In the next two years and a half two insignificant Popes occupied, and promptly vacated, the "Holy See"; and then, in 931, Marozia put her son (and son of Pope Sergius, as the Liber Pontificalis says) upon the Papal throne. He was a weak and negligible youth, and Marozia continued her wild career. When her husband was murdered she offered her hand and the throne of Italy to his brutal step-brother, Hugh of Provence, who had no scruple to accept. But Rome revolted against the unbridled couple, imprisoned the Pope, and put an end to the rule of Marozia. It was her own illegitimate son Alberic who led the revolt, and this worthy son took over his mother's power and nominated the succeeding Popes.

Alberic left this power, in 953, to a still more disreputable son, Octavian, and this last representative of the remarkable dynasty dragged the Papacy to the lowest depth. In 955 he resolved, as the Roman See fell vacant, to unite the temporal and spiritual powers in his own person, and he ascended the Papal throne under the assumed name of John XII. There was not a crime in the penitentials that John XII did not introduce into the "sacred palace." The palace of Caligula or of Nero in ancient Rome had not witnessed more wanton scenes than the Lateran Palace now exhibited. Liutprand tells us (De Rebus Gestis Othonis, iv) how John, pressed by a rival, appealed to the Emperor Otto, and when Otto came to Rome the Romans brought up against their spiritual father a list of crimes which would, they said, "make a comedian blush for shame"; and a comedian was the lowest thing they knew. The Romans were lenient, as we have seen, but they could not tolerate a Pope who committed murder, perjury, adultery, incest (with his two sisters), rape, and sacrilege. Before the synod convoked by Otto it was proved that John had "turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel," cut out the eyes of or castrated those who criticised him, raped girls and women who came to pray in St. Peter's, gambled, cursed, drunk to the devil.... There was, in brief, nothing that he had not done............

[John317]

....

>>The fact remains it was teh papacy who took europe through the dark ages,>.

The statement seems fraught with disapproval. I’d like to add to it in a manner that might ameliorate it somewhat.

The fourth century AD began a period of catastrophic turmoil (meteoric showers) that saw great privation descend upon not only Europe but upon the entire world. It was, indeed, the church, which shepherded Europe through the ‘Dark Ages’. It (without my going into other aspects) was practically alone in its endeavour to secure the Biblical MSS, such as they were, for posterity – the same posterity includes you and me. Remember,

that this time of privation included, famine, disease, extreme cold, migrations, societal collapse, etc – and, as one writer of the period noted – the Summers were too cold and too short to allow agriculture. For extended periods the sun could not be seen; instead, the sky was a pale reflection of cold.

This calamity spanned several centuries and saw a mini ice age engulf Europe.....

My only purpose in posting this is that we not forget or deny that these things really happened. I believe they are important to remember also because of what the Bible predicted in Daniel 7: 25; 12:7; Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; and 13:5.

Henry the Second and Pope Alexander III

Original: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Burton-WonderfulProdigies/pages/p112-King-henry-Whipped/

“Henry the Second our King, was much vexed by this Pope [Alexander III] for the death of Thomas Becket, whom the Pope made St. Thomas for opposing his Sovereign, who being killed by some persons at the Stairs of the Altar, in the Cathedral at Canterbury, the Murder was charged upon the King by the Popes Legate; and though he swore that he was in no way concerned in his death, yet he was forced to kiss the legates knee, and submit to such pennance as he should appoint him; one part whereov was, That he should absolutely submit to the Pope in Spiritual matters. And we read, that when King Henry came out of France, he went to Canterbury; and as soon as he was in sight of the Cathedral, he put of his Shooes [sic] and Stockins, and went bare-foot to Beckets Tomb; the waies being so sharp and stormy, that his feet bled as he passed along; and when he came there every Monk in the Cloister whipt [whipped] the King’s back with a Rod; yet a popish Historian saith of this Becket, That he was worthy of death and damnation for being so obstinate against God’s Minister his King, Upon this Pennance the Pope granted to the King and his Heirs the Title of Kinds of England.” (pp 87, 88

“This Pope plagued the World about one and twenty years, and was then suddenly hurried out of it in the midst of his wretched and ambitious contrivances. Symson Hist. Church.” (p. 88)

Henry II reigned from 1154 – 1189. Henry appointed Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury hoping he would help the King reform the Church from some abuses, but in fact Becket became ascetic and refused to help.

When a clerk commited a murder and went unpunished, King Henry promoted a law that clergy should be tried for murder in civil courts, not church courts, restricting movements of high-ranking clergy, and also taking control of revenues of vacant sees (Bishop’s territories). Becket signed this but later asked the Pope to release him from his oath. Becket defied the King and fled to France.

Henry had the Archbishop of York, Roger, crown his eldest son (also called Henry). Becket and the Pope were upset by this, as was King Louis VII of France, who was sheltering Becket. Henry was forced to let Becket return to England, but Becket then excommunicated Roger of York and four other Bishops who had opposed him!

A group of kinghts, apparently misunderstanding some words spoken by Henry in anger and haste, murdered Becket at the alter of Canterbury Cathedral.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Pope had given Henry II permission to conquer Ireland.

T S Eliot’s wonderful play Murder in the Cathedral explores this story in greater depth.

[melvin mccarty]

Neat sidestep my friend and I think you know you are evading the issue!

mel

[John317]

Neat sidestep my friend and I think you know you are evading the issue!

mel

Dialoging requires more than simple one-liners which make general statements or conclusions and that don't address specific verses or statements the other person has said.

In this case, please tell what the issue is and quote what I have said or have not said that you believe show I am evading "the issue."

Otherwise it seems like what you've done is rather like asking someone a question, and then after the other person answers the question for 20 minutes, you might simply say, "That's not true." No such answer would be acceptable as a response in either a debate or a court or school thesis.

What is not true? What is wrong with the answer? Or is it merely your opinion or conclusion that the answer is wrong? All I am asking is that you base your conclusion on something beyond mere opinion.

I would like to know your logic and reasoning and evidence. Thus far all I know is that you think I am skirting "the issue."

Show me by evidence and reasoning from the Bible texts and history that I have done that. I am merely asking for a reasoned response, which offers evidence and reasoning for conclusions drawn.

I just checked a number of your past posts, and I noticed that none of the posts I read use the "quick quote" or the "quote", etc. They're kind of neat things to use because they give the person you're talking to an idea of exactly what you are responding to. If you would like any help with those, feel free to PM me.

We can't assume people know what we have in mind or are referring to.

Let's talk about this.

[John317]

1) The prophecies speak of the fourth empire that was to follow the Greek empire. What empire followed the Greek empire?

What was the greatest empire in world history that united the whole known world up to that point? All the history books of the world give the same answer.

Do you accept Rome as the empire spoken of in Daniel 2: 40, 41? You might also take a look at Luke 2:1; 3:1.

2) A very important thing to keep in mind in this regard is that prophecy does not ignore what we call the Eastern Roman Empire. However, it does not refer to it in the same chapters because the Western Empire was and still is related to the church and the gospel in a way that the Eastern Empire of Rome was not. Remember that the Eastern Empire eventually was taken over by Islam and it did not break up or collapse the way the Western Empire did. This is recognized by all historians of that time period.

Here is the distinction as described by the wikipedia:

Regarding the Eastern Roman Empire:

The [Eastern} empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. With Constantinople (Istanbul) as its capital city, and lands during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent which largely corresponded to the lands ruled by Justinian the Great exactly 1000 years earlier, the Ottoman Empire was, in many respects, an Islamic successor to the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

3) As you will see as we study this subject, there is no need for a text which says in so many words that the ten horns rose from the Western, as distinguished from the Eastern, Roman Empire. All it needs to say is that the ten horns rose from the Roman Empire. Then you study history.

As history shows, the Eastern Roman Empire did not collapse the same way as the Western part of the empire.

This from the wikipedia:

The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late fifth century as its territory was seized by Germanic tribes. The East Roman or Byzantine Empire endured until 1453 with the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks.

Also: The year 476 is generally accepted as the formal end of the Western Roman Empire. That year, Orestes refused the request of Germanic mercenaries in his service for lands in Italy. The dissatisfied mercenaries, including the Heruli, revolted. The revolt was led by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. Odoacer and his men captured and executed Orestes. Within weeks, Ravenna was captured and Romulus Augustus was deposed, the event that has been traditionally considered the fall of the Roman Empire, at least in the West.

Remember that the Bible gives us over 10 different marks of identity for the Antichrist/ little horn power. The true Antichrist/little horn power will fulfill ALL the marks of identity, not merely some.

[John317]

I had the father in mind. I have heard things about his son who got into the trouble you're talking about. I used to watch the son on TV once in a while years ago.

I get material now and then from World Tomorrow which is related to the old "Radio Church of God." They have some good things in their material, such as regarding what happens when a man dies and also about the Sabbath. They also have quite a few other things in common with SDAs.

I brought up Armstrong only because it seems obvious that you accept some of his interpretation of prophecy, particularly about the English speaking people being descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John 317

You're free to do that of course if you like, but I'd personally rather concentrate on one thread at a time regarding Daniel & Revelation.

Fair enough, ready when you are John!

Hey, in the meantime, hope you keep visiting this thread. Anyone is welcome of course. It's a place for exchanging insights and views-- dialoging-- concerning the prophecies.

[Fausto]

No problem, I'll stick around! Funny to see all these back and forth in Daniel's prophecy's man...to me they made sense and once history checked out, well let's just say I did not question it any further.

[melvin mccarty]

As far as style of posting goes I do not particularily like your style either my friend. Are you the official rule maker here? You could easily have turned back to my previous post and your reply thereto in much less time than it took you to pat me on the head. It was your posts that filled a whole page there.

mel

[John317]

I apologize if I said anything that hurt your feelings in any way. I am simply asking you to say more about what you believe and explain why you believe it. I never said anything about not liking your style. Again, I'm sorry if I said it in such a way as to give a wrong impression.

I'm trying to encourage you to say more than merely that you don't agree with something.

[John317]

No problem, I'll stick around! Funny to see all these back and forth in Daniel's prophecy's man...to me they made sense and once history checked out, well let's just say I did not question it any further.

The more questions the better because if these things are not true, it's time we know. Truth has nothing to fear or hide.

That does not mean we know all the answers to all questions, yet when we read a question that we cannot answer, we study and find out if the Bible contains the answer. If we can't find it, we file it and keep studying. Often we will find that the answer comes to us later as we study, pray, and talk to other believers.

[John317]

So first we decide that the Papacy is the little horn and then we make the other "facts" fit? mel

No, not at all. No assumptions should be made at all.

Let's simply lay out what the Bible says about the little horn power and then look at history and see if there is anyone who fulfills the identifying marks.

Please feel free to object or question at any point. My only request is that you have a reason and evidence for objecting and that you state these.

1) Arise out of pagan Rome. Roman roots. Daniel 7: 7, 8, 23, 24.

2) Come up after pagan Rome fell in AD 476. Daniel 7: 24.

3) Come up in Europe. Daniel 7: 8.

4) Overthrow three kingdoms. The third kingdom of the original ten was overthrown in AD 538. This is when the little horn came to power. Daniel 7:8, 20, 24.

5) Reign for 1, 260 years from A.D. 538 to 1798 and then lose its world power. In the last days it regains it world power. Daniel 7:25; Rev. 13:5.

6) Make war with and persecute Christians during the 1,260 years. Daniel 7: 21, 25; Rev. 13:7.

7) Have a man at its head who speaks and sees for it. Daniel 7:8.

8) Speak words of blasphemy: claiming to be God on earth and having the power to forgive sin. Daniel 7: 25; Revelation 13:5; John 10:33; Luke 5: 21.

9) Be diverse from the other nations of Europe: a religious and political power. Daniel 7: 24; Rev. 13: 4, 8.

10) Be universal and world-wide. Having no national boundaries, it will permeate all nations. Revelation 13: 3, 7-8.

This is what the Bible says. All we need to do is go to history to find who fulfills these ten points.

Is there more then one power that fulfills ALL the points? Let's see.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I suppose one might say that there is wisdom in ‘waiting upon the Lord’; that is, not ‘running until sent’, as it were. When Gd seals a matter until such and such time, one must consider the presumptuousness of forcing it prematurely. When we do not respect the seal of Gd we declare that Gd simply engages in meaningless superfluity.

>>Explain what that has to do with understanding the meaning of the text today, in 2008?<<

It should have nothing to do with the text today. The ‘official’ expositors or ‘prophets’ of the several .orgs, should have recognized the import of Daniel 12:4; been aware of the restrictions – “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased”; determined its confluence and “hour of its visitation”, as it were; and submitted it to the lay people for study.

Daniel 12: 4 says the book would be sealed until the "time of the end."

For one thing that does not mean that God would not allow anyone to study it and understand at least some parts of it.

Second, when the time of the end shall be is open to interpretation. Personally I believe that the "time of the end" occurred at the end of the 1,260 years, or in 1798.

What evidence do you have that the time of the end has yet occurred?

How do you understand the meaning of "many shall run to and fro," and "knowledge shall increase"?

[Fausto]

I guess I'll wait till the Daniel prophetic interpretations are understood, then I'd like to go back to rev 17:12.

It is interesting though the amount of history thus displayed, man...we should have studied this in school...fascinating...absolutelly fascinating!

I on the other hand used to hate history because I had to do Lenin, Marx, Fidel and Ho-chi-min, goodness that was brain whashing to the extreme...let's just say I grew up in Mozambique just after the Portuguese had left (1974).

Now...I absolutelly love history, specially in this way! Without lies!

[John317]

.....Today, in 2008 – the Bible student should be vigorously studying the Books Daniel and Revelation. Forcing, prematurely, interpretations from that which Gd has sealed is – purposefully willful.

Do you believe it would have been wrong for Issac Newton, say, in 1700, to study the book of Daniel with the intention of discovering its meaning so far as he could?

When would it have become all right for people to open it and study it?

Quote:

John 3:17--->>All of the books on Daniel 2 and 7 which I am referring to now have been written in the last 50 years.<<

I have in my library

Quote:

JASD-- : – books and other materials pertaining to the Book of Daniel written during the 19th century, when, I note again: men mainly depended upon mare’s shank for travel and germ theory was still – future.

The books you reference as being written within the last half century – basically repeat the ‘theories’ of those in my library.

One of the purposes of this dialog is to determine whether those things are merely "theories" or if they are valid. If they are merely "repeats" of "theories" that cannot stand up under close scrutiny, I don't want anything to do with them.

I don't think the scholars I am referring to are simply following theories. They are as interested in finding truth as you and I are. I study the writings of any serious Bible student, including Catholic and Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses. I am totally open to the best historical and Biblical evidence and analysis, irrespective of when or by whom it was written.

Have you studied Desmond Ford's commentary on Daniel? Another good writer and professor, Ranko Stefanovic, recently wrote separate commentaries on Daniel and Revelation. Have you read them? These do not simply repeat what anyone else says but are rigorous studies that meet the highest standards of historical research and Biblical analysis and commentary.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- >>When do you believe the messages of Daniel were "unsealed"?<<

Quote:

JASD-- It is a continuing process; however, that noted: this past century, when men began to run to and fro and when knowledge was increased – confluently. Especially, now.

When did men begin to run to fro? And what does the Bible mean by "run to and fro"? Are you sure it means travel? What is the increase of knowledge? Does that mean general knowledge? Or does it mean that at the time of the end, people would have an interest in studying and gaining knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel?

[John317]

I guess I'll wait till the Daniel prophetic interpretations are understood, then I'd like to go back to rev 17:12.

In the meantime, are you near where you would have access to an Adventist Book Center? There are many really good books on Rev. 17: 12. You might be able to order any of them from any book store, such as Barnes and Nobel.

Quote:

It is interesting though the amount of history thus displayed, man...we should have studied this in school...fascinating...absolutelly fascinating!

I on the other hand used to hate history because I had to do Lenin, Marx, Fidel and Ho-chi-min, goodness that was brain whashing to the extreme...let's just say I grew up in Mozambique just after the Portuguese had left (1974).

Now...I absolutelly love history, specially in this way! Without lies!

Send me a Private Message some time and tell me about your experience in Mozambique. I am very interested in Africa and particularly in what it was like living under Soviet influence in the late 70s and early 80s. Were you there at that time?

I understand a little of what you mean about reading communist publications. There was a time in my life when I was deeply involved in socialism and read a lot of Marx & Lenin and Leon Trotsky. I used to be a great admirer of Fidel and Che. Back in 1968, I would have considered it a privilege to cut sugar cane for Fidel or die fighting alongside Che. Goes to show how God can change people.

[Fausto]

In the meantime, are you near where you would have access to an Adventist Book Center? There are many really good books on Rev. 17: 12. You might be able to order any of them from any book store, such as Barnes and Nobel.

Right now I can't but I have in my possession an exhaustive commentary on Revelations by Ellen G. White and what she says there still leaves me in some doubt as she does not emphatically say one thing, she gives all the thoughts present at the time!

I will PM you soon, no problem!