Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61

Thread: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Your map is exactly that - your own concoction which should be scrutinised before it is accepted as being correct. If you stated peoples instead of kingdoms, then it may be more accurate but that then doesn't meet the criteria given in Daniel. It also has a minor problem in that peoples can be defined on linguistic or tribal lines and some kingdoms have multiple peoples, which is why I believe the key is to take KINGs as the defining concept.
    Im sure that you, me, and Daniel would have considered Israel, when they settled the promised land in 12 territories, to be one 'kingdom'. In the same way, I am treating the Anglo-Saxons. They are ethnically the same; arrived at the same time; spoke the same language; shared the same culture; and inter-married. So my interpretation of Daniel shows the Anglo-Saxons as one of the 10 horns of Daniel.

    Similarly, the Britons of Wales and the Britons of France. (Brittany - see map)

    I'd like to point out that other commentators have noticed how the tribal migration of the Dark Ages fit Daniels prophecy too. (the interpretation is called Historicism) However, most old style Historicists ignore eastern Rome, and try to chop western Rome into 10 segments in the single year of 476 AD. Then they try to morph it into the Roman Catholic Church.

    My view is that Eastern Rome became Byzantium and should be counted as one of the 'horns.' And over a hundred or so years the dust settled, and the tribal migrations settled into a total of ten. Here they are:

    1. Byzantium
    2. Avar Kingdom
    3. Lombards
    4. Frankish kingdom
    5. Anglo-Saxons
    6. Britons
    7. Basques
    8. North Africa
    9. Moorish Kingdom
    10. Visigoths


    Do any posters here know of any other people groups in the former Roman boundaries?
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,313
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Im sure that you, me, and Daniel would have considered Israel, when they settled the promised land in 12 territories, to be one 'kingdom'. In the same way, I am treating the Anglo-Saxons. They are ethnically the same; arrived at the same time; spoke the same language; shared the same culture; and inter-married. So my interpretation of Daniel shows the Anglo-Saxons as one of the 10 horns of Daniel.
    Wrong on many levels.
    1) When they were 12 tribes, then they were considered as twelve tribes and went to war with each other.
    2) When they had a King, that 1 king ruled over ALL 12 tribes. It was then ONE King and ONE kingdom.
    3) When Rehoboam was king, 10 tribes left and it became TWO kingdoms with TWO kings.
    So IF you wish to treat it the same way as how they considered Israel then this speaks differently to how you put it.

    Now when you speak of Daniel, presumably you mean how the prophecies of Daniel were understood.
    We can see this in Dan 2 clearly where the first kingdom has ONE king ruling over the ENTIRE kingdom - Nebuchadnezzar over Babylonia.
    We see this again with Cyrus ruling over the ENTIRE kingdom - the Medes and the Persians.
    Note also that these kings subjugated the over peoples living in the lands they ruled over. So the peoples were not counted but the Kings were.
    When we look at Rome - there was ONE Caesar ruling over the ENTIRE kingdom, though with a multitude of peoples.
    You might note that the Roman (citizens) were the ruling people.

    So if we deal with how Daniel seems to understand these kings and how later it is understood, it is EXACTLY about the King ruling over an area and NOT about a people.

    Similarly, the Britons of Wales and the Britons of France. (Brittany - see map)
    The Britons of Wales and Brittany are separate peoples though of a family group. They were Celts and there were various tribes of differing dialects and rulers.
    The Angles and Saxons were two distinctly separate people and it is only after the Viking invasions, which were of differing Viking peoples that they were later considered as being one. There were also the Jutes who settled in Kent.

    I'd like to point out that other commentators have noticed how the tribal migration of the Dark Ages fit Daniels prophecy too. (the interpretation is called Historicism) However, most old style Historicists ignore eastern Rome, and try to chop western Rome into 10 segments in the single year of 476 AD. Then they try to morph it into the Roman Catholic Church.
    And I would highlight how those commentators perform the same error and try to make facts fit a theory rather than the theory to fit the facts.
    They also, as you note mistreat the Roman Empire as the Roman Empire continued in Constantinople.

    My view is that Eastern Rome became Byzantium and should be counted as one of the 'horns.' And over a hundred or so years the dust settled, and the tribal migrations settled into a total of ten.
    As Eastern Rome was part of the Beast and was the Leg of Iron so to then make it as only one of the ten doesn't make sense. Rather the 10 horns ALL come from the 4th beast. So IF Constantinople was the 4th beast then ALL 10 must come from it.

    Here they are:

    1. Byzantium
    2. Avar Kingdom
    3. Lombards
    4. Frankish kingdom
    5. Anglo-Saxons
    6. Britons
    7. Basques
    8. North Africa
    9. Moorish Kingdom
    10. Visigoths


    Do any posters here know of any other people groups in the former Roman boundaries?
    Yes, loads of them.
    Alemanni, Thuringians, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Suebians, and if you go into the peoples who are ruled over by others such as into the Vandals ruled over Castliian as well as Catalans.
    Either you count peoples, which will be way more than 10 or you deal with kingdoms which is also more than 10.
    What you are doing is trying to mix and match, so sometimes speaking of peoples, such as Britons or Saxons - or you have kingdoms like the Byzantine or Vandal.
    This means some horns is ONE King and other times it is a multiplicity of kings.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker
    Do any posters here know of any other people groups in the former Roman boundaries?
    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Yes, loads of them.
    Alemanni, Thuringians, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Suebians ...
    The Thuringians were north of the Roman boundaries.
    The Alemanni and Burgundians were conquered by the Franks.
    The Ostrogoths were conquered by the Lombards.
    The Suebians were conquered by the Visigoths. (Please compare the last two maps.)

    By 600 AD there were only 10 nations left inside the boundaries of the old Roman Empire.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,313
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    The Thuringians were north of the Roman boundaries.
    The Alemanni and Burgundians were conquered by the Franks.
    The Ostrogoths were conquered by the Lombards.
    The Suebians were conquered by the Visigoths. (Please compare the last two maps.)

    By 600 AD there were only 10 nations left inside the boundaries of the old Roman Empire.
    Alemanni were conquered by the Franks, however they continued to exist as a people and later were sovereign kingdoms. So it depends on exactly which date you choose to pluck out of the air.

    The Franks themselves were united under one king Clovis I but in 511 AD that Kingdom split and had Neustrian Franks and Austrasian Franks. from 511 AD to 679 AD.
    So with your date of 600 AD there were TWO Frankish kingdoms, which immediately makes more than 10.
    Thuringians were NOT north of the Roman Boundaries. Mainz was in Thuringia:
    In antiquity Mainz was a Roman fort city (called Mogontiacum) which commanded the west bank of the Rhine and formed part of the northernmost frontier of the Roman Empire; it was founded as a military post by the Romans in the late 1st century BC and became the provincial capital of Germania Superior. The city is located on the river Rhine at its confluence with the Main.
    In 600 AD itself they were under Frankish control, but previously and later they were independent.

    The Ostrogothic kingdom was conquered by that of the Lombards yet really they were allies against the Byzantines. So as a people they continued to exist but not as a kingdom.

    The Suebi in Spain were conquered by the Visigoths, though the people remained.
    the Cantabrians also reappeared as independent.

    The Jutes though remained as a Kingdom in 600 AD in Kent and in fact were the first kingdom to embrace Christianity from the Roman Catholics.
    The Anglians - the cause of Pope Gregory I sending missionaries to England - had two main Kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbrai (as well as East Anglia).
    These two groups of people are separate two the Saxons and ruled by different kings.
    So in 600 AD in Britain alone you have 4 clearly different peoples of Angles, Saxons and Jutes as well as the Britons. These peoples were then ruled by more than one king at the same time.

    So if you ignore kingdoms and speak of peoples (when you say 10 nations) then there are clearly more.
    However conversely if you speak of kingdoms and not peoples (when you say nations) then there are also clearly more.

    The problem is entirely of your own making because you are claiming one thing for one part of the ruled area, and then claiming something different for the other.

    May be you should not try and use 600 AD but perhaps the area ruled in 95 AD? Better yet, just ignore what area is ruled and just select 10 kingdoms that came after. This still ignores the point that these 10 horns are ON the 4th beast, which means just like the 4 horns on the goat were ALL of the goat, so the 10 horns of the 4th beast should ALL be of that 4th beast.
    So IF the 4th beast was Rome, then ALL 10 horns should be Roman kingdoms, if you are to remain consistent with Daniel's visions.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Can't be bothered wrangling with you FHG.

    If anyone wants copies of my maps, send me an email and I'll post them back as attachments. That includes a map of the 3 horns uprooted by the little horn, the rise of Islam as a new 'beast', and a diagram showing the connection between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17.

    Blessings,

    Cyber
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,313
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Can't be bothered wrangling with you FHG.

    If anyone wants copies of my maps, send me an email and I'll post them back as attachments. That includes a map of the 3 horns uprooted by the little horn, the rise of Islam as a new 'beast', and a diagram showing the connection between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17.

    Blessings,

    Cyber
    If you were to post your other map that would be instructive, though where you get a 5th beast from - the "new" beast I am not sure.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,393

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    The early church believed the Roman Empire was the 4th beast of Daniel, and would be divided into 10 kingdoms. Their quotations make that clear.
    Yes the early church made a lot of errors. They should have been looking out for a "divided Rome" first as per Daniel 2.

    Even as early as the epistles, the writers of the New Testament were often warning about multiple doctrinal error that had already seeped into the early church. Therefore it is not a wise thing to rely on the beliefs of the early church, we have the scriptures ourselves, we can get our views directly from the bible.

    But yes Rome will have ten parts, but this seems to be the Eastern half of Rome, because the beast with ten horns resembles Alexander's kingdom , not Rome's kingdom. (Rev 13 - the beast resembles the leopard)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    Yes the early church made a lot of errors.
    Well, no one is infallible of course. But the earliest of the Church fathers were only a generation away from the apostles and their memories can't have been that bad. I would be inclined to think the errors came from heretics such as Judaisers and Gnostics who snuck in the back door - not from the leaders of the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    They should have been looking out for a "divided Rome" first as per Daniel 2.
    Sure, but its easy for us to say what happened in retrospect. Rome split in two in 395 AD, but by AD 600 it had further split into ten. The gradual breakup happened over about 200 years, but the early church writers expected things to happen faster than that. We tend to still be like that with prophecy dont you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    But yes Rome will have ten parts, but this seems to be the Eastern half of Rome, because the beast with ten horns resembles Alexander's kingdom , not Rome's kingdom. (Rev 13 - the beast resembles the leopard)
    Mmmm but Rev 17 expands Rev 13 and includes Rome. Its a bit of a push to say its only a Greek beast. Daniel 7 seems to be saying that the entire Roman territory would divide into ten. And that's what seems to have happened as can be seen here:

    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  9. #39

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Well, no one is infallible of course. But the earliest of the Church fathers were only a generation away from the apostles and their memories can't have been that bad. I would be inclined to think the errors came from heretics such as Judaisers and Gnostics who snuck in the back door - not from the leaders of the Church.



    Sure, but its easy for us to say what happened in retrospect. Rome split in two in 395 AD, but by AD 600 it had further split into ten. The gradual breakup happened over about 200 years, but the early church writers expected things to happen faster than that. We tend to still be like that with prophecy dont you think?



    Mmmm but Rev 17 expands Rev 13 and includes Rome. Its a bit of a push to say its only a Greek beast. Daniel 7 seems to be saying that the entire Roman territory would divide into ten. And that's what seems to have happened as can be seen here:

    I have to respect Glory's view of the greater complexity of the Roman Empire after Rome's fall in 476 AD. He clearly has a better grasp than I do of the changing forms of the different ethnic groups inhabiting this general area. I don't know whether or not we can count a specific 10--perhaps you can? I just don't know.

    I agree with your basic assumption, that Rome was to split into 10 entities in order to fulfil Dan 2 and Dan 7. Let's just say that Daniel saw, in ch. 2, that 10 toes would be on 2 feet? What this means to me is not so much that we can identify at any one historical moment what the 10 toes are. Rather, it means that we can see a changing set of peoples following the collapse of Rome, which generally follows a pattern of 10 toes.

    In reality, Daniel saw the 10 toes only on 2 feet. What this means to me is that until we actually see the 2 feet we will not see clearly the 10 toes and what they are. If you begin with the head, and proceed to the feet, you will get a historical succession from Babylon to the endtime Roman Empire. And so, until we actually see the endtime Roman Empire we will not know definitively what the 10 toes are.

    I've also seen a variation on the 10 toes in history, but as Glory indicates, it is near impossible to put a time stamp on this to get exactly 10. For example, I can see 5 major nations developing in the old Western Roman territory, and 5 major nations developing in the old Eastern Roman territory. For example, we see the imperial nations of Spain, France, Germany, etc. in the West, and we see great countries like Poland and Hungary in the East. But what time do we look at this?

    What I do is generally divide up the German portion of the old Roman Empire from the Slavic portion of the old Roman Empire, and view this as Eastern and Western "feet" of the image of Nebuchadnezzar. And since both Eastern and Western portions of ancient Rome developed outside of their original territories I don't try to include countries strictly within the borders of ancient Rome. I'm tracking the territorial expansion of the old Roman culture, and not remaining strictly within the borders of the ancient Roman Empire.

    So what we shall see in the end I don't know. But we have seen the fragmentation of the Roman Empire, as predicted. Though the old Roman Empire passed away, it was declared to be the final Empire before Christ's return. So obviously, a miracle takes place--Rome returns! Perhaps this is the healing of the "fatal wound" of the Beast---I don't know? But to declare definitively what the 10 nations are that Rome developed into is something we cannot do until the 2 feet appear. At least that's what I think.
    Last edited by randyk; Dec 7th 2017 at 08:14 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk
    So what we shall see in the end I don't know. But we have seen the fragmentation of the Roman Empire, as predicted. Though the old Roman Empire passed away, it was declared to be the final Empire before Christ's return. So obviously, a miracle takes place--Rome returns! Perhaps this is the healing of the "fatal wound" of the Beast---I don't know? But to declare definitively what the 10 nations are that Rome developed into is something we cannot do until the 2 feet appear. At least that's what I think.
    Oh, there were ten in past history alright. And three were gobbled up in the eighth century. I'm starting a new thread about it here. Hope you like it.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,393

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Well, no one is infallible of course. But the earliest of the Church fathers were only a generation away from the apostles and their memories can't have been that bad. I would be inclined to think the errors came from heretics such as Judaisers and Gnostics who snuck in the back door - not from the leaders of the Church.



    Sure, but its easy for us to say what happened in retrospect. Rome split in two in 395 AD, but by AD 600 it had further split into ten. The gradual breakup happened over about 200 years, but the early church writers expected things to happen faster than that. We tend to still be like that with prophecy dont you think?



    Mmmm but Rev 17 expands Rev 13 and includes Rome. Its a bit of a push to say its only a Greek beast. Daniel 7 seems to be saying that the entire Roman territory would divide into ten. And that's what seems to have happened as can be seen here:

    In what manner do you think the ten horned beast resembles the leopard? I think it means geographically.

    Who do you think the whore of Rev 17 is. It seems to point to the city of Rome and it's Western domain as a separate entity to the ten horned beast.

  12. #42

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Oh, there were ten in past history alright. And three were gobbled up in the eighth century. I'm starting a new thread about it here. Hope you like it.
    Sure, I may not agree with it, but I do appreciate your studied posts! Keep 'em coming!

  13. #43

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    In what manner do you think the ten horned beast resembles the leopard? I think it means geographically.

    Who do you think the whore of Rev 17 is. It seems to point to the city of Rome and it's Western domain as a separate entity to the ten horned beast.
    Really good point! I also think the Beast system must incorporate areas outside of the boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire, if that's what you mean? And Mystery Babylon, if she is Rome, is certainly distinct from the Beast!

    It is possible that Rome initially broke up into 10 major groups *within its boundaries.* But this would only be the beginning of the fulfillment of this prophecy, since they have to become "two feet" as well! And I think that takes place in the endtimes, at the time when Antichrist prepares to come.

    In my view the two "legs" of the Great Image of Nebuchadnezzar represent the two sections of the ancient Roman Empire. But by the time they evolve into "two feet" ancient Roman culture will have moved far beyond the original boundaries of that empire!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude
    In what manner do you think the ten horned beast resembles the leopard? I think it means geographically.
    Geographically may well be right. I note that Alexander’s conquests went as far as India, as did Islam.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,416
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Early Church believed Rome would be divided into 10 Kingdoms

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk

    It is possible that Rome initially broke up into 10 major groups *within its boundaries.* But this would only be the beginning of the fulfillment of this prophecy, since they have to become "two feet" as well! And I think that takes place in the endtimes, at the time when Antichrist prepares to come.

    In my view the two "legs" of the Great Image of Nebuchadnezzar represent the two sections of the ancient Roman Empire. But by the time they evolve into "two feet" ancient Roman culture will have moved far beyond the original boundaries of that empire!
    I’m comfortable with that. Some have noticed how many prophecies have a near/far fulfilment. I think Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 is like that. I’ll be trying to expand on this aspect on the other thread.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 79
    Last Post: Jan 2nd 2014, 11:45 PM
  2. The Church & the taboo - Divided Loyalties
    By JDMedia in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Apr 23rd 2012, 06:26 PM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: Aug 21st 2010, 11:42 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr 1st 2009, 02:27 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Oct 27th 2008, 06:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •