PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Rome and the Ottoman Empire



DurbanDude
Jan 4th 2009, 05:09 PM
I have been meditating a lot lately on the very definite role of the Islamic countries in the end. I am a firm believer in Rome's ultimate control but I suddenly had an idea about the role of the Ottoman Empire and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

I believe the fourth empire of Daniel 7 is definitely Rome for various reasons which I don't want to debate on this particular thread. But read this description of the fourth empire, the "iron" empire.

2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The iron part is quite simply, the Roman Empire, it was the kingdom that conquered Greece, the bronze empire. But then during the Roman emperor Constantine's reign, he established an eastern capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople in 326 AD. This was in TURKEY.

This city was also for religious purposes, related to his conversion to Christianity, he wanted to create a second and greater "Rome" without the old religious artifacts and pagan temples of Rome. He succeeded and Constantinople soon became greater than Rome.

Within 100 years the Roman Empire was split into two regions, with religion and politics very prominent in both empires. Rome itself fell, but the Bishop of Rome soon established Rome as powerful through religious manipulation. And Turkey remained powerful and very religious, also with a very legalistic false form of Christianity. These two cities controlled Europe and the Middle East and also controlled state Christianity.

Conclusion 1:
Constantine's building of Constantinople very soon resulted in a split of the military empire of Rome into two Empires, one in Italy and one in Turkey, both with a very religious slant.

This fits in with the biblical description of the statue with iron legs, and then feet of iron and clay, the two feet representative of a split empire, the iron and clay representative of the mixed religious influence in both sections of the Roman empire, Rome and Turkey.

It was the Islamic Turks themselves (the Ottoman Empire) that conquered the Christian Roman based civilisation of Constantinople 1000 years later. They were not an outside empire conquering the eastern division of Rome, but remained Turkish, the new Turkish controlled empire was of the same region yet a different religion. The religious nature of this Turkish empire was still there, just a new religion was in power of the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Still two divisions of the original Roman empire, but one is Christian based , one is Islam based, one is based in Rome, one based in Turkey.

Conclusion 2:
The Ottoman Empire was Turks taking control of Turkey, the Eastern division of the Roman Empire.

Cyberseeker
Jan 5th 2009, 03:21 AM
Conclusion 1:
Constantine's building of Constantinople very soon resulted in a split of the military empire of Rome into two Empires, one in Italy and one in Turkey, both with a very religious slant.

This fits in with the biblical description of the statue with iron legs, ...

I like! :idea: Yes, there were two Romes and the 'two leg' image strengthens the argument that the 4th beast was Rome. It was west Rome and east Rome. However Turkey did not exist as such. Eastern Rome was the Byzantine Empire and it withstood Islam for 800 years.


Conclusion 2:
The Ottoman Empire was Turks taking control of Turkey, the Eastern division of the Roman Empire.

The Ottoman is only a part of the picture. The Islamic Empire arose in AD 622 and existed in several forms/dynasties with the Ottomans being the last.

The Islamic empire, in its various forms (prior to Ottoman) overcame three of the Kingdoms that developed out of the former Roman Empire. This was prophesied in Daniel 7:24

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 04:22 AM
Very intriguing, durbandude. Here is sometihng else that I think may help us in this road of discovery.

There's another thread with the map of the "table of nations". ON that map, I have found just about every nation that has been named in Ezekiel 38 as a part of the coalition of nations that would make up the Magog that attacks Israel in the latter days. The interesting thing about this is that all of the nations mentioned, their land mass included Turkey, Italy, northwestern Africa, and the Middle East.

There may be a connection.... Here's the thread:
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=152593

The OP has the website with the map.

I am very interested in your findings durbandude, because the hypothesis has much merit. Please, share with us what you find.

DurbanDude
Jan 5th 2009, 07:31 AM
I like! :idea: Yes, there were two Romes and the 'two leg' image strengthens the argument that the 4th beast was Rome. It was west Rome and east Rome. However Turkey did not exist as such. Eastern Rome was the Byzantine Empire and it withstood Islam for 800 years.

The Ottoman is only a part of the picture. The Islamic Empire arose in AD 622 and existed in several forms/dynasties with the Ottomans being the last.

The Islamic empire, in its various forms (prior to Ottoman) overcame three of the Kingdoms that developed out of the former Roman Empire. This was prophesied in Daniel 7:24

I agree with most of what you say here. I was just focussing on Turkey as the base of the Byzantine Empire, to make my point that the Ottomans are not from a new region geographically, but the Ottoman empire is a continuation of a Turkish based empire. It is an overthrow of a Christian government over the Turkish people by an Islamic government. This empire was widespread, and the Ottomans took over this empire and spread further into Persia.

I disagree with your defining the Islamic Empire as the little horn of Daniel 7:24, have you got any scriptural backing for this? I personally think that the little horn matches the 8th kingdom of Rev 17, being a country that ceased and then arose again. A little horn being a small country. I believe this refers to current Israel, a small country that re-appeared to amaze the non-Christians of earth, from which the antichrist will reign.

Daniel 7:24 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.

Cyberseeker
Jan 5th 2009, 09:22 AM
I disagree with your defining the Islamic Empire as the little horn of Daniel 7:24, have you got any scriptural backing for this?

A few interesting scriptures. Here is one for starters.

"He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law." (Dan 7:25)

The defining start-point of Islam is the Hegira calendar (AD 622 = AH 1) which is a lunar time-system quite different to the western and Jewish calendars. It seems to me that this is the 'alteration to times' mentioned by Daniel above. It is very significant to Islam.

As for Islam wearing down the saints, that was a ongoing feature of medieval history for over 1200 years. There are other scriptures but this one for now.

DurbanDude
Jan 5th 2009, 10:36 AM
A few interesting scriptures. Here is one for starters.

"He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law." (Dan 7:25)

The defining start-point of Islam is the Hegira calendar (AD 622 = AH 1) which is a lunar time-system quite different to the western and Jewish calendars. It seems to me that this is the 'alteration to times' mentioned by Daniel above. It is very significant to Islam.

As for Islam wearing down the saints, that was a ongoing feature of medieval history for over 1200 years. There are other scriptures but this one for now.

So you have circumstantial evidence. Muslims have a different dating system and the antichrist will change the set times, so you associate the two. I personally have no problem with the concept of an antichrist that fits the Muslim doctrine too, for he will unite all religions. I believe the Vatican will orchestrate this. Where the Muslim prophecies and the biblical prophecies disagree is that Muslims believe no man can be God, and the bible says a man will declare himself God.

Rome has worn down the saints and slaughtered more Jews and Christians than Islam, the Roman introduced calendar and not the Jewish calendar is our modern dating system, and modern law is based on Roman law and not biblical law, so these verses apply to Rome too.

third hero
Jan 5th 2009, 08:25 PM
So you have circumstantial evidence. Muslims have a different dating system and the antichrist will change the set times, so you associate the two. I personally have no problem with the concept of an antichrist that fits the Muslim doctrine too, for he will unite all religions. I believe the Vatican will orchestrate this. Where the Muslim prophecies and the biblical prophecies disagree is that Muslims believe no man can be God, and the bible says a man will declare himself God.

Rome has worn down the saints and slaughtered more Jews and Christians than Islam, the Roman introduced calendar and not the Jewish calendar is our modern dating system, and modern law is based on Roman law and not biblical law, so these verses apply to Rome too.

After talking to some people in here, and looking up their scripture references, I am inclined to believe the following:

1. The Beast, the man of sin, will come from the Muslim world.
2. The pope, whoever he may be, will become the false prophet
3. The pope will cause all of the coalition to make Rome their base
4. Rome will be destroyed at the point after the Lord returns but before the Battle at Armageddon.

I guess that this is my way of saying that the fusion of the two perspectives that durbandude and cyberseeker are promoting is what I believe will actually happen.

In a sense, it would make sense. the Ottomon Empire, from what I had read, was the "resurrected Persian empire". The Pope and the vatican represents the Western Roman empire. The Ottomons took over the Eastern Roman Empire and attempted to fuse both the Western with the Eastern, hence World War I. It seems fit to me to say that both will be a part of the last Empire before Christ's return. IF the Beast is able to fuse both the Western Roman Empire, (pope) with the Eastern Roman Empire, (Turkey and the Middle East), then we would have the resurrected Roman empire in it's entirety before Constantine's breakaway.

Jerome1
Jan 8th 2009, 03:18 PM
So you have circumstantial evidence. Muslims have a different dating system and the antichrist will change the set times, so you associate the two. I personally have no problem with the concept of an antichrist that fits the Muslim doctrine too, for he will unite all religions. I believe the Vatican will orchestrate this. Where the Muslim prophecies and the biblical prophecies disagree is that Muslims believe no man can be God, and the bible says a man will declare himself God.

Rome has worn down the saints and slaughtered more Jews and Christians than Islam, the Roman introduced calendar and not the Jewish calendar is our modern dating system, and modern law is based on Roman law and not biblical law, so these verses apply to Rome too.

Hi DurbanDude, the legs of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars seem to fit the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire, but i have heard people attribute the legs to Islamic powers.

You might be interested to know that many Orthodox christians still use the Julian calender, were as most Western christians tend to use the Gregorian calender.

Jerome1
Jan 8th 2009, 03:25 PM
After talking to some people in here, and looking up their scripture references, I am inclined to believe the following:

1. The Beast, the man of sin, will come from the Muslim world.
2. The pope, whoever he may be, will become the false prophet
3. The pope will cause all of the coalition to make Rome their base
4. Rome will be destroyed at the point after the Lord returns but before the Battle at Armageddon.

I guess that this is my way of saying that the fusion of the two perspectives that durbandude and cyberseeker are promoting is what I believe will actually happen.

In a sense, it would make sense. the Ottomon Empire, from what I had read, was the "resurrected Persian empire". The Pope and the vatican represents the Western Roman empire. The Ottomons took over the Eastern Roman Empire and attempted to fuse both the Western with the Eastern, hence World War I. It seems fit to me to say that both will be a part of the last Empire before Christ's return. IF the Beast is able to fuse both the Western Roman Empire, (pope) with the Eastern Roman Empire, (Turkey and the Middle East), then we would have the resurrected Roman empire in it's entirety before Constantine's breakaway.

Interesting observations there third hero, i remember reading somewhere before that the antichrist will born in Babylon/Corazain?, and that he will be of Jewish descent(possibly from the tribe of Dan). I might have read that from quotes from the ECF's(early church fathers).

Your other observation of the pope being the false prophet also has some prophetic evidence to support it. Catholics who believe this don't believe that the actual pope will be the false prophet but an antipope(one who is invalidly elected). I have heard people purport that the real pope will be forced to flee into exile where he will be executed.

I'm not sure about your third observation, but i have also read that Rome will be attacked with a nuclear weapon.

Were you aware of these opinions, or did you arrive at these conclusions through personal study?

third hero
Jan 9th 2009, 05:23 PM
Interesting observations there third hero, i remember reading somewhere before that the antichrist will born in Babylon/Corazain?, and that he will be of Jewish descent(possibly from the tribe of Dan). I might have read that from quotes from the ECF's(early church fathers).

Your other observation of the pope being the false prophet also has some prophetic evidence to support it. Catholics who believe this don't believe that the actual pope will be the false prophet but an antipope(one who is invalidly elected). I have heard people purport that the real pope will be forced to flee into exile where he will be executed.

I'm not sure about your third observation, but i have also read that Rome will be attacked with a nuclear weapon.

Were you aware of these opinions, or did you arrive at these conclusions through personal study?

The first two were from research. I originally thought that the Roman emperor who was one of the seven in Revelation 17 would rise from the dead and set his mind towards ruling the entire world, starting at Jerusalem and ending in Rome, where he would set up HIs political arm and rule the nations until the Return of the Lord. The thing that made me believe that the false prophet would be a pope is the idea that the closest leader that could qualify is one that "has two horns like a lamb, but spoke as the dragon" (Revelation 13:11). I figured that this was cryptic for a person who had the appearance of ta Christian (like a lamb), who betrays the entire faith to preserve himself and, like Bennedict Arnold, turns his alliegence to the Beast. Then I ran into the Malachi prophecies, and the last two prophecies confirmed what I thought, especially the last one who "is to continue to feed the sheep unto the end". The only one that fits the bill, IMHO, is the pope. (However, if the Malachi prophecies are correct, this pope will not be him, but a transitional pope, who will have the rigns for a few years, but not for very long. the next one will be "him" if the Malachi prophecies are correct.)

After talking to "astrongerthanhe" and "stefen", they showed me scriptures that had me lean towards the Beast being a man from the Middle east. (Then I stumbled onto the Club of Rome, and a whole bunch of light bulbs went off, including the whole "union" thing that was originated and orchestrated by the Club of Rome, and that confirmed the Middle Eastern connection for me anyway.) Then, I stumbled onto the end times prophecies of Islam, and the fact that they mirror Revelation but from the Beast's side proved to me unequivalently that the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Antichrist, whoever you call him will be from the Middle East.

As for Rome, I originally took all of the riddles in Revelation 17 and matched them with possible cities. The only one that ruled over the kings of the world at the time of John's writing was indeed Rome, the city set on seven hills. IN Revelation 17, the beast, the false prophet, and the coalition of kings will set fire to her and burn her down (17:17). Then I read 18:21 and did a test.

The Angel said that with such violence will Babylon be destroyed, and it will never be seen again. He threw a stone in the sea. So, I threw a stone into my bathtub, and noticed how the water reacted. I then compared what I had seen and matched it with videos of Nuclear bombs exploding. Guess what? It matched! And it makes sense. A Nuclear bomb, when it goes off, looks like water that has been impacted by a stone. And it is the ultimate form of fire that we know of so far. So, Babylon will be destroyed by fire, and it will be the Beast who will set it off.

My short answer is that I found out most of this by myself. ;)

Jerome1
Jan 9th 2009, 11:47 PM
After talking to "astrongerthanhe" and "stefen", they showed me scriptures that had me lean towards the Beast being a man from the Middle east.


I have heard people give Matthew11:21 to support their idea that the antichrist will be born in Chorazin and raised in Bethsaida. There is also a lot of testimonies from the ECF's(early Church fathers) and scripture indicating that he may be from the tribe of Dan. If Jews are going to regard him as the coming Messiah it is hard to imagine that he would not be of obvious Jewish descent.

The prophecies i was alluding to that suggest the antichrist may try to establish a false religious figure, was the use of Antiochus Epiphanes and Nero as forerunners to the antichrist.

Antiochus usurped the high priesthood from Onias in favour of his brother Jason. Onias was subsequently murdered by Andronicus. Peter and Paul were also executed under the persecution of Nero.

DurbanDude
Jan 12th 2009, 03:23 AM
Hi DurbanDude, the legs of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars seem to fit the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire, but i have heard people attribute the legs to Islamic powers.

You might be interested to know that many Orthodox christians still use the Julian calender, were as most Western christians tend to use the Gregorian calender.

Thanks, that is interesting. I see both calendars as Roman though, the Julian is from ancient Rome and the Gregorian is an adjusted calendar from Papal Rome.

gjolive
Jan 14th 2009, 10:19 PM
This ties in to the 10 kings of the revived Roman Empire. These 10 kings or nation-states could be the European Union (of which no muslim states are member). It used to be that only 10 countries belonging to the EU were part of the Roman Empire (e.g. Ireland and Denmark or Sweden were never part of the Roman Empire). I am not sure if this theory would still hold, because so many eastern block countries have joined the EU. The EU is a force to be dealt with in determining end times scenarios. If the 10 king scenario holds true for the EU, it would be persuasive to say the least. Note that the European Union AKA the EC, EEC ECSU was originaly started by the Rome Treaty in think in 1956.

Bethany67
Jan 15th 2009, 04:37 AM
Don't forget that Turkey is currently seeking membership of the EU; it started negotiations in 1987, upped the ante at the Helsinki summit in 1999, and started negotiating seriously in 2005. It has to agree to the 35 chapters, then seek approval from each of the current member states. There has to be unanimous agreement, and right now there are serious concerns within the EU about the whole matter. Because Turkey straddles two continents, there is a general feeling that their culture is not European enough, and there are big concerns about its record on human rights and democracy.

Austria is likely to oppose it for historical reasons because of the Ottoman Empire, and Sarkozy of France is very anti as well; he doesn't consider that their region of East Thrace is sufficient to support their geographical place within Europe. Giscard d'Estaing thinks it woud lead the way for Morocco to be considered as well, although that's difficult to see geographically. Then there's the issue of Cyprus.

I don't think it's going to be a smooth ride. If it joins, it will have the second largest number of the MEPs in the European Parliament. I'm waiting to see what Ireland does on their second referendum on the European Constitution itself; they gave it a dramatic thumbs-down last year, but polls are now showing 55% support because of the credit crunch. I wish the UK would withdraw completely, but our government won't even allow us the referendum that they promised us in 1997 as part of New Labour's election campaign.

DurbanDude
Jan 15th 2009, 07:49 AM
This ties in to the 10 kings of the revived Roman Empire. These 10 kings or nation-states could be the European Union (of which no muslim states are member). It used to be that only 10 countries belonging to the EU were part of the Roman Empire (e.g. Ireland and Denmark or Sweden were never part of the Roman Empire). I am not sure if this theory would still hold, because so many eastern block countries have joined the EU. The EU is a force to be dealt with in determining end times scenarios. If the 10 king scenario holds true for the EU, it would be persuasive to say the least. Note that the European Union AKA the EC, EEC ECSU was originaly started by the Rome Treaty in think in 1956.

My understanding of the ten kings is that the whole earth is divided into ten regions, I feel this fits scripture better. Because the ten toes of the statue of Daniel 2 are five on each side, I would assume that the western half of Rome, the Vatican, controls 5 regions of earth, and the Eastern half, Islam, also controls 5 regions of earth. Knowing that the eastern and northern regions rebel against the antichrist at the end when they attack his base in Israel (Daniel 11), and looking at current world politics, we can get an approximate breakdown of which countries are allied to which halves of earth:

Arabic, Asian, Russian and African states are allied to the "Assyrian", the Islamic alliance. they will support the antichrist as their own leader, at first. Israel, Europe, the Americas and Australasia are allied to the Vatican. Certain Asian countries, ie maybe Japan or India may be part of the western alliance. When the two sides suddenly go to war at the end, the western alliance will side with the antichrist, the eastern alliance will side with the Assyrian (Islam).

mizzdy
Jan 15th 2009, 04:46 PM
Don't forget that Turkey is currently seeking membership of the EU; it started negotiations in 1987, upped the ante at the Helsinki summit in 1999, and started negotiating seriously in 2005. It has to agree to the 35 chapters, then seek approval from each of the current member states. There has to be unanimous agreement, and right now there are serious concerns within the EU about the whole matter. Because Turkey straddles two continents, there is a general feeling that their culture is not European enough, and there are big concerns about its record on human rights and democracy.

Austria is likely to oppose it for historical reasons because of the Ottoman Empire, and Sarkozy of France is very anti as well; he doesn't consider that their region of East Thrace is sufficient to support their geographical place within Europe. Giscard d'Estaing thinks it woud lead the way for Morocco to be considered as well, although that's difficult to see geographically. Then there's the issue of Cyprus.

I don't think it's going to be a smooth ride. If it joins, it will have the second largest number of the MEPs in the European Parliament. I'm waiting to see what Ireland does on their second referendum on the European Constitution itself; they gave it a dramatic thumbs-down last year, but polls are now showing 55% support because of the credit crunch. I wish the UK would withdraw completely, but our government won't even allow us the referendum that they promised us in 1997 as part of New Labour's election campaign.

Isn't this one of the reasons Sarkozy pushed for the Med. Union, to appease Turkey in some ways for not getting membership into the EU? Turkey is certainly worth watching very closely in the next few years, their alliance with Israel hasn't helped them much right now and their 'mediator' role in so many countries keeps them in the good graces with many leaders including Russia.

Jerome1
Jan 15th 2009, 10:34 PM
My understanding of the ten kings is that the whole earth is divided into ten regions, I feel this fits scripture better. Because the ten toes of the statue of Daniel 2 are five on each side, I would assume that the western half of Rome, the Vatican, controls 5 regions of earth, and the Eastern half, Islam, also controls 5 regions of earth. Knowing that the eastern and northern regions rebel against the antichrist at the end when they attack his base in Israel (Daniel 11), and looking at current world politics, we can get an approximate breakdown of which countries are allied to which halves of earth:

Arabic, Asian, Russian and African states are allied to the "Assyrian", the Islamic alliance. they will support the antichrist as their own leader, at first. Israel, Europe, the Americas and Australasia are allied to the Vatican. Certain Asian countries, ie maybe Japan or India may be part of the western alliance. When the two sides suddenly go to war at the end, the western alliance will side with the antichrist, the eastern alliance will side with the Assyrian (Islam).

There are already two alliances the EU and NATO(Which are inextricably linked) i think 21 of the 27 member states of the EU are also members of NATO. You also have the SCO(Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) which currently has 6 permanent members including Russia and China, and several observer members, including India, Pakistan and Iran.

The Vatican doesn't have any say on the new European constitution, infact the Church lobbied for a no vote to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 16th 2009, 12:50 AM
I have been meditating a lot lately on the very definite role of the Islamic countries in the end. I am a firm believer in Rome's ultimate control but I suddenly had an idea about the role of the Ottoman Empire and the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

I believe the fourth empire of Daniel 7 is definitely Rome for various reasons which I don't want to debate on this particular thread. But read this description of the fourth empire, the "iron" empire.

2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
2:42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

The iron part is quite simply, the Roman Empire, it was the kingdom that conquered Greece, the bronze empire. But then during the Roman emperor Constantine's reign, he established an eastern capital of the Roman Empire, Constantinople in 326 AD. This was in TURKEY.

This city was also for religious purposes, related to his conversion to Christianity, he wanted to create a second and greater "Rome" without the old religious artifacts and pagan temples of Rome. He succeeded and Constantinople soon became greater than Rome.

Within 100 years the Roman Empire was split into two regions, with religion and politics very prominent in both empires. Rome itself fell, but the Bishop of Rome soon established Rome as powerful through religious manipulation. And Turkey remained powerful and very religious, also with a very legalistic false form of Christianity. These two cities controlled Europe and the Middle East and also controlled state Christianity.

Conclusion 1:
Constantine's building of Constantinople very soon resulted in a split of the military empire of Rome into two Empires, one in Italy and one in Turkey, both with a very religious slant.

This fits in with the biblical description of the statue with iron legs, and then feet of iron and clay, the two feet representative of a split empire, the iron and clay representative of the mixed religious influence in both sections of the Roman empire, Rome and Turkey.

It was the Islamic Turks themselves (the Ottoman Empire) that conquered the Christian Roman based civilisation of Constantinople 1000 years later. They were not an outside empire conquering the eastern division of Rome, but remained Turkish, the new Turkish controlled empire was of the same region yet a different religion. The religious nature of this Turkish empire was still there, just a new religion was in power of the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Still two divisions of the original Roman empire, but one is Christian based , one is Islam based, one is based in Rome, one based in Turkey.

Conclusion 2:
The Ottoman Empire was Turks taking control of Turkey, the Eastern division of the Roman Empire.

And apart from Rome being a City on seven hills, so also is Constantinople a City on seven hills.

Constantine made Constantinople the Capital of Roman Empire.

If Pergamos is were Satan's seat is, could it not be 'geographically' that Istanbul sits on the head of the beast?

DurbanDude
Jan 16th 2009, 06:53 AM
There are already two alliances the EU and NATO(Which are inextricably linked) i think 21 of the 27 member states of the EU are also members of NATO. You also have the SCO(Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) which currently has 6 permanent members including Russia and China, and several observer members, including India, Pakistan and Iran.

The Vatican doesn't have any say on the new European constitution, infact the Church lobbied for a no vote to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

I am not saying that the Vatican's influence over Europe is overt. It used to be obvious, but since the start of the Jesuit organisation (used to regain the power of Rome) the influence of Rome over the Americas and Europe is covert, based on secretive organisations influencing prominent members in European and American politics. It is also financial, using the world bank and other financial agents (banks and stock exchanges) to control world finance and trade. Sometimes assassins are used to remove unwanted leaders.

The two main alliances you have described are basically the two political camps that I'm referring to. The new Meditteranean Union is an interesting complication, and it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds.

DurbanDude
Jan 16th 2009, 06:59 AM
And apart from Rome being a City on seven hills, so also is Constantinople a City on seven hills.

Constantine made Constantinople the Capital of Roman Empire.

If Pergamos is were Satan's seat is, could it not be 'geographically' that Istanbul sits on the head of the beast?

I'm already stuck on Rome for various reasons and verses, but you do make a good point. Do you know that the Islamic caliphate ruled from Istanbul until WW1? This was the centre-point of Islam for some centuries. They are now trying to re-introduce a caliphate, a universal Islamic government.

Jerome1
Jan 17th 2009, 03:31 AM
I am not saying that the Vatican's influence over Europe is overt. It used to be obvious, but since the start of the Jesuit organisation (used to regain the power of Rome) the influence of Rome over the Americas and Europe is covert, based on secretive organisations influencing prominent members in European and American politics. It is also financial, using the world bank and other financial agents (banks and stock exchanges) to control world finance and trade. Sometimes assassins are used to remove unwanted leaders.

The two main alliances you have described are basically the two political camps that I'm referring to. The new Meditteranean Union is an interesting complication, and it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds.

Your other posts had some credibility until you posted this.

The MU is basically an extension of the EU. Turkey wasn't even going to get involved in it until they were reassured it wouldn't be a barrier to them becoming a permanent member of the EU.

DurbanDude
Jan 19th 2009, 09:09 AM
Your other posts had some credibility until you posted this.



I assume that you are referring to my belief that the Vatican is the main player in international politics. I can't reveal all my sources of information, but some plain google searches should confirm how powerful the vatican is. The so-called "black pope" , head of the Jesuits, often controls the pope, who is more of a figurehead. If any pope tries to rid the church of the evils that often occur through the Jesuits, that pope is assasinated. The financial affairs of the church were mainly handed over to the Rothschild family a fw hundred years ago, and this family retains dominance of the World Bank.


The Rothschilds have not remained true to the Orthodox faith. If this was actually what Clause 15 said then something is amiss. The Jewish world has showered the Rothschilds with praises, "The Rothschilds govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburg to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people... .The lion of the tribe of Judah, Baron Rothschild, possesses more real force than David--more wisdom than Solomon." (21) The Prieure de Sion-the Elders of Sion22 also relates to the Rothschilds who are reported to serve on a jewish council of Elders of Sion.23 The Rothschilds have "helped" the Jewish people the Rothschild's own way. For those who admire stingyness, the Rothschilds will be greatly looked up to. For instance, the extent of James Rothschild's charity in France to poor Jews was 5 francs (the equivalent of $1). Their dynasty has destroyed honest Jews along with Christians. Today, few dare criticize the Rothschilds.

The Illuminati are Rothschild controlled, some of the Rothschild family are very high in Freemasonry.


I cannot tell you how surprised I am that Bush has appointed another Jesuit Catholic to replace the Jesuit Catholic Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_go_pr_wh/world_bank_bush)That's right, George Bush, just appointed a hard core Jesuit Catholic, Robert Zoellick, to relace the corrupt Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.[1] The only other time I've ever been this surprised was when Bush appointed the Catholic Ben Bernanke to replace the Catholic Alan Greenspan as head the Federal Reserve. Of course, - I'm just kidding, these appopintments don't surprise me at all - in fact I expect more. I'm not a mathematician, but based on the fact that Jesuit Catholics only constitute approximately 2.5% of the US population, I'd say that the odds that this is just a happy accident and/or a coincidence and not a sign that a very sinister agenda is at work are close to one in a million. In other words, it isn't a coincidence, the fact of the matter is a small group of Catholics do have complete control over our economy, and they must maintain their presence in all of the important economic positions in order to continue to advance their Jesuit agenda and prevent the American people from becoming too suspicious too soon.

The World Bank - IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world.


You really can't talk about world power without outlining the Vatican. The Vatican is headed by Jesuit head General Hans-Kolvenbach (according to Eric Jon Phelps, the Jesuits rule the Vatican) and Pope Benedict XVI. Now, the Vatican has over 1.1 billion followers. The Vatican State not only has diplomatic relations with many nations of the world. It has a well documentated past of being in world affairs from Constantine, Waldensian perseuctions, the Inquistion, Congress of Vienna, the Council on Trent, its decrees like the Syllabus of Errors condemning modern civilization and Bible Societies, the use of Knights of Malta funding the Nazis during WWII, the Ustasha terror squads, its Knights of Malta having heavy influence in the CIA, etc. The Vatican has large investments with Morgan Bank, Chase Manhattan, the Rothschilds, First Bankers Trust Company, etc. The Vatican has billions of shares in international corporations like Gulf Oil, IBM, General Motors, General Electric, etc. Therefore, the Vatican is the wealthiest religious creed on the face of the Earth hands down.




Many have called the Rothschilds only the Vatican bankers since the Vaticans own more than just fiat money [that the Rothschilds have, which is worthless], but material wealth (in diamonds, art, knowledge, documents, etc.) Also, F. Tupper Saussy (Author of the book Rulers of Evil) wrote that the Rothschilds are Gaurdians of the Vatican's wealth.

These quotes are from simple Google searches, whole books have been written about the secret control of the Vatican and the Rothschild family.

I am not concerned if others recognise the earthly enemy or not, because Satan is the true enemy, and we Christians do recognise this, but I do believe it is the Vatican with the Jewish Rothschilds who will orchestrate world dominance.

gjolive
Jan 20th 2009, 07:30 PM
If I am not mistaken, the 4th empire is the revived Roman Empire. This Empire was never conquered, but crumbled under its own weight. The revived Roman empire should come into existance, from 10 countries (10 kings) that used to be a part of the Roman Empire. Would the EU not fit this discription?

Jerome1
Jan 21st 2009, 12:54 AM
I am not concerned if others recognise the earthly enemy or not, because Satan is the true enemy, and we Christians do recognise this, but I do believe it is the Vatican with the Jewish Rothschilds who will orchestrate world dominance.


Sounds to much like Jack Chick to me, i'm assuming you can't reveal your sources because they are spurious at best.

There are people who believe the antichrist might try and use the pope, but from what i have read it won't be a legitimate pope, but an invalidly elected one(an antipope).

DurbanDude
Jan 21st 2009, 06:16 AM
Sounds to much like Jack Chick to me, i'm assuming you can't reveal your sources because they are spurious at best.

There are people who believe the antichrist might try and use the pope, but from what i have read it won't be a legitimate pope, but an invalidly elected one(an antipope).

Chick Publications has a lot of truth in it, so yes, it will sound like them, they are very focussed on the evils of the RCC and so am I, so we definitely will sound similar.

They are not spurious, it just that someone left the secret service about 15 years ago to get out of the mess, and I don't want him associated with some comments I remember him saying 20 years ago. I never approached him again on the subject because I know he wanted to rid himself of the taint and being watched for exiting the service so suddenly. He really is not interested in this stuff, that's why he left, he is the kind of guy that just wants to be left alone with his head in the sand, than attract any type of trouble. Just a family man. He would never confirm any of the information he told me 20 years ago. For the record he only mentioned that information once and has never confirmed it again, and would never mention it again, it was a once only slip of the tongue.

He let slip that all credible national intelligence services have files on the other secret services, they all know about the Jesuits and what they are up to, and he told me of certain Jesuit figures that had infiltrated the church, naming them, and he told me about their assassins and secret service. They have respected international intelligence operatives, and are treated with the same international respect that all national intelligence agencies have with eachother.

But regardless of this personal information, there is enough information just on the web to get the mind thinking.

DurbanDude
Jan 21st 2009, 06:26 AM
If I am not mistaken, the 4th empire is the revived Roman Empire. This Empire was never conquered, but crumbled under its own weight. The revived Roman empire should come into existance, from 10 countries (10 kings) that used to be a part of the Roman Empire. Would the EU not fit this discription?

I personally believe the fourth empire, Rome, is not a revived empire, but a continuous one. There is nothing in Daniel 2 or Daniel 7 that indicate that this fourth empire has to be revived. Rome will set up another country, a revived country, as the central country of earth. At the moment Rome does control earth, and is busy setting up the ten regions of earth.

The bible says that the fourth empire will first trample the whole earth,and then the ten horns will arise. Horns symbolise countries or regional divisions of an empire. If Rome controls the whole earth and has ten horns, this indicates to me that the whole earth is divided into ten regions. This is similar to the 4 horns of Greece, also in Daniel, when Alexander's kingdom was divided into 4 regions.

Jerome1
Jan 21st 2009, 01:03 PM
Chick Publications has a lot of truth in it, so yes, it will sound like them, they are very focussed on the evils of the RCC and so am I, so we definitely will sound similar.


The only thing truthful about the Jack Chick tracts is his name.:lol:

Read any reputable historians details concerning the death toll during the inquisitions and compare them to Jack Chicks.

DurbanDude
Jan 21st 2009, 01:25 PM
The only thing truthful about the Jack Chick tracts is his name.:lol:

Read any reputable historians details concerning the death toll during the inquisitions and compare them to Jack Chicks.

Hey I don't know much about Jack Chick, I am just saying the bible says its Rome that controls the world, and people say that it looks more like Islam. So I am saying let's stick to the bible here, the biblical references to Islam show a secondary position to Rome, but the modern trend is to believe Islam will be the beast.

And people who watch current events are not watching the more secretive , more difficult to prove influence of the RCC, so I am saying let's watch them too even though they are more difficult to prove. Remember Satan is deceptive . His plans are more likely to be secretive , I feel Islam is just the obvious enemy, but is just a pawn of the less obvious enemy. We don't have to look far to see the RCC's influence, just a slight interest will reveal who is ultimately in control. Just a sideline keeping up with news can show that the RCC, the Jesuits, the Rothschilds already control the world.

Jerome1
Jan 21st 2009, 01:37 PM
Hey I don't know much about Jack Chick, I am just saying the bible says its Rome that controls the world, and people say that it looks more like Islam. So I am saying let's stick to the bible here, the biblical references to Islam show a secondary position to Rome, but the modern trend is to believe Islam will be the beast.

And people who watch current events are not watching the more secretive , more difficult to prove influence of the RCC, so I am saying let's watch them too even though they are more difficult to prove. Remember Satan is deceptive . His plans are more likely to be secretive , I feel Islam is just the obvious enemy, but is just a pawn of the less obvious enemy. We don't have to look far to see the RCC's influence, just a slight interest will reveal who is ultimately in control. Just a sideline keeping up with news can show that the RCC, the Jesuits, the Rothschilds already control the world.

I respectfully disagree.

Altough i do think one of the tactics of Satan would be to infiltrate the Church. Satan knows as well as Christ that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand(Mark3:24).

gjolive
Jan 21st 2009, 04:19 PM
Do you not think that the revived Roman Empire should come forth out of the old Roman empire. I think that means that the foundation of the Revived Roman Empire should be based in the old Roman Empire. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the European Union is the Revived Roman Empire. They have one currency, a supreme court, a legislature, a parliament, and soon will have a constitution and a president. There is talk that the EU will replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Bethany67
Jan 21st 2009, 06:21 PM
DurbanDude - the information on the Rothschilds is basically nonsense. I work in international banking, specifically in the area of antimoneylaundering and verification of corporate identity. The World Bank is NOT controlled by the Rothschilds. It comprises two institutions: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and International Development Association. It is a supranational comprising member states. It is in compliance with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, and publishes details of its executive directors. There are no Rothschilds involved in the World Bank; we use a global financial resource which tracks links no matter how small between institutions and individuals.

This conspiracy theory is beginning to sound like the nastiest 19th century rumourmongering. Please tell me you haven't been reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was a hoax based on a satire on Napoleon III, because the second generation Rothschilds made their money by financing the British war effort against the French.

You should be more selective in what you believe on Google. If someone has told you this personally, they're stringing you along with lies (or misinformation which has been fed to them in turn).

Jerome1
Jan 21st 2009, 06:45 PM
Thanks for the info Bethany, hopefully you will be a beacon of knowledge for those of us less familiar with economics.

Do you just deal with money laundering, or do you also carry out audits to check for irregularity's, such as tax evasion etc.....?

I ask because i was watching Tim Geithner's confirmation hearing today and tax evasion came up.

Bethany67
Jan 21st 2009, 07:48 PM
I manage the AML due diligence team, so amongst other things we run all the checks and investigations (executive control and beneficial ownership are our Big Issues, as directed by our financial regulator and the global sanctions lists such as OFAC) before we accept a client and also perform periodic reviews. We don't have any individual/retail clients per se, just other financial institutions and corporates, but we do look at the individuals involved in each entity. I don't deal very often with the transaction side of things and know very little about tax evasion so can't help you there! Except of course to say Don't do it ;)

DurbanDude
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:55 AM
DurbanDude - the information on the Rothschilds is basically nonsense. I work in international banking, specifically in the area of antimoneylaundering and verification of corporate identity. The World Bank is NOT controlled by the Rothschilds. It comprises two institutions: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and International Development Association. It is a supranational comprising member states. It is in compliance with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, and publishes details of its executive directors. There are no Rothschilds involved in the World Bank; we use a global financial resource which tracks links no matter how small between institutions and individuals.

This conspiracy theory is beginning to sound like the nastiest 19th century rumourmongering. Please tell me you haven't been reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was a hoax based on a satire on Napoleon III, because the second generation Rothschilds made their money by financing the British war effort against the French.

You should be more selective in what you believe on Google. If someone has told you this personally, they're stringing you along with lies (or misinformation which has been fed to them in turn).

???

The recent heads of the World Bank, former president Wolfowitz is part of the Bilderberg group with the Rothschilds. Zoellick , is also a member, so is James D Wolfensohn. The Bilderberg Meetings are between influential persons throughout the world to discuss policy on world issues in an informal manner. They were introduced by the Rothschild banking family in 1954. What are these leaders of the world bank doing at these informal meetings with the Rothschilds? And you say they are unconnected?? If there was no value in these "informal" meetings about world policy, why would these leaders of the World Bank attend. At the very least, there is a definite informal association of each of the leaders of the world Bank with the rothschild family. No-one can know the extent, but what we do know is that the Rothschild's are interested in defining world policy even though they are just bankers. That is what these Bilderberg meetings were admittedly set up for.

Any organisation with a lot of international influence and a lot of Rothschild cronies speaks for itself. We don't need to look much deeper when any organisation of international influence has many members who are associated with the various Rothschild banking groups. Especially if they are meeting informally, as the Bilderbergers claim to do.

The more I study on this subject, the more convinced I am that secular Zionism and the RCC are already in complete unity and control much of the world already. Sure they are always putting out fires, but they are able to do this anywhere in the world to regain control over any region. Before this study I assumed that they were still vying for control, the RCC and prominent Jews each having separate financial influence. But the two financial powerhouses of earth are inextricably linked. I urge anyone to study this more and more, at least in order for you yourself not to be a pawn in their schemes. The Islamic fear is rife in America, and this kind of fear supports wars, which falls into their hands.

gjolive
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:07 AM
[quote=DurbanDude;1954112]???

The recent heads of the World Bank, former president Wolfowitz is part of the Bilderberg group with the Rothschilds. Zoellick , is also a member, so is James D Wolfensohn. The Bilderberg Meetings are between influential persons throughout the world to discuss policy on world issues in an informal manner. They were introduced by the Rothschild banking family in 1954. What are these leaders of the world bank doing at these informal meetings with the Rothschilds? And you say they are unconnected??


Where do you obtain this information? Where do you obtain a list of members of the Bilderberger group or the Rothschilds? What evidence do you have that there were informal meetings and who attended? I would like to believe you, but you need to give us your source so that we can determine how reliable it is. I would like to verify it; its only fair.

DurbanDude
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:23 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=592_1180980829

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55917

http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/kosovo/eml10.html

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/obama_bilderbergers_160.html

gjolive, admittedly it is google searches that give me this information. Obviously you have to be very selective, and when on conspiracy sites the trick is to look for facts only. A lot of the sites are secular news sites, merely listing attendees. The reason these meetings sometimes make the news is that there are a number of well known people congregating at the same time and the news leaks out in that city where they are meeting.

Incidentally there are thousands of confirmations across a broad spectrum of sites, that confirm they attend. I just got bored copying the links. The sites are mainly news sites, and conspiracy proponents. Its not just attendance, but who they associate with, and the more youi look into it, the same circle of people come up time and again. More interesting to note now, is the association and intermarriage of the Rothschilds with the family who claim that they are descended from Jesus, the Stuarts of Scotland. This is definitely an association to watch.

My one source, specifically about the Jesuits I cannot reveal, so rather do your own gooogle searches about them. You can discern for yourself what is junk and what is truth, but you should be able to get a feeling for the Jesuit organisation from simple Google searches, especially if you steer away from the extremism of the conspiracy sites. I like to deal in facts only.

Bethany67
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:47 AM
Where do you obtain this information? Where do you obtain a list of members of the Bilderberger group or the Rothschilds? What evidence do you have that there were informal meetings and who attended? I would like to believe you, but you need to give us your source so that we can determine how reliable it is. I would like to verify it; its only fair.

The list of Bilderberg attendees is readily available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees

What I dispute is the 'guilt by association' implied by DD. Of the hundreds of attendees, there have been 5 Rothschilds present at meetings (4 of them one meeting only) in various capacities:

- Emma Georgina Rothschild, historian and Harvard and Cambridge professor
- Evelyn de Rothschild, oversaw the merger of the French and UK banking branches
- his wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild
- Guy de Rothschild, head of Rothschild Freres before the merger
- Jacob Rothschild, cousin of Evelyn, and Chairman of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners plc)

The problem with broad brush-strokes is that they just don't hold up to scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that a Chairman of the World Bank would be present; note that Alan Greenspan, George Soros etc have also been present. The Bilderberg Group was originally set up to foster better relations between the US and the rest of the world after WW2. Nothing sinister there, but there are plenty of fringe groups looking for conspiracies. There is absolutely nothing to warrant the earlier assertion that the Rothschilds control the World Bank; the Rothschilds simply aren't as influential as they once were, even if one wants to go down the conspiracy route.

Frankly anyone who still believes in the Illuminati is going to have their work cut out being believed; a few occult groups took on the name as a joke because they knew the reaction it would provoke. The original Bavarian Illuminati was a society of freethinkers in the Age of Enlightenment which only existed for 10 years before being banned by Karl Theodor, the ruler of Bavaria, amidst political fighting over new leadership.

Bethany67
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:56 AM
More interesting to note now, is the association and intermarriage of the Rothschilds with the family who claim that they are descended from Jesus, the Stuarts of Scotland. This is definitely an association to watch.

Sigh. I'm descended from the Stuarts and have done a lot of genealogical research on the family. They were High Stewards of Scotland, ruled Scotland from 1371 to 1603, and then the Union for another 5 generations. Nothing to do with descent from Jesus; their earliest known ancestor in the UK was Alan FitzFlaad, a Breton knight who was given land by Henry I. A couple of earlier generations are suggested back to an Alain who was a dapifer (one who brings meat to the table, thus steward) to the Archbishop of Dol.

If anyone would like to bring in the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion, I'll counter with Yolande de Bar and Joan of Arc ;)

DurbanDude
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:01 AM
The list of Bilderberg attendees is readily available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees

What I dispute is the 'guilt by association' implied by DD. Of the hundreds of attendees, there have been 5 Rothschilds present at meetings (4 of them one meeting only) in various capacities:

- Emma Georgina Rothschild, historian and Harvard and Cambridge professor
- Evelyn de Rothschild, oversaw the merger of the French and UK banking branches
- his wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild
- Guy de Rothschild, head of Rothschild Freres before the merger
- Jacob Rothschild, cousin of Evelyn, and Chairman of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners plc)

The problem with broad brush-strokes is that they just don't hold up to scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that a Chairman of the World Bank would be present; note that Alan Greenspan, George Soros etc have also been present. The Bilderberg Group was originally set up to foster better relations between the US and the rest of the world after WW2. Nothing sinister there, but there are plenty of fringe groups looking for conspiracies. There is absolutely nothing to warrant the earlier assertion that the Rothschilds control the World Bank; the Rothschilds simply aren't as influential as they once were, even if one wants to go down the conspiracy route.

Frankly anyone who still believes in the Illuminati is going to have their work cut out being believed; a few occult groups took on the name as a joke because they knew the reaction it would provoke. The original Bavarian Illuminati was a society of freethinkers in the Age of Enlightenment which only existed for 10 years before being banned by Karl Theodor, the ruler of Bavaria, amidst political fighting over new leadership.

Don't you think its interesting that the Rothschilds are able to set up a low profile meeting where the most important people on earth are willing to attend?

Don't you think they are bright enough to change the name of their secret societies from time to time when the world catches on to the previous one? If I had a secret society that the world new about , I would change its name to make it secret again. I am not saying the Bilderberg meetings are an extension of the illuminati, they are just another organisation associated with the Rothschilds.

Google searches are actually a fantastic way to find information, because most news agencies post news on the internet, so in one moment you can search many newspapers around the world. In this way you can see that the Rothschilds are continuously associated with the most powerful people on earth, having various presidents of the most powerful nations on earth as personal guests on their estates.

For you to list 4 Rothschilds that have separate international influence and attend these meetings completely highlights my point. What is a banking family doing inviting the most powerful people in the world to regular meetings? Why do all these people actually wish to attend? It goes deeper than what you are saying.

DurbanDude
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:13 AM
Sigh. I'm descended from the Stuarts and have done a lot of genealogical research on the family. They were High Stewards of Scotland, ruled Scotland from 1371 to 1603, and then the Union for another 5 generations. Nothing to do with descent from Jesus; their earliest known ancestor in the UK was Alan FitzFlaad, a Breton knight who was given land by Henry I. A couple of earlier generations are suggested back to an Alain who was a dapifer (one who brings meat to the table, thus steward) to the Archbishop of Dol.

If anyone would like to bring in the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion, I'll counter with Yolande de Bar and Joan of Arc ;)


We all know that they are not descended from Jesus, just by studying the bible we can confirm this. But there are people making these claims, this is undeniable.

Bethany67
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:31 AM
Don't you think its interesting that the Rothschilds are able to set up a low profile meeting where the most important people on earth are willing to attend?

Don't you think they are bright enough to change the name of their secret societies from time to time when the world catches on to the previous one? If I had a secret society that the world new about , I would change its name to make it secret again. I am not saying the Bilderberg meetings are an extension of the illuminati, they are just another organisation associated with the Rothschilds.

Google searches are actually a fantastic way to find information, because most news agencies post news on the internet, so in one moment you can search many newspapers around the world. In this way you can see that the Rothschilds are continuously associated with the most powerful people on earth, having various presidents of the most powerful nations on earth as personal guests on their estates.

For you to list 4 Rothschilds that have separate international influence and attend these meetings completely highlights my point. What is a banking family doing inviting the most powerful people in the world to regular meetings? Why do all these people actually wish to attend? It goes deeper than what you are saying.

No it doesn't completely highlight your point. Please provide your evidence that the Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg Group and control the invitations. Here's a clue - Joseph Retinger initiated Bilderberg in 1954.

Google tells me Elvis is flipping burgers in Des Moines because the aliens were kind enough to let him go following the intervention of Bruce Lee and JFK. You can find ANYTHING on Google to 'show' a conspiracy, but it doesn't make it true; you need discernment, analytical skills, evidence and hard facts for that, and you haven't provided any. You have the right to post what you want in here in conjunction with the forum rules, but I prefer to counter with verified fact available in the public domain.

I am enjoying our conversation though.

DurbanDude
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:25 AM
No it doesn't completely highlight your point. Please provide your evidence that the Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg Group and control the invitations. Here's a clue - Joseph Retinger initiated Bilderberg in 1954.

Google tells me Elvis is flipping burgers in Des Moines because the aliens were kind enough to let him go following the intervention of Bruce Lee and JFK. You can find ANYTHING on Google to 'show' a conspiracy, but it doesn't make it true; you need discernment, analytical skills, evidence and hard facts for that, and you haven't provided any. You have the right to post what you want in here in conjunction with the forum rules, but I prefer to counter with verified fact available in the public domain.

I am enjoying our conversation though.


If a person lacks discernment, then its adviseable to just stick to official sites of respected newspapers and respected TV news channels. If you personally disagree with these as sources, then I would suspect that you are the one with the paranoid conspiracy theory :hmm: But I am sure you don't mind those sites, guess how we find those sites ..... Google.

Everyone knows how valuable google is, and a lot of facts can be gained from a lot of respected sites. Yes, it definitely will take discernment to get facts from conspiracy sites, but the discerning reader is able to at least get information there that can be confirmed or denied elsewhere. For example, if a conspiracy site says that a certain individual was at a certain meeting on a certain day , I then Google that date and that meeting, and those same names come up on respected news sites that confirm the attendees and the date. Walla! we have a new fact that we initially found through an untrustworthy source. If you start verifying facts across conspiracy sites , you see a pattern emerging, a lot of the personal associations can be verified. Then we see that a lot of international agreements are made between people who although they are on opposing sides, are associated with the same people and groups. The big picture emerges, most of those in control across the world in politics and finance are already associated with eachother in personal relationships, and secret and overt organisations. This applies to the new Obama government too.

DurbanDude
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:22 AM
No it doesn't completely highlight your point. Please provide your evidence that the Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg Group and control the invitations. Here's a clue - Joseph Retinger initiated Bilderberg in 1954.

.

Good question, and I don't have a clear answer. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands presided over the first meeting, this seems to be publicly acknowledged information. The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers have been involved throughout. I don't know who sends out the invitations, but these three families have been involved with eachother and the most powerful politicians of USA and Europe for centuries. Just the fact that these families stay in the upper echelons of power for centuries and are always associated with the leaders of the most powerful organisations of earthis enough circumstantial evidence for me. Yes, guilty by association. Presidents of countries often receive their invitations to these meetings BEFORE they come to power. Only then do they come to power. What organisation is so powerful that it can so succesfully predict presidents and get the potential candidates to attend first before even their nominations. It is an organisation that is actually able to give that power out, because it is control.

praise2daLord
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Union

Maybe that should put some of you on the right track.

Discuss?

gjolive
Jan 23rd 2009, 11:08 PM
[quote=Bethany67;1955569]No it doesn't completely highlight your point. Please provide your evidence that the Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg Group and control the invitations. Here's a clue - Joseph Retinger initiated Bilderberg in 1954.

Holy Cow! I did look up this list of bilderbergers on Wikepdia It is a group of apparently the most influential people in the world, captains of industry, politics, wealth, entertainment, and education. It includes people like Obama (oh no not Obama), the Clintons (yes president), Spielberg, Mr. Dell, Bil Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. Where is the Dalai Lama. I dunno, this is not a transparent organization. I wonder about the little sub-commitees these people create. This is no party.

DurbanDude
Jan 27th 2009, 10:28 AM
[quote=Bethany67;1955569]No it doesn't completely highlight your point. Please provide your evidence that the Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg Group and control the invitations. Here's a clue - Joseph Retinger initiated Bilderberg in 1954.

Holy Cow! I did look up this list of bilderbergers on Wikepdia It is a group of apparently the most influential people in the world, captains of industry, politics, wealth, entertainment, and education. It includes people like Obama (oh no not Obama), the Clintons (yes president), Spielberg, Mr. Dell, Bil Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. Where is the Dalai Lama. I dunno, this is not a transparent organization. I wonder about the little sub-commitees these people create. This is no party.

That's about all we can do, smell a rat. The minutes of the meetings are not public knowledge so we can't know what goes on, but we do know that the most powerful people in the world across a broad spectrum meet to discuss world policy. And it is rumoured that world policy follows exactly as they plan it. Surely this should be a democratic and transparent organisation if it influences world policy? But the Bilderbergers are not democratic or transparent, which goes against the principles of all free Americans.

gjolive
Jan 28th 2009, 07:55 PM
[quote=gjolive;1956406]

That's about all we can do, smell a rat. The minutes of the meetings are not public knowledge so we can't know what goes on, but we do know that the most powerful people in the world across a broad spectrum meet to discuss world policy. And it is rumoured that world policy follows exactly as they plan it. Surely this should be a democratic and transparent organisation if it influences world policy? But the Bilderbergers are not democratic or transparent, which goes against the principles of all free Americans.

How about the recent Davon meetings?

DurbanDude
Jan 29th 2009, 10:19 AM
How about the recent Davon meetings?

Haven't heard of them, tell me more?

gjolive
Jan 29th 2009, 05:03 PM
Haven't heard of them, tell me more?

Davos is a city in Switzerland where recently they held or are about to hold an economic summit, which involves world leaders, not unlike the Bilderberger (sorry I misspelled it).

DurbanDude
Jan 30th 2009, 06:49 AM
Davos is a city in Switzerland where recently they held or are about to hold an economic summit, which involves world leaders, not unlike the Bilderberger (sorry I misspelled it).

ok, basically the Davos meetings are the World Economic Forum. Read this:



Rothschild is a member of the Belfer Center's International Council at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. He is also a member of the International Advisory Board of the Barrick Gold Corporation. Mr. Rothschild was nominated as a "Young Global Leader" by the World Economic Forum in 2005.


The Rothschilds again! It never ends, they are everywhere where anything significant is happening.Also read this:



"Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers


They should make a "richest family in the world" list.

I've been reading stuff on the internet , it appears the connection goes like this: Klaus M.Schwab , the founder of the World Economic Forum (Davos meetings) is closely connected to George Soros who is closely connected to the Rothschilds. You could say that all European big business will in some way be connected, but what makes me think is the close connection that the Rothschilds have with every world policy organisation in the west. They deliberately try to remain in the background, yet are always involved.

Free Indeed
Feb 3rd 2009, 08:58 PM
If anyone would like to bring in the Knights Templar

I would!!!!!

:wave: