Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rome and the Ottoman Empire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion Rome and the Ottoman Empire

    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.

  • #2
    Originally posted by DurbanDude
    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! 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.

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

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cyberseeker View Post
        I like! 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.
        Last edited by DurbanDude; Jan 5th 2009, 07:37 AM. Reason: Edit

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DurbanDude
          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.
          "Your name and renown
          is the desire of our hearts."
          (Isaiah 26:8)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cyberseeker View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by third hero View Post
                  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?
                  Last edited by Jerome1; Jan 8th 2009, 03:55 PM. Reason: Grammar

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jerome1 View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by third hero
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jerome1 View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Revived Roman Empire

                          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.
                          Last edited by gjolive; Jan 14th 2009, 10:25 PM. Reason: Forgot to mention

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gjolive View Post
                              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).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X