new theory re: the "7th king"

[DurbanDude]

I agree with your general point of view with what you are saying. But do you realize that what you saying is fulfilled with the Islamic kingdoms, which many were large and powerful horns, though some of iron and some of clay. And a little horn will rise. He may already be with us this little horn.

Thank you all on this board. I know that very few of you agree with what I am saying, but all our debate has done is strengthen my resolve and understanding. It has made clear the murky areas.

We should keep watch, as watchmen do, on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He was believed to be killed by a US airstrike. He was not. He survived his fatal wounds. ISIS has been drastically reduced. But it is not gone. Could this be the little horn that will rise? I believe he is worth watching. He is trying to reform the Caliphates of old, a new Sharia based Sunni Caliphate. He was a part of Al-Qaeda. He leads ISIS. And he sits in a place with Turkey to the north, Jordan to the southeast, and Israel and Palestinian National Authority to the south. The Turks are predominantly Sunni. The Jordanians are predominantly Sunni. And those called Palestinians are Sunni as well.

Just saying...

Shalom,

Gavriel

Sure, it could be fulfilled with Islamic kingdoms. But our main point of disagreement is whether the 10 are concurrent or consecutive.

I believe they arise at the end, in the region of the Ottoman empire, so I am looking at how the Colonial Europe slowly dominated previously Ottoman regions culminating in there conquering of the Ottoman empire in WW1 , and how that Roman empire was broken up. Was there a little country (little horn) that then appeared to the shock of unbelievers, yet prophetically expected to appear by believers? Yes Israel. Is Israel expanding? Yes. Will Israel expand further into other territories? Yes Jesus says watch out for false Messiahs, and a believable one would have to conquer surrounding territory too.

So yes the ten are new countries that arise out of the Roman empire , I agree they are Islamic, because the Roman empire was conquered by the Ottomans, and Mehmed took the crown of Caesar of Rome. It is this Islamic region, now largely conquered by the west, that is given 10 new kings (ten new west friendly governments). Out of one of them, Palestine, rises Israel, a little country that is expanding.

[marty fox]

People live in Jerusalem. The Harlot of Babylon will be so utterly destroyed that no one will ever live their again. This is not Jerusalem's fate.

Like I said, there was not going to be anything I could write to change your mind. Jerusalem is not the Harlot of Babylon. She does not fulfill the clues concerning the Harlot in Revelation 17 and 18. She is not a seaport. She does not contain a government that rules over the other governments of the earth. Her merchants are not the world's great men. I could go on and on, but I don't think it would change anything.

Shalom,

Gavriel

It is the way of Jerusalem of the first century that will never be lived in again the Jerusalem of old

Look up my thread on is Jerusalem mystery Babylon the great

[Bryan Pergola]

It is the way of Jerusalem of the first century that will never be lived in again the Jerusalem of old

Look up my thread on is Jerusalem mystery Babylon the great

Hello marty fox I thing you are on the right track.

I also have come to accept Jerusalem of the first century as Babylon the great. What are your thoughts on the seven hills seven heads?

[randyk]

It is in Daniel 7 and 8, Rev 13 and 17 that we get this precise symbolism of beasts/heads and horns. In Daniel 8 I see the emphasis in geographical location and extent of the horns, some say power of the horns. Small horn, growing big, is a small region/power growing in influence over a major area. A big horn is a big power, four smaller horns four smaller powers each with their own location.

I would then feel my view is at a slight advantage, dealing with the continued location and area of the Byzantium Empire, rather than your focus on culture and religion moving off to another location. I honeslty do not feel that a culture or religion or way of doing things that moves it's location would have any bearing in prophecies that clearly deal with the rise and fall of kingdoms.

So we shall have to agree to disagree, hopefully there are some people out there who see the obvious in my statements. Maybe people with less intellectual viewpoints on biblical matters would find some agreement with me, who knows?

I'm not sure how much your view of Dan 8 bears on this, but I *don't* believe Dan 8 is related to Dan 7! In fact, I suspect that if you get Dan 8 wrong, you will end up with a wrong view of Antichrist!

Dan 8 and 11 represent, for me, a view into the history of Antiochus 4 (among other things). Antiochus 4 is presented as a central figure, which may because he provides a foreshadow of Antichrist. However, Dan 7 specifically deals with Antichrist, and not Antiochus 4.

I find it personally important to separate, therefore, these two chapters of Daniel. This may be partly why we come to different conclusions?

Regardless, I don't have much more argument on why I think the 2 legs of the Great Statue are represented by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They simply carry the imperial Roman tradition, for me, since imperial states carried, politically, these religious centers. I don't think, in this respect, the evolution of history would be anything other than what it has been, since God has predestined it.

[DurbanDude]

I'm not sure how much your view of Dan 8 bears on this, but I *don't* believe Dan 8 is related to Dan 7! In fact, I suspect that if you get Dan 8 wrong, you will end up with a wrong view of Antichrist!

Dan 8 and 11 represent, for me, a view into the history of Antiochus 4 (among other things). Antiochus 4 is presented as a central figure, which may because he provides a foreshadow of Antichrist. However, Dan 7 specifically deals with Antichrist, and not Antiochus 4.

I find it personally important to separate, therefore, these two chapters of Daniel. This may be partly why we come to different conclusions?

Regardless, I don't have much more argument on why I think the 2 legs of the Great Statue are represented by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They simply carry the imperial Roman tradition, for me, since imperial states carried, politically, these religious centers. I don't think, in this respect, the evolution of history would be anything other than what it has been, since God has predestined it.

Sure I see Antiochus in Daniel 8 and much of Daniel 11. Nevertheless Daniel 8 gives us much information on the understanding of what a beast/animal represents and what horns are. There are very few chapters in the bible that give us clues as to these symbols, and Daniel 8 is one of them, whether you affirm that or not. So we gain understanding about the symbols in Daniel 8 because the fulfilment is obvious (clearly defined historical kingdoms). Then we apply that understanding to Daniel 7, Rev 13 and Rev 17.

[randyk]

No I didn't restate what you had said.
I was clarifying and changing what you put.
Catholicism was dominant for a period of about 8 centuries.
It hasn't been dominant for the last 4 and wasn't dominant in the first 6.
You then make out as if Catholicism moves around an existing Roman Kingdom. This is a false perspective.
I am challenging and changing what you are saying entirely.

We are talking about the same history. You just seem to want to put things in your own words. Catholicism has been dominant from the beginning, since Rome early came to be the dominant bishop. Catholicism continued to be powerful throughout the Middle Ages and following, because the European kings had to do business with the Pope. Protestantism grew out of Catholicism, and thus was a somewhat divergent view of Catholicism. I have no interest in playing with words here.

Yes you ARE saying that the Orthodox Church is a political organisation JUST AS you make try to make the case for the Catholic church to be a political organisation. If it is NOT a political power THEN it is NOT a kingdom.
You also try to lump ALL Slavic peoples together, though there are separations within them.
Moscow was NOT a stronger political entity than Constantinople, for Constantinople was the new capital of the Ottoman Empire which was FAR more powerful than Moscow.
I don't simply adopt a contrary position for the sake of it. I am highlighting errors within your claims.

You have not illustrated a single error thus far! You are in fact playing with words. It is the same history which you choose to define in different words to create differences between us. And here you are putting words in my mouth, which just proves my point. I pointedly said I was *not* referring to the Orthodox Church, nor the Catholic Church, as *political organizations.* And you just deny I'm saying what I'm saying!

You don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying at all? Again, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are *not* political organizations! They are ecclesiastical organizations. Perhaps the Catholic Church has had some political authority as governor over a small space of land in Italy. But for the most part we are talking here of religious organizations--not political organizations.

On the other hand, when secular rulers convert to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they come within the orbit of the ecclesiastical organization. The political center, then, is *separate from* the ecclesiastical center. Perhaps you just are unable to follow this? You're too busy trying to correct what I'm *not* trying to say!

And to say that Moscow did not become a greater center than Constantinople *after 1453 AD? Amazing! You think Constantinople was stronger than Moscow even after it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks! Obviously, I was referring to the fall of Constantinople as a political representative for Orthodoxy. Once it was defeated it no longer represented Orthodoxy with any political strength at all!

Wowsers, did I not say a few parts of Germania. They were known as Germania Inferior and Superior. However this were located in what is today Belgium and Switzerland. Beyond the Rhine was NOT part of the Roman Kingdom. The Germanic peoples pushed INTO the Roman Kingdom, some for a short time were brought into it, but eventually the migratory pressures led to the collapse of the West Roman Kingdom.
I NEVER said Roman was purely Latin and Greek. I stated the West was primarily Latin and the East Greek.
There were many other peoples within the sphere of influence.
However the Slavs came in AFTER the West Roman Kingdom was already gone.
I am always happy discussing facts.
The FACTS are that a FAR FAR FAR larger portion of Germanic peoples were NOT in the Roman kingdom, and it was these peoples who contributed to its fall.

My entire point was that the German peoples had been part of the original Roman Empire! Then you denied that. I never made any point about Slavs entering into the Orthodox Church at any particular point of time, whether before or after 476 AD. My point was that the *original* imperial centers contained both Germans and Slavs. Thus, the political center northward to encompass German states and Slavic states was native to the Roman tradition. Islam would fall outside the orbit of this original Roman tradition.

Is this meant to be a serious point?
You are talking about Rome expanding AFTER 476 AD.
Of course Rome had conquered lands - Gaul, Hispania, Carthaginia, Asia Minor, Egypt etc etc.
However the focus of people and time we are looking at this was NO LONGER the case. From 410 AD the Roman kingdom started shrinking.
It retreated from Britain due to the attacks of the Saxons (a Germanic people NOT part of the Roman Kingdom).
You are claiming something to be INSIDE a kingdom, when it was OUTSIDE and NOT ruled by the Romans, but eventually came to rule lands whihc the Romans had previously ruled.

No, you are so busy trying to argue with me you've completely missed the point. My whole point was that Germans and Slavs were within the Roman Empire. Your argument seemed to be that this required an "expansion." And my whole point was that yes, the Roman Empire expanded to include both Germans and Slavs. This was before the original Empire dissolved in either West or East. The West fell in 476 AD, and the East fell in 1453 AD, as I've been regularly saying. Germans and Slavs were included in each respective branch well before those times. Thus, the political centers could move northward and become Germanic and Slavic states without departing from the Roman "legs."

My point is that your point is simply rubbish. They didn't shift northwards. They ALWAYS were to the north. Bulgaria was ALWAYS north of Constantinople. Moscow was ALWAYS to the north of Moscow.
Further the Slavs weren't always around the Black Sea, but some did come into the Byzantine Empire.
You seem to confuse a center of power which rises and falls with a mythical move of Christian authority.

I have no clue what you're trying to prove? You seem to have a personal problem. When I say the political power in the West and East shifted northward, I'm saying that the secular state shifted from Rome and Constantinople to German and Slavic states. Instead of calling someone's claims "rubbish," try to get my arguments straight first?

I get your point. Roman tradition was ancient as Rome was ancient. It is in the past. Does the past shape us? Of course.
You are trying to claim more than that - that the past remains AS the present.
It didn't evolve rather other traditions took in some parts of it and those newer traditions evolved.
The key point is that the ancient Roman Kingdoms of West and East are BOTH long gone. Gone for more than 500 years. To claim otherwise through a mumbo-jumbo or religion and tradition means you are changing the meanings within the prophecy.

No, you just seem unable to get my points, although you claim to do so. You are arguing that *new traditions* took over the Roman tradition, and completely left them behind. I'm saying that they did not. New secular centers of political power *did not* leave behind the Roman legacy, since both "legs" of the old Roman Empire maintained religious centers in Rome and in Constantinople.

You really need to deal with your attitude. You have little grace in your arguments.

[marty fox]

Hello marty fox I thing you are on the right track.

I also have come to accept Jerusalem of the first century as Babylon the great. What are your thoughts on the seven hills seven heads?

Thanks I see the beast as a demon influencing Rome (the city on 7 hills) and its leaders (the kings) in the first century and the 6th king as Nero who is the one who was “now is”

[ForHisglory]

We are talking about the same history. You just seem to want to put things in your own words. Catholicism has been dominant from the beginning, since Rome early came to be the dominant bishop. Catholicism continued to be powerful throughout the Middle Ages and following, because the European kings had to do business with the Pope. Protestantism grew out of Catholicism, and thus was a somewhat divergent view of Catholicism. I have no interest in playing with words here.

When you say early, what date are you proposing?
It was dominant during the Middle Ages.
It lost dominance after that.

You have not illustrated a single error thus far! You are in fact playing with words. It is the same history which you choose to define in different words to create differences between us. And here you are putting words in my mouth, which just proves my point. I pointedly said I was *not* referring to the Orthodox Church, nor the Catholic Church, as *political organizations.* And you just deny I'm saying what I'm saying!

I deny your denial because you then said it.

You don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying at all? Again, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are *not* political organizations! They are ecclesiastical organizations. Perhaps the Catholic Church has had some political authority as governor over a small space of land in Italy. But for the most part we are talking here of religious organizations--not political organizations.

Yes they are religious organisations, but ALL your arguments are about political power centers, which is then IRRELEVANT if you are ONLY speaking of religious center.
You are trying to claim both, whilst denying the one.

On the other hand, when secular rulers convert to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they come within the orbit of the ecclesiastical organization. The political center, then, is *separate from* the ecclesiastical center. Perhaps you just are unable to follow this? You're too busy trying to correct what I'm *not* trying to say!

I am highlighting the issue within your claim.

And to say that Moscow did not become a greater center than Constantinople *after 1453 AD? Amazing! You think Constantinople was stronger than Moscow even after it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks! Obviously, I was referring to the fall of Constantinople as a political representative for Orthodoxy. Once it was defeated it no longer represented Orthodoxy with any political strength at all!

When you say stronger, are you referring to political power or religious authority?
The Ottoman Kingdom was more powerful than the Russian one, so politically Constantinople was more powerful.
However if you mean solely religiously, then the fact that the kingdom changed from Roman to Ottoman is actual irrelevant as they continued to be the older Patriarchy and retained authority in ALL the lands they had previously been over.
All that happened is that Russian Orthodoxy grew with its population.

My entire point was that the German peoples had been part of the original Roman Empire! Then you denied that. I never made any point about Slavs entering into the Orthodox Church at any particular point of time, whether before or after 476 AD. My point was that the *original* imperial centers contained both Germans and Slavs. Thus, the political center northward to encompass German states and Slavic states was native to the Roman tradition. Islam would fall outside the orbit of this original Roman tradition.

My point is that there were FEW Germanic peoples within the Roman kingdom.
I highlighted there were some.
I also highlighted that the GREATER portion of Germanic peoples defeated the Roman armies and conquered land from them. This is historical FACT.

The "original" imperial centers were not made up of Germans and Slavs who then took these "traditions" to the Germans. The Goths and Vandals, who had accepted Roman rule (which they later threw off) followed Arianism.
The Franks, Alemanni and Lombardi ONLY accepted Christianity AFTER Rome had fallen - so were NOT part of the "original" imperial center.
The Saxons in Britain were reached by the Celtic Christians (not Rome) and then later (around 600 AD) from Rome.
St Boniface was a Christian from England who took the gospel east to the Germans.

No, you are so busy trying to argue with me you've completely missed the point. My whole point was that Germans and Slavs were within the Roman Empire. Your argument seemed to be that this required an "expansion." And my whole point was that yes, the Roman Empire expanded to include both Germans and Slavs. This was before the original Empire dissolved in either West or East. The West fell in 476 AD, and the East fell in 1453 AD, as I've been regularly saying. Germans and Slavs were included in each respective branch well before those times. Thus, the political centers could move northward and become Germanic and Slavic states without departing from the Roman "legs."

No, I didn't miss the point. I stated that the Roman kingdom did NOT expand to include both Germans and Slavs.
Rather the Germans and Slavs invaded the Roman kingdom. The romans tried to integrate them in, but more came and the Roman kingdom fell.
No political center moved northwards. Instead NEW centers were established which vied with the old "existing" one and in time became greater.

I have no clue what you're trying to prove? You seem to have a personal problem. When I say the political power in the West and East shifted northward, I'm saying that the secular state shifted from Rome and Constantinople to German and Slavic states. Instead of calling someone's claims "rubbish," try to get my arguments straight first?

Your argument is very difficult to get straight as it is full of rubbish statements that are hard to credit you mean them.
"The secular state shifted" is saying that it was one united kingdom and the power moved north.
This is NOT the case. It was NOT one united kingdom. Instead there were new kingdoms which wrested away the power.

No, you just seem unable to get my points, although you claim to do so. You are arguing that *new traditions* took over the Roman tradition, and completely left them behind. I'm saying that they did not. New secular centers of political power *did not* leave behind the Roman legacy, since both "legs" of the old Roman Empire maintained religious centers in Rome and in Constantinople.

I didn't say completely left behind. That is a strawman. I said they integrated some. However their basis was NOT the same starting place.
They didn't start with Roman traditions and add in their own. They started with their OWN and added in some Roman ones. Most things added though were through Christianity and NOT secular ideas.
The Legs were finished. Feet started, just as the thighs had previously ended.

You really need to deal with your attitude. You have little grace in your arguments.

I am sorry for the lack of grace. I am struggling with you sometimes when you try to argue that IN is OUT or that something palpably rubbish, is somehow a valid stance. I will take a break from responding to you as I agree this is not gracious or glorifying God.

[randyk]

When you say early, what date are you proposing?
It was dominant during the Middle Ages.
It lost dominance after that.


I deny your denial because you then said it.


Yes they are religious organisations, but ALL your arguments are about political power centers, which is then IRRELEVANT if you are ONLY speaking of religious center.
You are trying to claim both, whilst denying the one.


I am highlighting the issue within your claim.


When you say stronger, are you referring to political power or religious authority?
The Ottoman Kingdom was more powerful than the Russian one, so politically Constantinople was more powerful.
However if you mean solely religiously, then the fact that the kingdom changed from Roman to Ottoman is actual irrelevant as they continued to be the older Patriarchy and retained authority in ALL the lands they had previously been over.
All that happened is that Russian Orthodoxy grew with its population.


My point is that there were FEW Germanic peoples within the Roman kingdom.
I highlighted there were some.
I also highlighted that the GREATER portion of Germanic peoples defeated the Roman armies and conquered land from them. This is historical FACT.

The "original" imperial centers were not made up of Germans and Slavs who then took these "traditions" to the Germans. The Goths and Vandals, who had accepted Roman rule (which they later threw off) followed Arianism.
The Franks, Alemanni and Lombardi ONLY accepted Christianity AFTER Rome had fallen - so were NOT part of the "original" imperial center.
The Saxons in Britain were reached by the Celtic Christians (not Rome) and then later (around 600 AD) from Rome.
St Boniface was a Christian from England who took the gospel east to the Germans.


No, I didn't miss the point. I stated that the Roman kingdom did NOT expand to include both Germans and Slavs.
Rather the Germans and Slavs invaded the Roman kingdom. The romans tried to integrate them in, but more came and the Roman kingdom fell.
No political center moved northwards. Instead NEW centers were established which vied with the old "existing" one and in time became greater.


Your argument is very difficult to get straight as it is full of rubbish statements that are hard to credit you mean them.
"The secular state shifted" is saying that it was one united kingdom and the power moved north.
This is NOT the case. It was NOT one united kingdom. Instead there were new kingdoms which wrested away the power.


I didn't say completely left behind. That is a strawman. I said they integrated some. However their basis was NOT the same starting place.
They didn't start with Roman traditions and add in their own. They started with their OWN and added in some Roman ones. Most things added though were through Christianity and NOT secular ideas.
The Legs were finished. Feet started, just as the thighs had previously ended.


I am sorry for the lack of grace. I am struggling with you sometimes when you try to argue that IN is OUT or that something palpably rubbish, is somehow a valid stance. I will take a break from responding to you as I agree this is not gracious or glorifying God.

Don't get me wrong, brother. I *love* discussing/arguing with you, because you've done some serious study. Here you just seem to miss my points, which admittedly are a little hard to understand. But you can do it!

[ForHisglory]

Don't get me wrong, brother. I *love* discussing/arguing with you, because you've done some serious study. Here you just seem to miss my points, which admittedly are a little hard to understand. But you can do it!

The only point I seem to get is that you are claiming that the Roman kingdom continued, and my point is that in no way did it continue.
Catholicism was NOT the Roman kingdom UNLESS you claim Catholicism is political.
The Germanic tribes that invaded lands previously ruled by Romans were NOT Romans. A previous migration of them had been bought off by the Romans, but this didn't happen with the Saxons or Franks etc and is why (Western) Rome abandoned Britain and a little later ended by being conquered by the Goths.

[randyk]

The only point I seem to get is that you are claiming that the Roman kingdom continued, and my point is that in no way did it continue.
Catholicism was NOT the Roman kingdom UNLESS you claim Catholicism is political.
The Germanic tribes that invaded lands previously ruled by Romans were NOT Romans. A previous migration of them had been bought off by the Romans, but this didn't happen with the Saxons or Franks etc and is why (Western) Rome abandoned Britain and a little later ended by being conquered by the Goths.

Yes, without getting back into what I see as confusion I see what you're saying. Virtually all you say has a serious element of truth in it. At least the counterpoints you've made are backed by true history, and facts. You just don't recognize how I'm looking at this for some reason?

In brief, I see the 2 legs of the "Roman Kingdom" as 1) the original Roman Empire, East and West, and as 2) the states of Europe East and West, which emerged out of the original Roman Empire, East and West.

I distinguish the Germans and the Latins in the West, and I distinguish the Slavs and the Greeks in the East. These are different peoples. But at least *some* of the Germans were in the original Roman Empire in the West. And at least *some* of the Slavs were in the original Roman Empire in the East. That's why I can say that Germanic States are the heirs of the original Roman Empire in the West, and Slavic States are the heirs of the original Roman Empire in the East. With me so far?

Here is the major point. I distinguish between the political center and the religious center in both West and East. The religious center in the West was Rome. The religious center in the East was Constantinople. As the *political centers* moved northward, the religious centers remained the same. That is, as the political states supporting Catholic religion moved northward, the Catholic religion remained in Rome. In the same way, while the political states supporting the Orthodox religion moved northward, the Orthodox religion remained in Constantinople.

This is what I mean by distinguishing between the Political State and the Religious center. The religious centers maintained a contact between the new political centers and the original religious center in the old branches of the Roman Empire. I hope you can understand this geometric style of explanation?

[Bryan Pergola]

Thanks I see the beast as a demon influencing Rome (the city on 7 hills) and its leaders (the kings) in the first century and the 6th king as Nero who is the one who was “now is”

I believe you are correct in your interpretation of the Roman empire as being the beast from the sea. From the sea can mean from the Mediterranean, a foreign empire, Gentiles, whereas the beast from the land can mean from Israel, Jewish. The second is a supporter of the first. This can apply to the angel who has one foot on the sea and one on the land, he spans between Jew and Gentile.
I will beg to differ on the identity of the kings, which I hesitate to get into now, but Nero is also the beast, both a man and empire combined.

[marty fox]

I believe you are correct in your interpretation of the Roman empire as being the beast from the sea. From the sea can mean from the Mediterranean, a foreign empire, Gentiles, whereas the beast from the land can mean from Israel, Jewish. The second is a supporter of the first. This can apply to the angel who has one foot on the sea and one on the land, he spans between Jew and Gentile.
I will beg to differ on the identity of the kings, which I hesitate to get into now, but Nero is also the beast, both a man and empire combined.

I guess you see the kings as empires then if so I use to see it that way but changed my view but yes Nero is the one at the time of revelation

As for the land beast also called the false prophet I see it as a demon influencing apostate Israel

[Bryan Pergola]

I guess you see the kings as empires then if so I use to see it that way but changed my view but yes Nero is the one at the time of revelation

As for the land beast also called the false prophet I see it as a demon influencing apostate Israel

No, I don't see the kings as empire (as so many do) I see them as kings. And I believe the beast from the land, or earth, is OF Israel, and is a real king. But more a bit later.

[randyk]

Sure I see Antiochus in Daniel 8 and much of Daniel 11. Nevertheless Daniel 8 gives us much information on the understanding of what a beast/animal represents and what horns are. There are very few chapters in the bible that give us clues as to these symbols, and Daniel 8 is one of them, whether you affirm that or not. So we gain understanding about the symbols in Daniel 8 because the fulfilment is obvious (clearly defined historical kingdoms). Then we apply that understanding to Daniel 7, Rev 13 and Rev 17.

I have no problem with that.