Nero Caesar

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Was wondering if someone could answer this question? I have read where the Catholic belief is that Nero Ceasar was the "anti christ", "false prohpet", etc described in Revelations. If this is true then what would be the "mark" that was put on all the people of the world during this time not allowing them to buy or sale. Is there some kind of historical reference to Nero Ceasar putting a "mark" on all the people?

-- anon (me@you.com), January 11, 2002

Answers

Response to Nero Ceasar

This is not an official teaching of the Catholic faith, so I am not sure were you heard this.

I guess you are referring to some kind of Catholic interpretation of Revelation that puts it in ancient times, and not something that will occur in the future?

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 11, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Anon has his beasts mixed up. A lot of other things too.

Nero was ''the beast'' and not the anti-Christ, who figures to come at the end of the world. That's a typical question from anon; who wants us to believe he knows what he's talking about. (Fat chance.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Jmj

You are right, Gordon, that identifying "the beast" as Nero is not a fixed Catholic teaching. It has only been offered as a plausible idea that has been accepted by many Christians (not just Catholics).

We should start with the fact that the early Church suffered greatly under the famous Nero Caesar himself (and his seeming "reincarnations" in the form of other persecuting emperors) and the fact that Revelation speaks of the sufferings of Christians, who are being given hope to endure them.

Since Revelation 13:18 speaks of a person as having the number 666, many people have offered guesses as to who this might represent. They have come up with different possibilities by using different languages and the "values" of the letters of the alphabets (e.g., Latin letters equating to Roman numerals).

I'll continue now with quote [annotated by me] from a commentator named Robert N. Cramer, who helps us see why Nero is believed by some people to be linked to 666:

"The Hebrew transliteration (without vowels) [-- Nrwn Qsr --] of Nero's [name in Greek], Neron Caesar [is "Nrwn Qsr". This] adds up to 666 [as follows:]
"N = 50 ([numerical value of the Hebrew letter/number] nun)
r = 200 (resh)
w = 6 (waw)
n = 50 (nun)
Q = 100 (kaph)
s = 60 (samech)
r = 200 (resh)

"The significance of the number 666 was obviously understood by the original Christian communities from which and to which the Revelation was sent. Bratcher and Hatton (A Handbook on the Revelation to John, New York: United Bible Societies [not Catholic], 1993, pages 204-205) provide a good summary of current conclusions:

"'There are many interpretations of the name represented by the number 666. The most widely accepted one is that it stands for the Roman Emperor Nero. Written in Hebrew letters, the numerical value of the letters of the ... name "Neron Caesar" adds up to 666. Some commentators are of the opinion that no one specific person was in the writer's mind, but that by 666 the writer meant total imperfection. Number six is one short of the perfect seven, and three indicates completeness, so the imperfect number six given three times symbolizes "complete imperfection." But the way in which the writer states the matter makes it quite probable that he had some historical person in mind ... As the RSV (Revised Standard Version) footnote shows, one Greek manuscript and a few ancient versions have 616, but 666 is the better attested text.' [And this fits with the fact that the Latin name of the emperor (Nero Caesar) has one less "n" than the Greek -- losing a "nun" value of 50 from the 666.]

"It might be worth noting that though Revelation was written in Greek, the author was very familiar with the the commerce, economy, and geography of Jerusalem and the surrounding region. Werner Georg Kummel (Introduction to the New Testament, Revised Edition, translated by Howard Clark Kee, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975, page 465) quotes J. Schmid, who wrote: 'The author [of Revelation] thought in Hebrew but wrote in Greek.'"


St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 12, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Thanks for the comments.

G Vink, yes I was refering to if it occured in ancient times. What then is the official Catholic teaching?

John, I understand the 666 equals Nero Ceasar. I have heard this commented on by Catholics before this is why I am asking the question. Is there any historical comments of Nero Ceasar placing marks on people and not allowing them to buy or sale?

Eugene, Sorry that I am not as precise as you I used the words "Antichrist" False prophet" and "ETC" since there are so many views on this subject. Just forgot to throw in the words "BEAST" and "whore" along with all the many different views. Just so you know, I know that it is the "image of the beast" or "False prophet"(beast with two horns that looks like a lamb but speaks as a dragon)that gives out this mark. You also said, "Nero was ''the beast'' and not the anti-Christ, who figures to come at the end of the world." So, is this the official Catholic teaching? And, where might we find this story of the "anti-christ" in the book of Revelations? I have yet to find the word "anti-christ" in the book. If it is in there could you please point out the verse?

-- anon (me@you.com), January 12, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Jmj

Annie (i.e., Anon),

I mentioned this at the top of my post: "You are right, Gordon, that identifying 'the beast' as Nero is not a fixed Catholic teaching. It has only been offered as a plausible idea that has been accepted by many Christians (not just Catholics)."

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a fixed Catholic interpretation for each verse in the Bible. That is not true. Only a limited number of passages have had a fixed, infallible interpretation attached to them. Almost all biblical passages are open to a Catholic reader's interpretation, as long as their understanding does not conflict with some aspect of general Catholic doctrine.

I have just written the above paragraph as a prelude to saying that the Church does not have a fixed teaching about the "666 -- mark of the beast."
Also, I am not aware of any historical record of Nero branding people. Rather, I would understand the "mark" of Revelation to be an invisible symbol of attachment to evil and idolatry -- the satanic life to which Nero himself was attached.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 12, 2002.



Response to Nero Ceasar

Thanks John.

Now I hope I don't come across hurtful here, but you sound like a protestant- "Almost all biblical passages are open to a Catholic reader's interpretation, as long as their understanding does not conflict with some aspect of general Catholic doctrine."

So, could I safely assume that the geberal Catholic doctrine is that 666 and mark of the beast could be just about anything one can make up as long as it is not connected with the pope?

-- anon (me@you.com), January 13, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Annie,

We Catholics learn our Church's doctrine by reading good orthodox written works (especially the Catechism), listening to ordained clergy speaking (especially in homilies during Mass), and in other ways. The "doctrine" of which I just spoke is the "deposit of faith" handed down from the Apostles in written and spoken form -- that which God revealed to mankind.

This helps us to be equipped to read the Bible privately and interpret it in a manner that does not contradict points of doctrine that we have learned. The primary author of the Bible is the Holy Spirit, and a divine author's work is so incredibly rich that many parts of it can yield different insights to different people (or to the same person at different times in his life). But I would not go so far as to describe it as stated in your question ["So, could I safely assume that the general Catholic doctrine is that 666 and mark of the beast could be just about anything one can make up as long as it is not connected with the pope? "]. No, it could not "be just about anything one can make up." It should be something that makes sense to a reasonable person. I mean, we aren't talking about a game of fantasy. (And of course 666 has nothing to do with the pope. Rubbish along those lines is the kind of recently invented, anti-Catholic propaganda against which I have been warning you for the last day or two.)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 13, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Re: of whether or not Nero was the BEAST is unclear. He, if you will recall, was insane enough to play the violin on top of a building as Rome burnt in the end. He was resposible for the destruction of the Jewish cities (of the old world) and for murdering countless numbers of Jews (as in the book of revelation, it mentions that a third will die--whether that's a third of the earth or a third of God's chosen people (the Jews) is still unclear to most scholars). We don't have a census of the # of Jews in Israel at that time, so we really don't know what a third would have been. As for the number 666, I myself am unsure. Numbers meant a lot of different things to the people in Biblical times. For instance, one interpretation of why the number 7 was used so much was that the number 7 was considered sacred--not only to Israel, but many pagan cultures as well. One possible reason for the was that, at that time, the people only knew of 7 heavely bodies (i.e. planets) revolving around the earth (if you will recall, they didn't discover that earth and the other planets revolve around the sun until the mid 1500's). I am assuming in this same case that the number 666 also held some sort of meaning to these people. Whomever John of Patmos was, he was well studied in the beliefs of his time and probable used more than one to enhance his writings. In the case of the woman clothed in the sun with stars at her feet--this came out of a pagan belief that was around well before Christ walked the earth.

-- mary (mantgrant@aol.com), March 21, 2002.

Response to Nero Ceasar

I'd like to give some insight, but please excuse me if I have any typing errors as I am typing this fast and not proof reading it as I should. To answer some questions about "Nero" being the beast and also the "mark" he used, yes, there is some written history and proof of all this. You can find some interesting articles about this. Metophorically speaking, mark on the head or hand, just as christians are marked with a seal of promise (Not literal), in any case, mark of the beast could mean the same as "seal of promise" does. What I mean is, the giving worship and allegence to Nero is with the mind (head) and works(hand). Now this, of coarse, is only figurative. I'd prefer the historical view which was the money used at the time. No once could buy or sell unless he had the mark (currency) of the beast. This idea does cause some problems. Does this mean the Christian didn't use money? Yes, they did, but it was not Roman money, thus it was not accepted. Further, most christians were marked as slaves; not Christias only, but gentiles as well. Nero had money with his picture, and of coarse, the name "Neron Qasar" means "God". Nero had a statue made in his image and ordered Titus (I believe that was his name) to install the image in the temple. If you did not worship it, you were killed. THIS HAPPENED! He was the one that declared himself to be god and exalted himself above all that is called god. Even some of the members of his councel hated him. He burned the entire city of Rome and used the Christians as a scape goat. Rome dominated the entire region and attempted to control the entire market. IF anyone didn't have the currency of Rome, you could not buy or sell. The third view point of this is that there were two marks given; one for slaves and one for free. In a nut shell, Nero made life extremely hard. In fact, the amount of time that Nero started the "Abomination of Deselation" until the time of his suicide was 1,250 days. His suidice took place in 68 A.D. He was the fith Emperor and was probably the one responsible for the death of Paul and Peter. I'm not quite sure of that, but I believe this to be correct. In any case, Nero is certainly the beast. The seven heads (seven hills) are the seven Roman Kings. The eigth King (Domitian) spoken of in Revelation was not part of the family of Cearsars. The death of Nero ended the Claudian reign. After Nero, Vespasian was the sixth Emperor (Sixth head of the Beast) and his reign was short (70 - 79 AD) He did not cause as much pain as Nero so not much is said of him. Titus was the seventh King of Rome (70- 79 AD) and his reign was short. The angel tells John the the seventh will come but must reign for a short while. After that, he will go to his destruction. The angel also told John of an eigth king. He is the one that exercized the authority of the first beast (Nero). The second beast was Domitian (81-96 AD). He did more harm than Nero. Nero persecution was more local. Domitian took it a step further and expanded outwards to Italy and so on. Everone was suprized at this because he was thought to be Nero back from the dead. That's probably why the angel told John about a vision of one of the heads of the beast had be slain but healed. He was the one that was invisiioned as "coming up out of the bottomless pit"

Therefore, the seven heads were seven Roman Emperors: Augustus, Tiberuis, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, and Titus. Domitian, the eigth, was not part of the Ceasarian family, but was counted as part of the seven. Of Domitatian, John writes "he is the one what was, and is not, and that is to return". Any questions? Please feel free to email me. I'd say this is far that simple luck or chance. There is no way for Revelation not to speak of Rome, because it was Rome that caused problems. Read the part about the man child that the dragon tried to kill upon birth. Who was in control of things at the time. The mystery of God is completed with the establishment of the Church age. The old testiment age is done and set aside. We now live in God's new Kingdom. Remeber, the Kingdome doesn't come in such a way that one says, "Look! There is is" For the Kingdom of God is within you". The sharing of God's Spirit was the Kingdom he promised. Not a literal earthly temply. But a temple to rest his Soul. As he says "Where shall my Soul find a resting place?" Has not my hands made these thing?" Think about it guys.

Joseph

-- Joseph Rehby (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 09, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

So, then are we to believe that Revelations already happened (Nero, Rome, etc.)?

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 10, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

This is correct. Revelations is a done deal. The scope of the message was pretty much dealing with three to four situations. First, John letting the church know of certain problems that existed (If any) within each church. He also sent the warnings of several things that took place, is taking place, and is going to take place. If one reads the gospel of Luke regarding the end times, referring to the destruction of the tempel, the warnings were clear. At the same time, Revelation was written as an encouragement to hang in there even though they were going through the tribulation.

The first chapters involved the introduction of Jesus about to take his power and declare it do the seven churchs. This reign of power gave proof regarded by the signs Christ warned that the Apostles would see. After the warnings, a clear discription of the enemy of God, the dragon (Satan), would try one last time to destroy those that love God. He knew he couldn't beat God and Satan was about to lose his authority over the earth. In the old testament days, Satan was the ruler of the air. He held the keys to hades and death. But Christ victory declared the loss of Satan and his followers and was thus hurled to the earth. How did Satan fight his wars? By using Nations. Rome was the final Nation he used and he gave his authority to the Ceasars. Nero was the first to start the "Great Tribulation" and was recognized as the beast having a mans number, being 666. After Nero's death, Vespian and Titus were not as severe as Nero, but there was still some troubles. When Vespian died, Domitian proceeded as Nero did and so he was thought to be Nero back from the dead. Only, rule lasted a short time and was thus taken out.

"Babylon has fallen" was the answer to the prayers of the saints. They longed to see Rome fall because of the blood that Rome spilled. Therefore, Gods mystery was completed with the destruction of the tempal, His vengance on Jerusalem for their rejection of Christ and having nailed him to the cross, the time of testing of the saints who witnessed all that Christ had done and also tested those who became disciples of Jesus through what the Apostles had accomplished, and finally the fall of Rome (Babylon).

Some believe that there will be a literal thousand years, but remember the thousand years could represent one day. The clue to this possibly being true is that John says that during the reign of Christ on earth, the followers would be a part of the "royal priesthood". This is known as CHRISTIANS. As you know, when a Christian invites someone into the family of God, he or she is exersizing the Royal priesthood and the newly converted is given without cost, the springs of the water of life. And all of this without severe torture, as the early Christians had to suffer.

In conclusion, Revelation spoke of Christ not pleased with six of the seven Churches, the warning of the sufferings they were about to endure, God's revenge on those who peirced Him (Attack on Jerusalem), testing of the Christians Faith, Fall of Rome (Babylon), and finally, the loss of Satans authority over the earth, hades and death.

In todays life, Christians no longer have the power of death for them, as did the old testament followers. They were locked up in Hades under the rule of Satan. They had to await the death and ressurection of Christ before they were released. Read the gospel of Matthew and you'll see that after Christ died, the tempel split in two and the earth open and many that were of old came to life.

One final thought. People who believe that because Revelation is a done deal that we, today, have no hope. Queit frankly, we have a lot of hope because our worship does not have to be done in secret, nor will we ever suffer the same fate as tremendous as the early church did. This was a promise by God when Christ said the tribulation will be the greatest of all but never to be equaled to again. John says that he himself is a partaker of the "Tribulation" and wrote to give hope and encouragement.

Take care and God bless.

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 10, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

So, then where are we now? If it's a done deal and it's something that happened so long ago, where does Christ coming back and creating his Kingdom on Earth come into play?

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 10, 2002.

Response to Nero Ceasar

Now that is interesting and to be honest is what I have thought for a long time. But the fuels in the Book of Revelation still serve us to this day as much as the Gospels do. AMEN.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Response to Nero Ceasar

To answer the question regarding when Christ is coming back and about the Kingdom. It's simple. Remember what Christ praid before he died? Our Father, which are in Heaven, Holly is your name, YOUR KINGDOM COME....we all know the rest....

So then, the kingdom wasn't yet established because Christ was alive. Why? Because the greatest miracle of all hadn't yet been fullfilled. All the prophets spoke of this ever since the day of Adam and Eve. God had a set plan for man kind and that plan was fellowship with him and for us to serve him. The problem was, sin kept everyone away. Remember His purpose was to provide a resting place for his Spirit. In the old testament days, His Spirit dwelled in the man made temple and only the High Priest was allowed to enter. Well, that was because animal sacrifices couldn't actually clean the sins of the people. So they had to resort to anual animal sacrifices, which was a reminder of what sins were accomplished. Over and over and over, this had to be done. But this wasn't the Kingdom God had planned. This was only an example of what was to come. The coming of the promised Spirit, which is Christ in you, was accomplished after his death, burial, and resurrection. Afterwards, all may drink freely of the Spiritual waters of life. As a result, God's Spirit now dwells in the hearts of man, and woman...This was the Kingdom He promised.

My friends, this was the Kingdom that God promised throughout ages of old. Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within you"...and again, "The Kingdom doesn't come in such a way that one says, Behold! There it is, or look over there".... So you see, the Kingdom that Christ was to be King over was the Kingdom of his Church. The defeat of Satan and the fall of Rome gave way to the establishment of the Church. This was the promise of his coming Kingdom.

Jesus didn't want to confuse anyone into thinking that a physical Kingdom was coming. The new Jerusalem was the one that Paul spoke....WE are the new Jerusalem, that is to say, the Church....AMEN....

So my friends, we partake daily of his Spirit and are inspired to live as required, growing by reading the scriptures, and following the examples of our brothers and sisters before us. Revelations is finished, but that does not mean to go and party, have fun, and so on. Because if we're not careful, our lampstands may be removed, just as the early Church was for their mistakes. God is the one in control of things today, the same as yesterday. Satan no longer has power over anything. So if He showed sterness towards the family of old, how much more today?

In conclusion, the answer is, His Kingdom was the Church and the Church is His Bride. He came and took power in the early Church time. How is this possible? Because, as he told the Apostles, when they see the signs warning of the Tribulation to take place, that was the indication His presense was there. They saw all of this and suffered a great many things. But why were they so happy inspite of all the hardship? Because, they knew they was going home...home to be with their Lord, OUR Lord....What is our job in all of this? Live in accordance with Gods teachings....also, learn from the mistakes and successs of the early church......Revelation serves as an example of these things....read and study them, then we will have contributed to what our forefathers died for....and they died that the Church may be well established, as it is to this day....Again, the Church is the Kingdom and it was Christ that set this up, through the help and work of the Apostles.

Hope this helps....God bless everyone....keep asking questions if they arouse you...

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 10, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Joseph, I believe you've bitten off too much. You aren't chewing very well.

Let Revelations alone; the book of the Apocalypse is a mysterious book; and for one fellow to presume to reduce it to a banality in a few paragraphs here is insulting to the writer and to God. You and I can develop theories; but the chances of us coming up with a simple answer are too long. At least keep these interpretations in your own heart. Don't presume to know anything. Leave those presumptions to the self-absorbed, self-ordained protestant ministers. They are already the blind leading the blind. Don't you try to lead. Pray and remain watchful.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 10, 2002.



Response to Nero Ceasar

Well, Gene, that's kinda what I was thinking. Because that wasn't how I interpreted it at ALL.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 10, 2002.

Response to Nero Ceasar

Replying to Gene. I'm sorry friend if I have offended you in any way. I was only trying to give some insight and answer the questions of someone who asked about Nero. You are right in my presumption of knowledge, and I certainly didn't want to come across as someone who had found all the answers. So, please forgive me. But I must reply in kind that Revelations is not all that mysterious. As an old ministor once told me to do when you study Revelations, you must first "Put on your first Century glasses". I do admit that some if it's metaphores are hard to understand, but it's over all meaning is easy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rome was the enemy and that the early church had to know of this, but without them finding out that God was warning them. Lets face it. John couldn't just come right out and say "Nero is the Beast my friends! Watch out for him!". He was in enough trouble as it was having been sent to Patmos for his testimony.

In any case, if I've offended anyone, please let me know and I will refrain from answering any more questions. I do believe a lot of protestants are making huge mistakes with this world wide end and tribulation that is supposed to come. I'm extremely bothered by the TV networks allowing them to put men like Jack Venimpi (spelling) on TV and claim that something terrible is about to happen. In my opinion, each day we awake, something terrible happens. Sept. 11 is an example. But we must not connect all of these acts of terror to a future event.

Okay, enough of my explanations. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to email me. I've studied this for a long time, and it was a Catholic video tape that helped me out. God bless and thanks.

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 10, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Actually, Jackiea, Joseph and Eugene are both partly right and partly wrong.

[Joseph, no need for you to go away or be silent. You are welcome here.]

The fact is that Joseph's quickly summarized interpretation of Revelation is quite orthodox and held by many Catholics. (The only possibly shaky area I noticed is on the "millennium." According to what I have read, most Catholic interpreters say that the "1000-year reign of Christ" is simply the Christian era -- the time period in which we are living right now.) I noticed, Jackiea, that what he wrote came as a surprise to you. I knew that it would, because you have had a lot of exposure to an often erroneous Protestant theology of Revelation (e.g., rapture, "Left Behind," etc.).

Where I would say that Joseph is mistaken is in his emphasis that his explanation is the correct one, that Revelation describes only past events, and that the matter of interpretation is settled. This is not in keeping with Catholic principles of interpretation. The Holy Spirit gives Christians the light to read and understand most passages of the Bible on more than just one level. It is possible to read some parts of Revelation as pertaining, not just to the past, but to the present or to the future. I happen to like Joseph's interpretation, as I think that Revelation is most easily understood by following it, but I know that it is not "the last word" on the subject.

By now, it may be obvious how I agree and disagree with Eugene, but I'll go over it anyway. I agree with him that Revelation is a mysterious book, with many passages not easy to understand. I think that he and I agree that Revelation can be interpreted on more than one level, with the past, present, and future becoming involved (not just the past). Where I disagree with Gene is in his admonitions to Joseph to clam up. Gene does not have the authority to say the following to Joseph: "[K]eep these interpretations in your own heart. Don't presume to know anything. ... Don't you try to lead."
On the contrary, Joseph can state his valid, Catholic interpretations publicly, and I thank him for having done so.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

John

I only will say this; the posts that joseph has made is pretty much on the nut on what I have believed in regards to the Book of Revelations. It was definitely written for the people of the time of the last great persecution and purge of the Jewish and Christians at the time of Nero.

While that is true, it serves us well to this day for liturgical and faith purposes well in keeping us mindful of what dangers lurk in our age and the future. By NO MEANS I have ever used it as a Book of predictions or coercion as the Protestants do today and for the past few centuries. Those people are only doing it for their personal gains merely to ripp people off of their life savings and we have seen them all in the past.

So as far as I am concerned the posts Joseph has made has served well in confirming what I already knew and believed. Only thing is that I still believe it serves us very well to theis day and is not by far dead. That is the only thing I may disagree with Joseph on.

It is with great PRAYER that our great Church will never allow itself and it's members to succumb to the Protestant and Sectarian rubbish that exists to the present day and yes the heretics too do use this a a tool to scare others to death. I have seen the Jehovahs use this as a tool to snare people to join their ranks by preying on their ignorance to the biblical truths.

Yes Joseph, I do thank you for this ...Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

I didn't seem friendly at all, I guess. Yesterday I was often rushed, and my words were hasty. I ask Joseph to forgive me for my bluntness. Particularly as he felt I was ''offended''.

He didn't say anything to offend me in any way. I just caught a note of finality about his otherwise fine post. Joseph appeared to think this was an exact solution to the Book of Revelations, and not only an insight.

As John rightly says, I shouldn't say ''clam up''. In fact, I didn't. I tried to say meditate; keep in your heart and ponder these mysteries.

In the very first verses a blessing is promised for him who reads and loves the book; just as in its last verses a severe warning is sounded for anyone daring to add to it.

We ought to consider this last caution also in the way we expound on the book. It isn't always easy to discuss. --Many have treated the book almost like a flight of fancy, especially sola scriptura Bible ''scholars''. As if it were a ''Dungeons and Dragons'' game board; or a deck of Tarot cards. It is Holy Scripture, and deserves to be read with great humility. Not as an exercise of our own *wisdom* as scholars.

But, Joseph, I realise you have no such intention, and I'm sorry I wasn't friendlier from the start. You can always speak with confidence here. If it ever seems necessary to correct you, I'll be one of us who does it charitably from now on.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 11, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Good afternoon all.

Thank you Eugene for your kind words and also John for you exhortation in these matters. You are right and thank you for your encouragement. Actually, Eugene's reply made me do more serious research and I have encountered some problems with Rome's History. It seems that Historians have different times and dates of reigns that Caesars ruled in power. Most I've read were of the internet, but some were from the Encarta 2000 disc I have at home. I may find it more suitable to obtain best dates and times from a library or other valuable source of information.

I would love any advice and information anyone has. Oh, one more thing for John. I do believe that Revelation is just as important for us today, as it was for the children of old. I believe Revelation serves as a lesson for us. No doubt, tortures and deaths do happen in todays time, but not do the same degree. That is what I've taught to others. I used to believe as the Protestants have, but I soon found I was in error. That was my fault due to watching to much TV. Guess television is not a reliable source of information after all.

Any ways, I'm at work writing this so I must leave for now. Take care and God bless.

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 13, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Joseph, I believe that our pope has stated that more Catholics suffered martyrdom for the Faith in the 20th century than in any previous century, even the times of the Roman persecutions. The Book of Revelation was, no doubt, an encouragement to some of them.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2002.

Response to Nero Ceasar

You may be right. I do not doubt for one bit that many Christians today have and are suffering for Christianity. I guess what I meant was there are not evil leaders to the degree of the Caesars killing Christians in the form of mochery. An example would be soaking young children with blood and letting the lions attack them, burning Christians in their games as lighting ceremonies, beheading them because of their refusal to turn from the faith, and so on. But then again, there was the Spanish Inquisition (spelling). Wow! I'm glad and I thank God that I have not had to suffer such horrors. Instead, I've suffered with a wife who committed adultery with another member of the Church, who was married as well. I also lost my son when my ex wife left me. And also had to endure a few years of financial hardships because of high credit card debts I was left to pay, along with child support and so on. I considered those things hardships. I guess it was a test of my integrity, which I must admit I failed in many ways. To top things off, as if things couldn't get any worse, I lost my baby girl who died in my arms having been born three months early. Her name was Kaitlyn and she was beautiful. I wondered how God could let such a thing happen, and there was one thing that came to mind. This is what I thought of. When I lost my baby girl, it ripped me apart and I dispaired ever so much. I'm not sure if anyone has ever been through such a hard time, but to lose a child, it's almost impossible to overcome the grief. But then, after losing my former family, and dropping out of Church, I thought of how God feels when ever he loses a loved one; for God loves all that come to Him. Perhaps the pain I felt when I lost my newborn, was the same God felt when he loses anyone; although some do not believe this is possible, and I'm not going to debate these issues. But that was a message I have considered (Not to say God took my child away to teach me a lesson) and I've been trying to return.

I now have a new baby girl and her name is Arianna. My wife became pregnant about five months after losing our previous daughter, yet she was on the pill. We felt that perhaps God was returning our daughter to us. One may think of this being a bit dogmatic, but she looked almost exact, only at normal birth weight. Kaitlyn weighed just over two pounds. She was soooo tiny.

In any case, I feel that Christians do suffer today, but not the same as the early church Christians. But then, I do not know. We must go by what our leaders in the Church say. If they are men of God, then I believe them.

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 13, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Joseph~I saw this and thought of you.

(Hebrews 12) Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart. 4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as children-- "My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; 6 for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts." 7 Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? 8 If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children. 9 Moreover, we had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. 11 Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 14, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Thank you Jackiea. That scripture also came to mind when all of this first began. But you know what? It feels so much better when someone else reminds you of those wonderful and encouraging words. God bless you Jackiea. I mean that from the inner most parts of my heart and soul.

Joseph

-- Joseph (joseph.rehby@shaw.af.mil), May 14, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Oh, Joseph. Thank you for your kind words. And you are very welcome. From the bottom of my heart, too. :)

PS~Something I find myself chanting from time to time, when I am particularly upset is "this too shall pass...this too shall pass".

God Bless

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), May 14, 2002.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Hey guys, especially you Joseph. I am a protestant. Baptist as a matter of fact. Believe it or not guys, not all protestants are premillinial. We started a new Bible study at church on Wednesday nights and we too believe that the beast was Nero and that the Revelation was about the destruction of the temple. I'm not going to argue my point, the bible study just started three weeks ago. Don't go by what I say. Read Revelation, then read Matthew 24. If God wants you to believe something, it will be in the Bible more than once.

-- Becky Brewer (bkybu1@aol.com), April 19, 2003.

Response to Nero Ceasar

I don't know if I will get a reply on this because I'm a little late on this topic but I will it a try.

Eschatology (the study of end times) is a topic you have to study for years. There are so many views its mind blowing. Preterists (those who believe bible prophecies were fulfilled in the past) are the ones who believe that Nero was the beast (The Roman Empire). Revelation is EXTREMELY FIGURATIVE and not to be taken literal. Knowing the old testament, old Jewish traditions, historical evidence and comparing scripture with scripture will give you a better understanding of the book of Revelation. Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 tell you that what was about to happen was NEAR and SHORTLY TO TAKE PLACE.

The mark of the beast could have been a small tattoo on the hand and forehead, or a mark that was branded on thier skin or it could be figurative meaning you belong to Satan. The next chapter speaks of the mark of the Lamb. You find similar accounts early in the Old Testament on how the Jews tied a scroll to there hand and forehead.

When John started seeing the symbols, he saw one thing and it signified another, keeping that in mind, I believe the mark of the beast is also figurative.

Either your in Christ (mark of the Lamb) or you belong to Satan (Mark of the beast)

God Bless You, Ray Rivera

-- Ray Rivera (rriveraone@yahoo.com), May 13, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

As always we must look to Scripture for our answers.

It is obvious that God wanted John to know and understand this information, or He wouldn't have had him write it down. Although it has been sealed until the end times, and we are in the end times!! We are blessed because we get to glean some information from his writings for God, true to His character, revealed these things to one man for the benefit of all. Take your Bible and read.

Revelation 13:11 - another beast, he looks like a lamb (Jesus - John 1:29), but speaks like a dragon (satan - Rev.12:9) 13:12-14 this beast (the false prophet) performs miracles, and has mankind build a statue ( as leader of a newly established end time false religion, he has mankind devote themselves to making the anti-Christ the world's supreme leader) 13:15 - this beast (false prophet) makes the statue come to life. (causes anti-Christ to come to power) 13:16-17 - the statue (anti-Christ) makes everyone receive his mark (except of course those whose names are written in the Book of Life) 13:18 - the puzzle of his mark 666

In Revelation 17 John was shown who "babylon the mother of prostitutes" is, and who the anti-Christ was, and will be. The angel gives John some very detailed information. Take your Bible and read.

17:9 - here is the mind that has wisdom; the 7 heads represent 7 hills where she the woman -[a city - Rev 17:18]called "Babylon the Mother of Prostitutes" sits. (In John's time, in the old Roman Empire, Rome was the only city that claimed to be built on seven hills. Here we are given insight to where, in the last days, the anti-Christ will have his seat of authority). 17:10 The 7 heads also represent 7 leaders, (7 Roman emperors) 5 are dead, one is now, (ruling in John's lifetime) one is to come to power later (in the end times ) 17:10 - the scarlet animal (anti-Christ) that died, will be the 8th leader (in the end times), ** he was one of the seven,(previous verse) after his second reign he too will go to his doom.

As noted by others, Nero's name adds up to 666. God revealed to John who the anti-Christ was, and will be in the last days. How he comes to life again John is not told, and when Scripture is silent (more often than not due to our lack of understanding of Scripture) on a subject, it is best that we do not speculate on that subject.

As to what the mark will be, John is not told, and I will not speculate. John is simply told who the anti-Chrsit is and will be. That those who receive the mark cannot buy or sell, and that those who receive his mark must drink the wine of the wrath of God.

The important thing to know is that the the Word, the Bible, is God's Word to us, and it is always self interpreting. Scripture will always interpret Scripture. Peter writes in his secomd letter that, "no Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Paul in his letter to Timothy writes, "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God ..." God inspired men to write "His" Words, and since God cannot lie, we cannot say that God's inspired Word is left for any one person to read and interpret. We must always look to Scripture to interpret Scripture. May God Bless you, and make His face to shine upon you.

-- P. Porche (lightingtheway@att.net), June 02, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Dear P. Porche

you say:- "As always we must look to Scripture for our answers"

BUT you know that when this happens, there will be 25,000+ different answers, this being an approximation of the number of differing views that protestants have upon the subject --- unless, of course, sola scriptura supports the notion that Our Lord wanted there to be 25,000 different interpretations of His will. is this the protestant contention?

and oooooh, if only i were so arrogant so as to believe that my "personal take" was the "truth", in spite of 2,000 years of Holy Spirit- guaranteed truth ----> heck, i might even support abortion, or whatever,........... and i might even be tempted to invent a doctrine that faith alone achieved salvation. what a trip. if only it were true,.... "i believe so i can do what i want".

waht joy.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 04, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Interpretation is a work of the conscious mind. No written work can interpret itself. This spurious claim is an utterly meaningless catch phrase tossed out by those who have rejected the true authority Christ gave to His people - His Church - in an effort to salvage something from the inevitable effects of attempting to apply this absurd slogan. How many more divisions in Christianity, how many more false doctrines will be necessary before followers of this untenable manmade tradition finally open their eyes and say "HEY, THIS ISN'T WORKING! JESUS SAID THAT ALL CHRISTIANS WOULD BE ONE! wHAT WE ARE DOING HAS CAUSED OUR TRADITION TO FRAGMENT INTO THOUSANDS OF CONFLICTING SECTS - THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT JESUS SAID!" Is this how Scripture "interprets itself"?? In thousands of conflicting and contradictoey ways? Truth cannot conflict with truth. Does the Word of God interpret itself in the form of untruth? Thousands of different untruths?

You actually quote the verse (2 Peter 1:20) which forbids private interpretation of scripture - yet you are so thoroughly blinded to the reality of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that you misinterpret even this verse to your own detriment, just as Peter described (2 Peter 3:16). Your fanciful interpretations of the Book of Revelation, a work which was written to comfort and encourage a first century Christian Church under intense persecution - NOT to provide eschatological predictions - is tragically typical of those who have wandered far from the biblical Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). You are right that the book is about ancient Rome, the city of seven hills, which was the source of the persecutions which were occurring at that time, and about which John wrote.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Jmj

Hello, Paul.
It won't surprise you to know that I support the main thrust of everything you have just told P. Porche. However, it may surprise you to know that I disagree with one specific thing you told him/her.

It is this: "You actually quote the verse (2 Peter 1:20) which forbids private interpretation of scripture ..."

Oh, how many times I have heard/read Catholic apologists say something of this kind -- that 2 Peter 1:20-21 "forbids private interpretation of scripture! I always shake my head in sadness, because that is not what the verse means ... and that is why P. Porche had no trouble quoting it! It damages Catholic credibility, in the eyes of Protestants, when a Catholic apologist offers the (ironic) misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21.

The fact is that we Catholics are not forbidden to do private interpretation of scripture. The only way to prevent private interpretation is to forbid the reading of scripture. As soon as one reads, he cannot help but "interpret"!

No, it is not "private interpretation" that is forbidden, but rather UNGUIDED private interpretation. That is what non-Catholics do: private interpretation that is unguided by the parameters of Catholic doctrine given to us by the Magisterium. But we Catholics must do private interpretation -- and we are able to do it well, if we have first prepared our minds with the doctrinal framework laid out in the Catechism.

What then does 2 Peter 1:20-21 mean? It reads as follows:
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

Clearly, this passage has nothing to do with a reader's interpretation of Holy Writ, but rather with the actions of the writers of the books of the Bible. St. Peter is saying that the prophecies one reads in the Bible were not something generated merely from the minds of the prophetic authors (i.e., their "personal interpretation" of world events, religious ideas, etc.). Instead, St. Peter says, the prophecies found in the Bible were products of divine inspiration.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 07, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Dear John,

I'm familiar with your interpretation of this passage. It is commonly offered, but I don't agree with it completely. I can't say it has no merit, but at the very least it is not the whole story. The key word in the passage is "interpretation". Interpretation is something that is applied only to pre-existing material. If scripture were "generated from the minds of the authors", it would not be an interpretion, but their own original ideas. Thus, the phrase "scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation", could not apply to the writers, or one would have to ask "interpretation of what"? What was there, preceding scripture, the human interpretation of which might have resulted in scripture? Nothing! What they wrote was indeed original, not an interpretation of previous matter - that is clear - and the source of this original matter is stated in the second half of the passage - "human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God". What the first half of the passage states therefore is that SINCE the scriptures were WRITTEN as described in the latter part of the verse, they must therefore also be INTERPRETED in the same way - under the influence of the Holy Spirit - not by mere human effort. To paraphrase, it says "Nothing in scripture can be interpreted by merely human effort, because it was written by divine inspiration, and must therefore be interpreted the same way".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 07, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Jmj

I'm sorry, Paul, but I am certain that you are mistaken about this. I believe that the words of the text are just so crystal clear, on their face, that they can have only the meaning I have stated above.
In what follows, I'll use "P" to refer to you, and "J" to refer to me.

P: "I'm familiar with your interpretation of this passage. It is commonly offered, but I don't agree with it completely."
J: But one almost can't even call what I said an "interpretation," since it is just a straight reading of the words. To arrive at any other "interpretation," though, requires a most inelegant twisting of the meaning of the words and an insertion of new words.

P: "The key word in the passage is 'interpretation.' Interpretation is something that is applied only to pre-existing material. What was there, preceding scripture, the human interpretation of which might have resulted in scripture? Nothing!
J: The key word is indeed "interpretation ... but you are mistaken in thinking that it must be referring to the interpretation of pre-existing written material.
Instead, St. Peter is saying that the biblical prophecies are not the human writers' "interpretation" of events, of their life experiences, of the signs of the times, of omens, of the oral Tradition of Jesus, etc.. Rather, the prophecies were given to them by the Holy Spirit.
And so, we see that these verses have nothing to do with whether we are today allowed privately to interpret the words of the Bible.

P: "What the first half of the passage states ... is that SINCE the scriptures were WRITTEN as described in the latter part of the verse, they must therefore also be INTERPRETED in the same way -- under the influence of the Holy Spirit -- not by mere human effort. To paraphrase, it says 'Nothing in scripture can be interpreted by merely human effort, because it was written by divine inspiration, and must therefore be interpreted the same way.'"
J: That is surely not the meaning of the two verses. You have had to insert words and phrases to force a meaning into the passage that is not there.
On the other hand, the wrong interpretation at which you have just arrived is a statement that is true! We must indeed have the help of the Holy Spirit (not "mere human effort") in interpreting the scriptures.

The only problem is that your own new explanation of the verse contradicts what you told P. Porche in the first place -- which caused me to speak up. You told him that "the verse (2 Peter 1:20) ... forbids private interpretation of scripture." Anyone reading that would think that they would have to stop reading the Bible -- or must read it only side-by-side with some kind of official Catholic commentary that explicates each and every verse. Of course, no such official commentary exists.
We can see that what you told P. Porche was incorrect, as you have now admitted indirectly. Private interpreation is not "forbidden." It is essential, but it must be aided by the Holy Spirit and guided by the Magisterium (i.e., by understanding the Bible in conformity with the Catechism's doctrines). So, Paul, what you arrived at in the end pleases me, even if we must disagree about the specific meaning of the two verses!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Hello everyone. It's me, Joseph again. Gosh! A long time has it been since I've last posted a comment on the subject of "Nero". And I must say, the imput I've received and given may or may not have changed. I'll leave this up for you all to decide. But I must say I'm a bit disturbed by the debating that takes place here, and I certainly never tried to cause such a thing. However, I am happy to some extent that some have come to study Revelations more closely, as if it were through the eyes of the original readers.

So, to make this short and easy. Here are more details on the subject of "Nero" and so on.

It's very difficult to distinguish between the two "Beasts". For the past several years, I've always believed that Nero was the first and Domitian to be the second. It is possible that Damitian could be the first and Trajan the second. These details are not important right now. What is important, and what's also taken many months of study, are the 10 horns / kings from the east. And here is my judgement on this matter.

The 10 horns / kings were the Kings which were responsible for the 10 great Christian persecutions between an estimated time fram of 100 AD. to 324 AD. These kings were "from the east". That is, the eastern empire of Rome. During the Barbarian wars and crusades, Rome was split into three regions, primarily east and west. The capital of Rome was moved to the Eastern side of Rome because the Western side was won over by the Barbarian wars. Rome's tax surplus was reduced so dramatically that their economy could no longer afford a strong military. Thus, the Roman Empire expanded itself so far beyond their ability to maintain itself. That, plus the multiple plagues and deseases, along with the distruction of Pompeii via volcano, weakened the Roman Empire. Trajan was very crude and issued a Nation wide edict to have all Christians tortured and killed. Without getting into much detail, I challenge all to read the writings of Iraneus, Barnabas, Polycarp, and a few others. The most interesting are some passages of Iraneus.

Iraneus doesn't liberally attempt to interpret the exact meaning of "The number of the Beast", but he does say something which gives much proof to the early church mindset. (Note: Iraneus was a disciple of John who wrote Revelations) This he says: Let us first wait the dividing of the Kingdom into 10.......(Referring to Rome) and again in referrence to 666, Latinois also equals 666, for they indeed are the ones in charge now....also in reference to Rome.

Gosh, there is so much more. However, I would challenge everyone reading these posts to research this.

You should find that Christian persecution was given in much detail with some of the early church writings. There is NO WAY that Christians of today suffered the invented torture techniques brutally applied to the early Christians. This "war" against Christians ended in 324 AD when Constatine declared Christianity to be the official religion. There were surely some persecutions going on, but not to the same degree as 10 Roman Emperors did on up until Constatine, who abolished public Christian torture.

Going back to a posted comment regarding the "1000 years", I belieave it may be possible that this 1000 years of peice was for the church; not the world. Keep in mind that for nearly the first 250 years, give or take a few, of church existance, there were millions tortured and killed with techniques you and I couldn't even handle....I WILL NOT get into those techniques. Let's just say that there were not quick deaths...they were all slow, agonizing, and painful! In any case, the mulitiple deaths almost wiped Christians off the face of the earth. Thus Christ says, "For the sake of the elect, those days would be numbered"....and again, "If those days had not been cut SHORT, no one would have survived"!

It's quite clear that nearly 250 years of Christian Torture almost exterminated Christianity. This was the time of testing which Christ warned the seven chruches about, where in he says, "This calls for the patient endurance on the part of the saints". Afterwards, the Church was "refined by fire" (fire meaning persecution to burn out impurities) and proven faithful and genuine. Now that the product (Church) had been proven and thoroughly cleansed, it's now ready for a worldwide delivery.

And what I'm about to say should keep a few protestants in check. If it were NOT for the Romans, Christianity would not have survived as long as it has. Why do I say this? Because the Empire which once tried to destroy Christianity was responsible for it's spread throughout the rest of the world as we see it today. Granted there may have been corruptions which took place, just as there will always be, yet truth will always abound.

It wasn't until the 13th century (nearly 1000 years after the last major Christian persecution around 312 AD) that the Spanish Inquisition took place, leading to many more tortures. This COULD be the time where Satan is released from the pit to go out and decieve the Nations again.

This may be the time we are now living in. Yet, if we were to take some writings of Barnabas serious, we still have around a 1000 years to go before mankind no longer exists. I'll talk about that later.

But for now, this should suffice. Hope all enjoys reading this. See you.

Joseph.

-- Joe Rehby (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 20, 2004.


Response to Nero Ceasar

Joe, I would be able to begin to take your theories seriously if you didn’t produce such glaring historical bloopers:

“During the Barbarian wars and crusades, Rome was split into three regions, primarily east and west.”(sic). The Barbarian wars against Rome were from about 400 to 476 AD (when the Barbarians conquered Rome). The Crusades were fought in the Holy Land from 1095 to 1290 AD. The Roman empire was split into two regions, east and west. There was no third region. It was split for ease of governance and because of rivalries between contenders for the title of emperor, not because the empire was under attack.

“capital of Rome was moved to the Eastern side of Rome because the Western side was won over by the Barbarian wars.” No. The capital was moved in about 320 AD, when the empire was powerful and peaceful. The western empire was not conquered until 476 AD.

“their economy could no longer afford a strong military.” Rubbish. Rome was richer than ever, that’s why the barbarians coveted it.

“ Thus, the Roman Empire expanded itself so far beyond their ability to maintain itself.” The Empire reached its greatest expansion about 100 AD and remained at virtually the same borders until well into the 5th century.

“multiple plagues and deseases” and ”the distruction of Pompeii via volcano” had nothing to do with the fall of Rome.

Christians were NOT almost completely wiped out before Constantine came to the rescue. Constantine allowed them religious freedom (he did NOT make Christianity the official religion) precisely because they were a large discontented minority and he was trying to stabilize his empire.

The Spanish inquistion began, not in the 13th century, but at the end of the 15th century. It did not “lead to many more tortures”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 20, 2004.


Joe,

I do see the similarities between history and some of Revelation. I can see where Mt Vesuvius could be the plague of sulphur and the two witnesses could be Sts. Peter and Paul. I'll have to start my own investigation into this. It's very interesting.

Just wanted to add a correction to Steve's.

You said Irenaeus was a disciple of John the Evangelist. I think you meant Ignatius of Antioch (he might also have been known as Theophorus). He was bishop during Domition's persecution and was also martyred. He also wrote letters to two of the churches mentioned n Revelations (Phila. and Smyra). These letters contained among other things, references to heretics and the importance of the Eucharist.

Your reference regarding the early church mindset may have been from Irenaeus. Do you have a title for that? Any ideas on Wormwood?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 21, 2004.


Steve,

I'll reply to your comments later. I didn't intend to right an exact account or date of all the things which took place. I gave rough estimates. I don't know which war you're talking about, concerning the "Barbarian wars", but you are gravely mistaken. Or perhaps your historical accounts of Rome are from another source which perhaps may have many errors. And as for Constatine, HE DID INDEED declare Christianity the official religion of Rome! Who told you otherwise? It was his wife which encouraged him to do so. Although he did permit this peace with the Church, he was not entirely Christian. Whether he was or not is not important. The important part was that his rule allowed the Christians to expand on a world wide bases. There are many articles governing this fact. I would suggest you read more into the times of Emperor Trajan and beyond. You'll learn of the many battles Rome endured. The main idea is this. Christ told the Aposltes this: you will be handed over to kings for my names sake to be a witness to them..... Why would you suppose Christ would allow that? You would have thought that after all the miralces and maryters which took place after the death of the Aposltes that Rome would eventually give in. And that they did, but not until Constatine discontinued the public torture and disgrace they had to endure. There is much to discuss on that matter, but I'll get back to you later.

As for "Wormwood" which means bitterness. I believe that was an angel used to take peace away from the earth. A time of great devistation overtook the first three centuries, not only towards Christians who were being tested for their faith, but towards the nations of the "inhabited earth" as Christ says. (Inhabited earth is the litteral translation but American English bibles say 'whole world') I would challenge Steve if he believes Revelation was written for the future, and not the immediate future of the early church, then would good would the letter have done them? After all, he tells one of the churches for their good behavior that they would be spared from all that was about to come upon the whole inhabited earth. If it was for the distant future, that would be very illogical considering that church NO LONGER exists.

But to answer the question on "Wormwood", again, that simply means bitterness among the peoples of all Nations. This would create the troubled times which existed in the early church period. Exact or specific dates are unknown. I can see that with Steve, I will have to be more specific. Thus, when I write again, I will have specific information.

Joe

-- Joe Rehby (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 21, 2004.


Steve,

Here is a few theories or facts, however you choose to take them, which in part back up what I've written earlier....read if you care.

Joey

"But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.... The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians."

Economic reasons for the Fall of Rome Financial Problems Because the East survived when the West collapsed, institutional weakness and barbarian invasions, conditions common to both halves, are insufficient explanation of Rome's Fall. Instead Elton sees the cause in financial difficulties only the West faced. The best single explanation would be poor leadership rather than military failure. Bibliography.

The other side of Roman decadence was the dole. Millions spent on bread (including pork by the end of the second century) and circuses for the non-working poor. Barbarians ruled Rome and even when a Roman, Diocletian, regained control, he was influenced by the East. With Constantine came a barbaric Christianity and the move of the Empire's center from Rome to Constantinople.

Economic, Military, Gradual Site reviews the theories of others to provide three single-issue models for the collapse: economic (lack of circulating currency and trade deficit, and other factors not clearly economic like environmental change and decaying infrastructure), military (citizenship granted to all reduced the incentive to join the army), and gradual transformation (it never fell or fell to Islam).

Economic - Hoarding and Deficit [[kids.osd.wednet.edu/jms/FallofRome.html]Fall of Rome] Economic decay through hoarding of bullion, barbarian looting of the treasury, and trade deficit; military decay through attrition and disorganization; lack of a military leader. "One of the primary catalysts to the deterioration of the economy was the lack of circulating currency in the Western Empire. Two reasons for the lack of funds are wholesale hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens, and the widespread looting of the Roman treasury by the "barbarians". These two factors, coupled with the massive trade deficit with Eastern Regions of the Empire served to stifle the growth of wealth in the west."

-- Joe Rehby (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 21, 2004.


Here you go Steve....hope you read it all....

Joe

Constantine believed that the Church and the State should be as close as possible. From 312-320 Constantine was tolerant of paganism, keeping pagan gods on coins and retaining his pagan high priest title "Pontifex Maximus" in order to maintain popularity with his subjects, possibly indicating that he never understood the theology of Christianity. From 320-330 he began to attack paganism through the government but in many cases persuaded people to follow the laws by combining pagan worship with Christianity. He made December 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the official holiday it is now--the birthday of Jesus. It is likely that he also instituted celebrating Easter and Lent based on pagan holidays. From 330-337 Constantine stepped up his destruction of paganism, and during this time his mother, Helen, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and began excavations to recover artifacts in the city. This popularized the tradition of pilgrimages in Christianity. Whether or not his conversion was "genuine," Constantine's reign was extremely important to the Christian church. After his vision, he immediately declared Christianity legal in the Edict of Milan. He completely abandoned paganism and put his full force of favor towards advancing the cause of the Church of Christ. He provided Christianizing legislation on such matters as the observance of Sunday, the confiscation of the temple treasures, and the exemption of some clergy from taxes. He funded Christian leaders and the construction of churches, some of which he dedicated to his mother. Most Christian leaders greatly admired Constantine for the works he did for the church and Christian cause.

STEVE: YOU ARE CORRECT....it wasn’t Constatine, rather it was THEODOSIUS who declared Christianity the official religion of Rome in 394: Emperor Theodosius declares Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. In either case, the time frame is perfect and still supports the fact that Christians suffered far more during the first three centuries than any other time in history. Here is more proof for you to read.

The Ten Persecutions of the Early Christians Persecutions Raised by the Romans Against the Christian Church Christians have been persecuted ever since the death of Jesus Christ. The persecutions raised by the Romans against the Christian Church can be divided into ten main ones, which began during the reign of the following emperors: 1. Nero (Roman emperor AD 54–68), persecution stirred up in AD 64. In this persecution was the Apostle Paul killed and the apostle Peter crucified in Rome. This first persecution ceased under Vespasian (reigned AD 69–79). 2. Domitian (Roman emperor AD 81–96). John, the apostle and evangelist was exiled to Patmos during this persecution. After the death of Domitian, John was released and came to Ephesus in AD 97, where he wrote his Gospel and where he lived until the time of Trajan. 3. Trajan (Roman emperor AD 98–117). Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch suffered in this persecution. 4. Marcus Aurelius, his other name being Antoninus Verus (Roman emperor AD 161–180). Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and the Christian martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, two cities in France, were martyred in this persecution. 5. Septimius Severus (Roman emperor AD 193–211). This persecution extended to northern Africa, which was a Roman province. 6. Maximinus, Gaius Julius Verus (Roman emperor AD 235–238). 7. Decius (Roman emperor AD 249–251). In this persecution was Fabian martyred; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, forced into exile; and Origen imprisoned and tortured. 8. Valerian (Roman emperor AD 253–260). 9. Aurelian (Roman emperor AD 270–275). 10. Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, reigned AD 284–305) and Maximian (reigned AD 285–305) governed as emperors together. Diocletian began his furious persecution against the Christians in 303. The emperor ordered the doors of the Christian church at Nicomedia, the capital, to be barred, and then burnt the edifice with 600 Christians within. Many edicts were issued by him against Christians. Churches were demolished, Christian books were seized and burnt, Christians were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed. The persecution brought a considerable number of martyrs, and it continued until 313, when Emperor Constantine set Christians free and proclaimed religious freedom. The best account of these ten persecutions is the Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius (c AD 260–340) was an eyewitness to many martyrdoms in Caesarea (an important city in Palestine) during the tenth persecution stirred up by Diocletian. After the persecution ended in 313, Eusebius became the bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity. His most important work is the Church History, which gives an account of the history of Christianity from the time of Jesus Christ to AD 324, the time of Emperor Constantine and the defeat of Licinius. This work is very valuable, as it refers to many prominent figures of the first three centuries and contains many original sources which would otherwise be unknown to us. The following pages contain those parts of this work which deal with the ten persecutions. Eusebius of Caesarea Church History

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 21, 2004.


You are one confused guy Joey. You have belatedly acknowledged I was right about Constantine NOT instituting Christianity. I suggest you check out your other material with reputable historical sources, because much of it is also wrong. Constantine never persecuted pagans, he was one himself, a sun worshipper. He became a Christian only on his death-bed. The barbarians did not invade until a century after Constantine. You’ve got a whole lot of things from different historical eras all jumbled together in confusion. You can’t put together two things which happened 800 years apart and try to explain it away by saying it’s “a rough estimate”.

And terrible as they were, the persecutions of the first three centuries were not the worst to befall Christians. More Christians were martyred in the last 87 years than in all previous history put together. You certainly should know this which happened in your own lifetime and is still happening.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.


Joey Rehby, I agreed on your opinion about Domitian being the beast, number 8, on the list you made 2 years ago. I had not read your article before. Amazing I had the same conclusions. I reached these in 1998.

I was also looking for the case on Nero. I saw John Gecick's explanation for him being also the 666. It is a good one.

Though I am on the agreement that the 666 is Domitian, since Revelation (Apocalypsis) 17:9-11 mentions he is the 8th. Nero was the 5th.For Domitian I use K(aisaros) Domitsi(a)nos as a Hebrew person would write it: K(Kaf)=20, D(dalet)=4, o (waw)=6, m (mem)=40, i (yod)=10, t (thav)=400, s(samech)=60, i(yod)=10,o (waw)=6, S(samech) =60 to get at the number 666.

As for the 10 persecutions from revelation 17:12-14 , on the 10 kings, Well , this is a nice explanation. First time I see told from this perspective starting from Nero and ending with Diocletian.

Good job in offering an explanation I had not thought out before for that passage.

The Christian Yahwist

PS: I also believe Rvelation already passed.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 21, 2004.


Elpidio, you've got way too much time on your hands. Why don't you do something useful with it?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

I wish I had time now, Steve.

Most of what I know came from the period when I was still a Catholic in 1983. I turned my attention to the Apocaypse (revelation) in the late 1980s.

It wasn't until the late 1990s that I realized most of the apocalypse was fulfilled.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 21, 2004.


Steve,

Have you ever read Elpido''s dreams about the pope? And he doesn't believe Jesus is God.

We must pray for this lost soul that left the Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 21, 2004.


For you Steve! When Rome began it's decline!

The Pagan Roman Empire began fierce persecution of the Christians in 250, The Emperor Decius enforced edicts which commanded all citizens to sacrifice to the traditional Roman gods, those who did not obey were executed. Persecution continued though not always as fiercely until the end of the reign of Diocletianus, who in 303 caused the most severe persecution the church had ever faced.7 The Roman Empire first became divided under Diocletianus (284-305), who divided the empire into an East and West terriotories in order to maintain efficient government control over the enormous empire. His scheme caused many civil wars; Constantine the Great emerged from these struggles and became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. In 312 Constantine became a Christian, the next year he proclaimed equal rights for all religions and returned the property confiscated from the Christians. Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople formerly Byzantium, and now known as Istanbul. Constantine divided the territory among his sons shortly before his dealth 337, their reigns did not last long (337-361). The Empire was permanently divided in 395 upon the dealth of Theodusius who divided the empire between his two sons. 8

Theodusius made Christianity the sole religion of the empire.9 Constantinople assumed preeminence over other Christian centers in the East as did Rome in the West. The Eastern Roman Empire is commonly called the Byzantine Empire by modern historians. Its beginning is commonly dated from the establishment of the new Roman capital of Constantiople in 330. The Byzantine Empire lasted for a thousand years after the Western empire collasped, until it finally fell to Turkish onslaughts in 1453. 10

The Western Empire ended in 476 when Odoacer defeated and killed Orestes and deposed Romulus Augustulus. Justinian (527-565) restored imperial authority over Italy, North Africa and part of Spain by defeating the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Vandals, all of whom were Arian Christians. Arian Christians believed that Jesus the Son, though Creator, was himself created and therefore could not be truly divine like the Father. The cost of Justinian's conquests were crippling, and his successors lost nearly all of what had been gained to the Arian Lombards, and the Muslim Arabs, and a resurgence in Spain of the Visigoths. For many centuries the Emperors were not only the highest military leader, supreme judge, but also the protector of the church and orthodoxy. Justinian reached the height of imperial influence in religious matters. Popes and Patriarchs were regarded as his servants, he directed the affairs of the church as he did that of the state. In matters of belief and rituals his was the final decision.11

As we read of the Barbarian invaders which enter into the old Roman Empire we must remember that they are invading only the Western half of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire ( Byzantine Empire) ruled lands from the Euphrates in the east to the Strait of Gibraltar in the West. The Byzantine Empire was a continuation of the Roman Empire, which stood as a bridge between the ancient world and the medieval and modern worlds.

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 23, 2004.


Steve,

Steve,

Not going to go there. Wasted to much time to be rude. If you choose to believe the way you do, that is your choice. However, it will not be anywhere near as close to the early church. Todays many protestant beliefs have been met with one mis- prediction to the next. In the early 20th century, they believed the social security card was the mark of the beast. They also believed later that stock bar codes would be the mark. From worldwide indentification cards, to the so called “chip-implantation”, one crazy thing to the next. Yet, all are rediculous. In any case, if these are marks, then what good would it have been to send a letter prophesying about these things to the first seven churches almost 2000 years ago? It would have meant nothing to them.

How can you say that the early church christians haven't suffered more that christians today? Has anyone today ever had to watch their children being dressed with animal skin, dipped in blood, and tossed into the arena that lions may attack them? What's worse, having the Emperor and everyone laugh at the face of the parents as this took place? Certainly not! Have any Christians today been slowly burned, not allowing them to die a quick death, in order to get them to reject christ? Certainly not! Are any today tortured in multiple numbers, by the millions (as was the case with the early church christians), by a government or empire so strong and anti-christian, that edict after edict by many Roman Emperors of the first three centuries against Christians to be hunted down, judged, tortured, private parts removed, legs broken, internal parts exposed, women raped, children slowly tortured, and all at the mercy of a Roman desire for them to reject Christ and worship the god of Jupiter, as well as the Emperors who declared themselves to be a god? At what time, in the last 87 years, has any of these events taken place? Sure their are Christians today who are killed because of their belief. But in NOW WAY are deaths today as numerous are made public as they suffered. Just by you saying that takes away the rage and injustice those beloved of Christ has to suffer. Wake up Steve! Stop living in the idealism of the 20th century belief of vanity! Christians today don’t know what it is to suffer. We worry about things like finances, family loss / divorce, jobs lost, food on the table / money to eat out, and the like. We don’t have to worship in secret as they did for nearly 3 1/2 centuries. Instead we can attend Sunday School without tremendous persecution. I’ve been to countries like Turkey, which rejects Christianity, and indeed, what few christians are there are perhaps executed. But not publicaly, nor are they sought out by the millions. Most of those coutries are primarily islamic. I know because I was there. These are regions where Christianity once flourished. But now dominated by Islam.

In any case have woman today been forced to eat their own young, as the early jewish woman did during the 7 year Jewish revolt (Emperors Nero and vespasian), just as Christ warned the woman at the cross that would happen? This occured when the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, built a wall to contain them, from the north, south, east, and west, just as Christ forewarned the Apostles in the gospels. This was normal practice for the Roman armies. This forced the enemy to eventually starve themselves out. Christ told the Apostles all that was going to happen. After Jerusalem was destroyed, he talks about the suffering they must first go through. Then, their would be a time of testing and great distress to all in the inhabbited earth. He then says, This generation would certainly not pass away until all these things are fullfilled..... He's obviously talking about their generation because it was them (THe Apostles) which asked the questions, "When will this happen, what are the signs, etc.? Jerusalem being destroyed was one major sign. And when they heard of wars, and rumors of wars, perhaps that is why many of the Aposltes believed the end times to be near. After all, history teaches that the Apostles remembered the warnings of Christ to leave without looking back when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the Roman armies. This was God’s wrath against Jerusalem for rejecting and nailing Christ to the cross.

Think about that. I can't believe you think that Christians being shot in Africa, Turkey, or other muslim Nation is worse than the tortures they (early church) went through. When, in the last few centuries, have christians been sought out on a national basis to be hunted and killed? I would suggest you read more about the early Christian torture, and quit following the Jack Vanampie rule of thought....European Union, chip implated under the skin, social security number, stock bar codes, and what ever other garbage is / has been thought to be the mark. IF any of these items are the mark, what does this have to do with the early church? It wouldn’t make any sense to them.

(Shakes head) But I understand why many belieave this way. It’s what they’re taught. But, as I’ve indicated, that is your choice and yours alone to make.

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 23, 2004.


Yeah thanks for the extract from the grade-school history book. We all knew all that, except for the things you still got wrong.

“In 312 Constantine became a Christian.” No he didn’t, it was in 337 when he was on his death-bed.

“Theodusius made Christianity the sole religion of the empire.” No he didn’t, he merely officially patronized it. Vast numbers in the empire freely remained pagan.

“Justinian reached the height of imperial influence in religious matters. Popes and Patriarchs were regarded as his servants, he directed the affairs of the church as he did that of the state. In matters of belief and rituals his was the final decision.” Poppycock, the Pope had the final decision.

“Not going to go there. Wasted to much time to be rude.” What on earth did I say that you have construed as rude?

“How can you say that the early church christians haven't suffered more that christians today? Has anyone today ever had to watch their children being dressed with animal skin, dipped in blood, and tossed into the arena that lions may attack them? What's worse, having the Emperor and everyone laugh at the face of the parents as this took place? Certainly not! Have any Christians today been slowly burned, not allowing them to die a quick death, in order to get them to reject christ? Certainly not! Are any today tortured in multiple numbers, by the millions (as was the case with the early church christians), by a government or empire so strong and anti-christian, that edict after edict by many Roman Emperors of the first three centuries against Christians to be hunted down, judged, tortured, private parts removed, legs broken, internal parts exposed, women raped, children slowly tortured, and all at the mercy of a Roman desire for them to reject Christ and worship the god of Jupiter, as well as the Emperors who declared themselves to be a god? At what time, in the last 87 years, has any of these events taken place? Sure their are Christians today who are killed because of their belief. But in NOW WAY are deaths today as numerous are made public as they suffered. Just by you saying that takes away the rage and injustice those beloved of Christ has to suffer. Wake up Steve! Stop living in the idealism of the 20th century belief of vanity! Christians today don’t know what it is to suffer.”

I am truly shocked by your ignorance. Over ONE HUNDRED MILLION (100,000,000) Christians have been martyred in the last 87 years. The tortures inflicted on them included all those you describe and more too horrible to relate. You call yourself a Christian and are unaware of this? What YOU are saying takes away from the injustice.

“I’ve been to countries like Turkey, which rejects Christianity, and indeed, what few christians are there are perhaps executed. But not publicaly” So that’s OK then. If I was going to be executed, I would PREFER it was done publicly, so at least everyone knew about it (as evidently you still don’t) instead of, like most, in some hidden dungeon or “re-education camp”.

“When, in the last few centuries, have christians been sought out on a national basis to be hunted and killed?” To name a few, USSR 1917 to 1985, Eastern Europe 1939 to 1985, Saudi Arabia 1926 to 2004, China 1949 to 2004, N Korea 1945 to 2004 etc.etc.

Who the hell is Jack Vanapie? And who said anything about bar codes or chip implantation or all those other crazy things you’re accusing me of? It’s YOU who needs to “wake up”!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

Thank you for your interest my friend. Nero is who I believe 666 was in reference to. What steven doesn't know is that it was common practice for Hebrews, Latino's, Greeks, and Christians to use a technique called gamatra, that is, the spelling of words by also using numbers. In Roman caves which have been discovered, there are writings on the wall by Roman females which say, "The number of the man I love is "numbers") The languages did differ in numerical context. That is why there were some early manuscripts which contained the number 616, instead of 666. Iraneus talks about that and stated, I hope this was done in error that pardon may be granted to those who did this by committing an error with 616 instead of 666....

This was done because Nero's name in Hebrew (I believe) was 616. But when translated from greek, the extra character of Nero(n) Caesar was 666. A difference of 50. Now I'm no greek scholar, so I may be in error with this. I do not have the explanation in front of me so I'm writing this on memory. I don't want to give Steven another opportunity to debate with me about details which he claims I'm over 800 years indifferent. If want, I will send you information on the 666 mans number explanation which has been believed by centuries of Christians, as opposed to the more resent futurist belief of the Euopean Union.

In any case, we believe that Nero was the first beast (The head with the severe wound in the nect; a picture of Nero stabbing himself in the neck during his suicide) and that Dalmitian was widley believed by the early church to be Nero back from the dead. Only in spiritual form ofcoarse. This was because Nero was the first to begin the Christian persecution. Afer Nero's death, Rome fell into a civil war for nearly one year, as four (some say three) Roman generals tried to take the throne. These were Golba, Otho, and Vatilla (spelling). Each were killed in their attempt. Vespasian finally became Emperor after Nero and succeeded / ended the 7 year Jewish revolt / war. Jerusalem was destroyed as well as the temple. However, most of the blame of the temple catching on fire would be an accident by the Roman soldiers while a few Jewish soldiers were complaining about their entering the temple. Titus, the son of Vespasian, was the Roman leader responsible for defeating the Jewish Revolt. When Vespasian died (believed to have been murdered), his son Titus succeeded him. However, is reign was short only about 2 1/2 years, give or take a few months. He is the one who reigns "For a short time", being number 7. Remember, five are fallen, one is, the other has not yet come. Here is where the debate is. Most believe Dalmitian to be the one in power when John wrote Revelations. If this is the case, then the first Emperor actually starts are Caligula. Remember, the idea is "beast" not just emperor. And caligual was the first Beast, so to speak. Trajan would then be the eigth king who was evil. Although, non-Christians believed Trajan to be a good Emperor.

Here's what's interesting about Iranues. He was looking for a six letter name. Trajan is six letters. But then, so was Nero's, in Latin from I believe, Neron. But, once again, I state this in reserve because I'm not greek scholar.

So, that is where I stand. However way you choose, both fit the catagory. Nero, the first beast, Damitian the second. But Rome, the over all seven headed Beast. The 10 horns are believed to be the Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire where many Christian groups were severely tortured and killed. Actually, those two words aren't enough to describe the torment they went through.

Here is the rest of my belief. Once Rome gave in to Christianity, this allowed the Christian Church to expand. This, I believe, was in indication of Christ saying to the birds in the air, "Come, and eat the flesh of Kings, princes, and generals....." TO EAT means to instill the honly and divine inspiration into the hearts of believers in the higher ranks of mankind. This is why I believe God wanted the Apostles to be witnesses to judges, rulers, and kings. Just as he says, "You will be witnesses to them on account of my name"....this would "plant the seed".

As I continue, this time of peace lasted for nearly a 1000 years, during which Christianity spread further. Although folks like Steve may try to take a Christian death here or there to be some sort of proof that Church peace has never yet existed is not important. I know that peace must have existed because the Church era has spread all over the world. After all, Turkey, Pakistan, and other like countries were once Christian. Now, however, Islam has taken over.

This leads me to believe that this began some time after the end of the first millenium, probably (Guesing) 13th or 14th century. Islam, in my opion (OPINION STEVE) is Satans second age of deception.....as John writes, Afterwards, satan will go out to decieve the Nations in the four corners of the earth. (Remember they once believed the world was flat) In numbers, his followers are as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They surrounded the camp of God holy people, the city he loves. But fire comes down from heaven and devours them.

Pay careful attention. Many believe the city he loves is Jerusalem. Not so! Why? They still reject Christ to this day. And it was God who said, I have reserved for myself a remnant who have not defiled my name. And again, All day long I have held out my hand to a disobedient and obstanant people.... Even to this day, they still reject Christ. And also keep in mind that Paul says, "We are the TRUE JERUSALEM" not those merely of the flesh, but of the spirit. So, the new Jerusalem must be the Church.

Here is where the literalists make a grave mistake. They claim that during the 1000 years, Christ will return and set up his kingdom on earth. Problem? They're looking for a literal physical kingdom. But Christ says, The Kingdom doesn't come in such a way that one says, "There is is" or "Look over there". Rather, the Kingdom of God is within you.

What was this Kingdom he spoke of? The spiritual Kingdom. That is what Christians are. Children filled with the love, rebuke, instruction, and holly thought of Christ. That is why it's called, The Holy Spirit. Spirit means, INSPIRATION. The Kingdom of God is Christ filled spirits in a gathering. Just as it's written, Where two or three gather in my name, there I am in their midst. Thus, the gathering, or camp, spoken of in Revelation must be the Church.

My friend. That is what ISLAM is trying to do. Defeat Christianity. That is, in part, why terrorists hate America so much because we are mostly made up of Christians. I would agree, however, that according to most TV networks, this seems unlikely. In anycase, Islam once removed Christinity from Asia Minor, Turkey, and other like countries. Greece, Rome, Italy, France, and other Latino Nations is still Christian. But even France is slowly converting to Islam.

Remember, this war is between God and Satan, us against them. And this is where I stand. However, I will admit that I could be wrong. Only, if we take the view or position of those who believe Revelations hasn't even started yet, then it must be noted that mankind will be able to torture more severely in the future, than the Romans did nearly 2000 years ago. I guess their torture techniques are no where near what those like steve believe mankind is capable of.

Well, gotta go for now. Talk to you guys later. God bless.

Joe

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 23, 2004.


Steve....NOt the same.....most were not even Christian in accordance with this article regarding USSR 1917. Read your own information.

When, in the last few centuries, have christians been sought out on a national basis to be hunted and killed?” To name a few, USSR 1917 to 1985, Eastern Europe 1939 to 1985, Saudi Arabia 1926 to 2004, China 1949 to 2004, N Korea 1945 to 2004 etc.etc.

OPPRESSORS Communists uphold themselves as "liberators" and champions of "justice," yet between 1917 and 1976: * 60 Million people in the Soviet Union were killed. * 40% of these were executed directly by Communist officials. * A further 66 million were incarcerated in Soviet prisons and concentration camps. * At least half of both these totals were Christians. * Even as late as 1982, there were an estimated 10 million people in 1000 Soviet concentration camps and prisons in the USSR alone. (Christian World Encyclopedia, OUP, 1982). * According to the International Red Cross, at least one million people were in Soviet prisons for "religious" offences alone. * There were over 500 000 political and religious prisoners in 160 concentration camps in Communist Vietnam. (Que Me, 1985). * Over 1 million Afghans were killed by the Red Army in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1985 alone. (Helsinki Watch Committee, 1985). * Over 3 million Cambodians (40% of the population) were killed by the Marxist Khmer Rouge during Pol Pot's reign of terror. (Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, 1983). * 1 800 Churches were closed by the Marxists in Ethiopia during early 1985.

I'll so more research on these events tomorrow.

Joe

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 23, 2004.


OK, I exaggerated a bit in reaction to Joey. Not 100 million. There were 45.5 million Christians (mainly Catholics and Orthodox) martyred in the 20th century, almost twice the total number of Christian martyrs in all the previous 19 centuries put together. In any case a lot more than just “a Christian death here or there”, Joey.

http://www.mliles.com/jimcndf/saints/20century.shtml

“What steven doesn't know is that it was common practice for Hebrews, Latino's, Greeks, and Christians to use a technique called gamatra, that is, the spelling of words by also using numbers.” Steve knows about it all right, it’s just that he doesn’t CARE. You and Elpidio need to focus your minds on spreading Christ’s redemption to the generation you live in, not wasting all your time on arcane theories of which historical characters ceratin Bible verses may have alluded to.

“this war is between God and Satan, us against them.” Thank you Joey, or is it Osama? You sound just like him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 23, 2004.


I let Joey speak for himself,Steve

But when you say something like this I have to respond:

You and Elpidio need to focus your minds on spreading Christ’s redemption to the generation you live in, not wasting all your time on arcane theories of which historical characters ceratin Bible verses may have alluded to.

Most Protestants and some Catholics are fixated with the Book of The apocalypse (Revelation). They still think its message will happen: The rupture,the 666, Rome being the woman n Red,...

By saying what I just said , I am stating that revelation was a book for its generation. It is already passed.

Our God Yahweh and his son Jesus Christ will provide new revelations.

I care abput the present, but, as you can see,

Those who don't learn from the past will be prone to repeat it.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.


Steve,

Osama???? Don't think so. After all, I'm preaching Christ and his Kingdom, the Church, that will never be destroyed. We may be at war, but we will not be destroyed. I don't preach Muhammad, however you spell it.

You don't get it Steve! Christian deaths are not about numbers! The difference between christians mayrters of the first few centures verses now is simple. Those christians died slowly, in the Roman Arena having been used as wild game for gladiators, wild beasts, and what ever else they could think of. Those Christians were used as public entertainment, human candles to light Rome's games in the Arena. Also, the deaths you are referring to have no significance in regards to Roman edicts and Emperors, and seven headed beasts and so on. Those are deaths, however crude they are (For all death is bad) which are for the Kingdom of God. If Christians died during that time, it will also happen through ours. That is, until mankind no longer exists in todays fashion. Plus, remember this one important fact. Revelation speaks of saints killed by the approval and command of a seven headed Beast with 10 horns. Therefore, the deaths you mentioned are under no such condition. I would, however, agree that todays Christian deaths are a result of Satans second age of deception with the use of Islam.

Islam, as I've indicated, is my belief of the final conflict between God and Satan. And their war against Christianity goes back nearly to the beginning of the second millennium; exact dates are unknown. But having visited Turkey, once a Christian Nation but now Islam, Tarsus (also now Islam) which once contained the Bynzatine Christians, and a few other 3rd world Nations, it's come to my mind that Islam could very well be Satans final attempt to war against Gods Kingdom. This Kingdom, which I've indicated, is the Church of Christ.

I've no more to say to you Steve. I don't know how old you are, but judging by your attitude, it's very young. I pray that God will send his blessing upon you. Your knowledge of History is somewhat disputable, but still very useful. I would be interested in your sources, but it's not important right now. What is important is I feel partially responsible for the sinful comment towards me. Thus, I do not ask for forgiveness seeing that it is my fault.

And just as my friend stated, how can we assist man of today, if we don't understand our brethren of the Past? Remember when Moses led the slaves out of Egypt, only to be killed in the desert? Those were examples of dissobedience and punishment of everyone to follow. Just as they were examples for the generation of the Apostles, so are the generations of the early church examples for us, today. Therefore, we learn both by their success our mistakes.

Nothing more to say. However, I will continue writing concerning our beloved John, whom wrote Revelation. Oh, and one last thing. If Islam is the enemy, we know that they will lose. Few or many may die, but the Kingdom of Christ will never die. A-men!

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), September 24, 2004.


OK, Elpidio, I take your point.

Joey, I’m beginning to wonder why I bother but I’ll keep trying. YOU just don’t get it. The 45 million Christians martyred in the 20th century are not “just numbers of deaths”. They were not euthanased painlessly. They were coldly and deliberately slaughtered because of their faith – in most cases it was done as slowly and as painfully as possible.

“Islam, as I've indicated, is my belief of the final conflict between God and Satan. And their war against Christianity goes back nearly to the beginning of the second millennium; exact dates are unknown.”

Wrong, Joey boy, the dates are known exactly by nearly everybody but you, and your wild guess is 400 years too late. The conflict started in 630 AD so it has lasted 14 centuries already – a long time for a “final conflict”.

I don’t know how old you are, but judging by your woeful ignorance of history and of the current mass martyrdom of Christians, and your willingness to be captivated by absurd and unauthorized bibliomancy, you are very young. You are also extremely ignorant of Christian morality if you regard my simply pointing out the historical truth to you as “a sinful comment”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.


Been a few days since my last post.

Your sinful comment was saying that I sounded like Osama. That was a direct attack on me when nothing I've written said anything about me being Islamic, or anthing of that sort.

Yes, the Islamic crusades started in 600 AD, but I'm referring to when their attacks were against Christianity. For instance, when did Turkey, once known to be Christian, become Islamic? Most of the seven churches in that region, now destroyed, are all based in Turkey. I took a tour there and that entire country is now dominated by Islam.

1,400 years to you may be a long time, but not as long as you may think. Considering that Christianity has only been in existance for nearly 2000 years. And from God's point of view, that is very young. For a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Therefore, metophorically speaking, Christianity has only existed for 2 days. But on the third day, Christ and His followers will be raised to the eternal life. That is mystery that captivates many followers.

I'm flattered that you believe that I'm young. Actually, I'm 36 years old. I do not have to be exact on dates. When I study, I try to be as exact as I can. However, any dates I may come accross are merely dates written by more than one author / historian. Thus, there are many things I can only take in for myself. There are many historical sources and dates, but only I, or anyone, can decide on which to retain or reject.

Anways, history is history, but Gods mysteries are more than simple explanations, and I will not debate you on these matters. I will give my opionions, but that is all they are, opinions. If you choose to accept, good on you. If not, then that's your choice.

In any case, you've not tried to convince me of anything, other than dispute historical arguements. If that is the case, then hush up and go find another victim to argue with. Or, if you wish to engage in a debate of Revelation, then state your beliefs instead of speaking against the beliefs of others. You'll fine that there are many that believe as I do. That, however, is not me saying our beliefs to be correct. Yet, there is no way that todays interpreters are even close to being correct. There are the "Seventh Day Adventists" who do have an interesting idea. After all, they do believe that the beast was Rome, but they believe the "Woman who rides the beast" is the catholic church. They may be right. That is an idea that I've not kept out of thought. But you, I don't know who you are or what your convictions are except merely to argue.

So, there you have it. Anything else to say?

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 03, 2004.


Ooops! Didn't mean to say, "Christ and his followers will be raised to eternal life". Rather, I meant to say, "Christ will raise up all of His followers to eternal life".

Sorry for the error.

Joe

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 04, 2004.


“Your sinful comment was saying that I sounded like Osama. That was a direct attack on me”

It wasn’t an attack, Joey boy, it was a simple statement of fact. Your blindly bigoted and chauvinist slogan “this war is between God and Satan, us against them” could have been a direct quote from Osama.

“Yes, the Islamic crusades started in 600 AD, but I'm referring to when their attacks were against Christianity. For instance, when did Turkey, once known to be Christian, become Islamic?”

You are REALLY confused. The Islamic attacks against Christianity started in 630 as I said, not 600. The whole of the Middle East and all of North Africa were overwhelmingly Catholic before 630. Turkey never “became” Islamic. The Turks are a people from Central Asia who were converted to Islam about the ninth century. In the 14th and early 15th centuries one branch of them invaded and occupied the Middle East, Asia Minor, and later, most of North Africa. This region was then known as the Turkish Empire. In 1918 it was defeated in World War 1 and lost all its territory except for Asia Minor. 1923 the Emperor was overthrown and it became Turkey. And the Crusades were a campaign by Catholics AGAINST the Moslems, not vice versa.

“I'm flattered that you believe that I'm young.“ That’s odd, seeing you criticised me for having a young “attitude”. I’m older than you Joey boy.

“I do not have to be exact on dates.” I don’t demand exactititude, but when you try to make a case that historical events you name (and mix confusedly) are precisely predicted in St John’s Apocalypse, you have to be at least roughly right, not 800 years out!

“if you wish to engage in a debate of Revelation, then state your beliefs instead of speaking against the beliefs of others.” I’ve stated above why I’m not going to get into the stupid game of bibliomancy.

“there is no way that todays interpreters are even close to being correct.“ And your authority to make this definitive declaration condemning as false everyone else’s interpretation is...…? “they believe the "Woman who rides the beast" is the catholic church. They may be right. That is an idea that I've not kept out of thought. But you, I don't know who you are or what your convictions are”

It should be obvious even to you from my many contributions on this forum that I’m a Catholic. I hope that doesn’t come as too great a shock to you, seeing this IS a Catholic forum. And as such, gratuitous Catholic-bashing such as this is not welcome. Read the rules.

I'm sorry if my "attitude" to you seems a bit rough, but I am really rubbed up the wrong way by people who come onto the forum thinking they can "teach those ignorant Catholics what Christianity and the Bible are really all about", when it is obvious that they themselves are utterly ignorant of history and of Bible scholarship.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 05, 2004.


Steve!

It wasn’t an attack, Joey boy, it was a simple statement of fact. Your blindly bigoted and chauvinist slogan “this war is between God and Satan, us against them” could have been a direct quote from Osama.

When I say, "God against Satan, us against them" that is the same thing as "God and us against Satan and his followers". This is a war! Who ever told you that it wasn't a war? I know from a Christian stand point, it's not a war about blood, seeing that Christians are not to resist physical or emotional abuse. Rather, we are to 'turn the other cheek'. The war Christians fight are not with spears, sticks, or guns. Rather, it's the spread of the eternal gospels and bringing in followers. If or when Christians encounter situations even unto death, they are to follow through without defect, without sinning; namely, not reject Christ if that be the choice, as was the case with early church Christians.

You are REALLY confused. The Islamic attacks against Christianity started in 630 as I said, not 600.

When I quoted 600 AD, I wasn't quoting an exact date you quoted. I suppose it would be better if I had said, 630 AD. I didn't think a difference of 30 years would offend someone like you, much less be important. That's like caring more about that empty glass rather than the spilled milk. You spend to much time worrying about exact dates, as opposed to the general idea. Indeed, if I were off disturbingly great, then you'd have a point. However, even the date you wrote regarding the start of the Islamic crusades is incorrect in accordance to other sources. Read what this Scholar writes:

After hearing the call of God, the Prophet Muhammad, Praise Be Unto Him (PBUH), first tried to convert the people of his home, Mecca. When the Meccans threatened him and his followers, they journeyed to the neighboring town of Medina in the year 622 AD. This migration, known as the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. Eight years later, the Prophet returned to Mecca to convert its people to Islam. From then on, the new faith spread rapidly throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

It took the Arabs only ten years to fully dismantle Byzantine control over the lands of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. After two unsuccessful attacks against the Byzantine garrison town of Mu’ta (south of Amman, near Karak) in 629 AD, the Muslim Arab tribes regrouped for a much wider military operation. In the year 636 AD, the Muslim armies overran the Transjordanian highlands and won a decisive battle against the Byzantines on the banks of the Yarmouk River, which marks the modern border between Jordan and Syria. This victory opened the way to the conquest of Syria, and the remaining Byzantine troops were forced to retreat into Anatolia only a few years later.

Now then. If I were to read what this website writes (www.al- bab.com/arab/history.htm) and also what you wrote, who is correct? I suppose you being a Catholic automatically entitles YOU to truth, and all others are lies? Now me saying this is not a rude declaration of you being wrong. Rather, it's you have your sources (From where unknown) and I have mine. However, we must both admit they are generally in a close time frame. However, when have I EVER been 800 years off? The only account is 400 years, but that wasn't even what I was referring to. I said that Islam possibly battled against Turkey, (I Know it was once knows Asia Minor, where many of the Bynatine Christians lived) around the start of the second millinium. According to this website, this is what they say: http://www.mrdowling.com/606islam.html

The modern nation of Turkey is named for its Turkish inhabitants, but the Turks were not originally from Turkey. The Turks were nomadic people from Central Asia. Many Turks remain in that area, in fact, there is a nation in Central Asia known as Turkmenistan (“land of the Turks”).

One Turkish tribe, the Seljuks, began moving into the Anatolian peninsula, or what we now call Turkey. These Turks were Muslims, and a Christian emperor, Alexius I, controlled the peninsula. Alexius appealed to the Pope to help him rid Anatolia of “the unbelievers.”

Pope Urban II received Alexius’s call for assistance, but decided to use that call to advance a more ambitious plan. Jerusalem, on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the modern nation of Israel, is considered holy land to Christians, Jews and Muslims, but in 1095, the city was controlled by Muslims. The message from Alexius presented Urban with an opportunity to retake the holy lands from the Muslims. The pope called for a “War of the Cross,” or Crusade, to retake the holy lands from the unbelievers.

Once again, I will clarify myself. Read carefully! I'm not talking about when the Islamic Crusade started. I'm speaking of when it directly came into conflict (I DON'T CARE WHO STARTED IT) with Christianity. Bynzatine, Catholic, Greek, what ever!!! That, IN MY OPINION Steve, is POSSIBLY (POSSIBLY means probable, could happen, may be true, etc.) could have been relative to the start of Islam trying to dominate the world with it's religion. We see Islam trying to accomplish this today. Therefore, it's safe to assume that Islam has been waring agaisnt Christianity (Yes there were some periods when Islam teamed up with Jews to get rid of the Romans...don't go there) for an ESTIMATED (Means a general mathimatical guess, not fact) 1000 years, give or take a few hundred years.

So, if you're wanting exact dates, you can waste your time searching for them. Myself, on the other hand, am using simple ball park figures. If I'm very off, it's because of a source I used. If that source is conflicted with other's, then my only option is to either waste much time researching for closer dates, or giving an estimated guess to nearest whole century: example actual date 647 AD to me would be 600 AD. Just as you wrote "630 AD" I simply said "600 AD". I suppose if I were writing a book report, I would include (If possible) exact dates. But, readers must understand that dates are only written from many generations of historians. This leaves much room for error.

if you wish to engage in a debate of Revelation, then state your beliefs instead of speaking against the beliefs of others.” I’ve stated above why I’m not going to get into the stupid game of bibliomancy.

"Stupid game of Bibliomancy"? What in God's name is that? I guess many of the early Church Apostolic Fathers were stupid for spending much time on the John's letter. What about the rest of us today, Steve? Are we all stupid and wasting our time? Perhaps Steve may call it stupid, but many of us have a passion for the truth. If, after all, Revelation is such a waste of time, why not rather have it removed from every written Bible within our vast inhabited earth? Why not simplify God's mystery and say, "Come one, come all, and hear the story of Jesus. Be saved and ready to live, so that when we die, we go to heaven"? Lets leave out all the mysterious letters of the beloved because Steve thinks it's a waste of time.

Gotta handle my sons home work issue. Talk later.

JOey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 05, 2004.


I'm back....sorry for the delay...continued:

It should be obvious even to you from my many contributions on this forum that I’m a Catholic. I hope that doesn’t come as too great a shock to you, seeing this IS a Catholic forum. And as such, gratuitous Catholic-bashing such as this is not welcome.

I'm not bashing Catholics, as you may try to allude to others. Fact is, I love Catholics. Most, and I stress, most of my ideas about Revelations originated from Catholic teachings in other forums. They may not match in many circumstances, but from the start, I believe they did more then than now. But, my beliefs are not some way to "Teach those ignorant Catholics (your words)" about Christianity. If you read the beginning of this forum, it was a Catholic which asked a question about Nero. I gave her what I thought was right at the time. Even today, I still believe that Nero was the Beast with the gamatric name/number 666. This has always been a Catholic belief. The best thing about this, in my opinion, is many protestants also believe this now, unless you believe in the Jack Vahnempie train of thought.

Steve? I'm very shocked at you. Your posts cause much debate and often leads to fighting, which the Apostle Paul warns to stay away from. Debating could be a good thing, for we can all learn from honest and open debates. So long as it's done without rude or sinful comments. Sinful comments are not Godly inspired, nor are they of the Holy Spirit. Those are mere acts of the flesh, which is indeed what we are. That is where the other part of "Christian War" relates to. We war within ourselves to fight against the evil desires of the flesh. So that those who live in accordance with the Spirit can please God. As Paul writes: Therefore brethren, we are debtors, but not of the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die. But, if by the Spirit, you put off the sinful deeds of the flesh, you will live.

when it is obvious that they themselves are utterly ignorant of history and of Bible scholarship.

How do you honestly know if your sources of History are correct? Remember, not every source can be right or accurate. After all, some sources are in error because they divide the middle ages into three catogories. You claimed that Constatine didn't become a Christian until his Death bed. Yet may writes claim he became a Christian based on the vision of the cross he saw (Whether true or not, I don't know). You claimed the Roman Empire was the strongest ever and that they never weakened during that time. Yet, other historians say economically it did. You claimed Rome was divided to make things easier to rule. Perhaps, but how do you realy know? Were any of us there? From a few articles I've read, Rome was divided because of an external and internal conflict of civil wars, wars with other nations, military unable to handle wars in to many regions. This fact is true when considering the western Empire was taken over because of Rome's inability to sustain it.

What am I saying? That my research is different from yours because your research or study was conducted in different aspects or another persons train of thought. Therefore, interpretation of history would be in different fashion. For instant, a Christian reading about the maryters of another Christian would see that as mass genocide. A non- Christian could see that as simply "taking out the trash". That is perhaps the way the Roman Empire felt. After all, they had their religion and Christianity wasn't part of that.

John Writes: Message to the Church in Pergamum

These are the words of him who has a sharp two-edged sword. I know where you live-where Satan has his THRONE. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was PUT TO DEATH in YOUR CITY-WHERE SATAN LIVES.....John 2;12-13

Pergamum was where Zues, Anthema, and other so called gods were worshipped. Paganism was extremely popular in that area. It's no wonder why Christ told the Church in Pergamum that satan's throne was there.

Question? If the beast was given power from the dragon (satan), and Satan's throne, if taken literally, was located there, how does Revelation apply to future events considering Pergamum no longer exists? Would this means Satan has always been in power from then even until now without end, and his throne has been moved from one place, to the next, to the next, to the next, to the next, and oh, it's still moving? Just a question you don't have to answer, but rather, I wish you would consider it.

Final thought. You are older than me and I must respect you as well as possible. My posts are intended to be as kind as possible. Let it be known to anyone reading this post, including Steve, that in NO WAY have I bashed or picked on a Catholic. Rather, I love the Catholic and try every way possible to defend them against the protestants.

Steve appeared to be Baptists, or some other type of denomination. His merely claiming to be Catholic hasn't been demonstrated in one fashion or another. But then, I have seen some catholics more rude than him. However, those same people have, in some ways, become very close friends to me. Perhaps that is good, but who knows. In any case, I love them and always will. Just as I would try to love Steve, if I ever met him face to face.

God bless you Steve. Take care and I pray for all of us, even to us who may be wrong about a great many things.

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 05, 2004.


Joey boy, I don’t know whether you’re being deliberately obtuse to bait me, or you don’t have the capacity to see your own contradictions and absurdities. I’ll try to explain one more time and try to keep it simple.

“The war Christians fight are not with spears, sticks, or guns.” Sorry Joey boy you can’t suddenly turn pacifist. You clearly spoke of a real blood, bombs and bullets war between “Islam” and “Christian” countries. Btw Greece is not a Latino nation, Rome and Asia Minor are not nations, and Pakistan was never a Christian country.

“When I quoted 600 AD, I wasn't quoting an exact date you quoted. I suppose it would be better if I had said, 630 AD. I didn't think a difference of 30 years would offend someone like you” Interesting. You ignore all the bigger errors I pointed out, and mention only the smallest one of 30 years. (OK maybe I was a bit picky with that one). Then you turn around and become FAR more picky than me by telling me it was actually 629 AD!

But something is either a true historical fact which actually happened at a certain time, or it is not. It is not a matter of different “sources” and “interpretations”. The historical facts I have pointed out to you are accepted by the consensus of all serious historians of all religions and none. Not because of their religion but because of solid scientific evidence.

“when have I EVER been 800 years off?” When you said the Roman Emperor Constantine (circa 300 AD, I’ll avoid exact dates for you) led the Crusades (circa 1100 to 1300).

“Islam possibly battled against Turkey” NO, that is NOT possible. As I explained to you and as you repeated in different words, the Turks converted to Islam in Central Asia centuries before some of them migrated to what became known as Turkey several centuries later. “I Know it was once knows [known as]Asia Minor” Then why did you say “Asia Minor, Turkey, and other like countries”?

“Pope Urban II received Alexius’s call for assistance, but decided to use that call to advance a more ambitious plan. Jerusalem, on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the modern nation of Israel, is considered holy land to Christians, Jews and Muslims, but in 1095, the city was controlled by Muslims. The message from Alexius presented Urban with an opportunity to retake the holy lands from the Muslims. The pope called for a “War of the Cross,” or Crusade, to retake the holy lands from the unbelievers.”

Where do I begin? Muslims (Arabs) had ruled the Holy Land for 450 years, and had allowed Christian pilgrims to visit it in peace (albeit heavily taxing them). But when the Turks took over the Holy Land from the Palestinian Arabs they began slaughtering unarmed Christian pilgrims. The Crusade was not a war for territorial ambition, but purely to protect peaceful unarmed Christian pilgrims from being murdered. Jerusalem is NOT on the coast, but on the opposite (inland) border of Israel. Only about a quarter of Jerusalem is in modern Israel.

“it's safe to assume that Islam has been waring agaisnt Christianity … for an ESTIMATED (Means a general mathimatical guess, not fact) 1000 years, give or take a few hundred years.” No it’s not safe, even for a “ball park figure”. You can either have a wild guess, or make a mathematical statement. There’s no such thing as a “mathematical guess”.

“Islam teamed up with Jews to get rid of the Romans” The Romans were long gone. Rome fell to the barbarians two centuries before Mohammad started his wars. Where do you get this rubbish? (Don’t answer that, I think I know.)

“readers must understand that dates are only written from many generations of historians. This leaves much room for error.” No, historians date events based on solid scientific evidence. Anyone who bases his dating of historical events on hearsay passed down for generations is not an historian.

"Stupid game of Bibliomancy"? What in God's name is that?”

Don’t you own a dictionary, Joey? Bibliomancy is the practise of trying to read and predict future events by personally interpreting passages from the Bible. A form of superstition, condemned by the Bible itself! I have the greatest reverence and respect for St John’s Apocalypse, or Revelation as you call it. I meditate on it quite often and I’m not wasting my time. It's because I love this holy book that I don’t like seeing people misuse it.

“many of us have a passion for the truth.” I hope in the future your passion leads you to sift the solid historical facts from the proselytising fundamentalist propaganda which you apparently get from googling "Revelation".

“I'm not bashing Catholics, as you may try to allude to others. Fact is, I love Catholics. Most, and I stress, most of my ideas about Revelations originated from Catholic teachings”. Really? Such as: “Adventists believe…the "Woman who rides the beast" is the catholic church. They may be right.”??

“I still believe that Nero was the Beast with the gamatric name/number 666. This has always been a Catholic belief.” SOME Catholics believe it. That does NOT make it “a Catholic belief”, and it has never been one.

“Your posts cause much debate and often leads to fighting” I tell the truth and some don’t like what they read. I don’t know of any “fighting” caused by my posts, and I don’t believe they are “sinful”.

“I love the Catholic and try every way possible to defend them against the protestants.” With friends like this, who needs enemas?

“Steve appeared to be Baptists, or some other type of denomination. His merely claiming to be Catholic hasn't been demonstrated in one fashion or another.” LOL! What have I possibly said that gave you that idea? Look in this forum and you’ll find I have recently vigorously defended the Catholic Church (and practices such as infant baptism) against two Baptists. At least I respect them for stating honestly which denomination they belong to, unlike those anonymous wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to “love” Catholics while bashing and misrepresenting their beliefs and their history.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 06, 2004.


Steve!

First-you don’t list sources for your historical opinions which you claim to be fact. If your sources are from Catholic encyclopedias which may not be available to outsiders, that would constitute a problem for us who wish to learn more, or at least have the right to compare and contrast against other sources. However, you do not list those sources. And what’s wrong with “Googling” information? It’s more widely available as opposed to reading historical writings limited to biased churches.

Second-I’ve come from many denominations. I was born and raised Southern Baptist until the age of about 15. I then joined a non-denominational church known as Flemming Christian Church in my home town. They were the ones I loved the most because of their love it’s members AND non-members (other churches), their belief in Baptism, their doctrine against “Once saved always saved”, and their love and dedication to be as close as possible to the early church doctrine. Thus we have the saying, “We’re not church Reformers, but Church Restorers”. However, we do not claim to be totally right, but we try to be as close as possible to many of the first century churches, using the book of Acts as our basis along with other historical documents. If anything, some members claim to be closer to Catholic, probably in their love for Baptism. I then went to Korea and came into contact with other denominations of other Baptist’s, a few Pentecostals (Not in to the tongue talk thing), Church of Christ which are close to us but we believe it’s okay to have musical instruments where as they do not, and most importantly, Catholics. I came back and joined a Pentecostal church where I received much love there. But, as I’ve said, I don’t believe tongue talking is evident in today’s time frame, so that membership was brief. About 6 years ago, I tried to join a Catholic Church. I spoke to a Nun who said I needed to speak with a Priest. And so she gave me his office phone number. When I asked him what I needed to do, he replied, “I don’t have time for this right now! You’ll have to call me some other time and we’ll discuss this”! And I mean he said this quite rudely. I was immediately turned away, never having called him back, considering a true believer and love for God always puts Him (God) first. After all, what is more important than the saving of a soul? Meanwhile, after all these past few years, I’ve spent much of my time in search of a Roman Catholic church which I hope to be true, considering they were the first Christians, as some which I have encountered claim. However, I’ve spoken to some Greek Orthodox members who also make the same claim. Much of their beliefs seems to be close, if not exact, to Roman Catholics. But then again, more than 1500 years or so of time can change things. Even today, there are many different Catholics, just as their are many different Baptist’s, and other denominations in America. As a result of having learned this, I’ve since returned back to the non-denominational Christian Church. Oh, I spoke to a few 7th Day Adventists, but much of what they had to say didn’t interest me. I NEVER claimed to be of that religion. I merely said that one of their websites teaches that the woman who rides the beast is the Roman Papacy, which I Do NOT believe! Hope I clarified that for you.

Third-If you think I came with “sheep’s clothing”, how could you make that judgment considering none of my comments have been rude or sinful? You’ve never even met me! Probably the hardest thing I’ve said was for you to “hush-up” if all you wanted to do was argue about historical differences. Apart from that, I do not know of any other statement. You, on the other hand, referred me to Osama. You tried to say that I believe Christians fight a war on blood! That’s your misunderstanding of my point. I was merely trying to show that Islam has always been at war with non-Muslims. Even today, they threaten the National Security of my beloved America to change over to Islam or die! Even their website once posted this! They hate us because we support Jerusalem. They hate Jerusalem because Jerusalem accepts the US, known as infidels. This is even true as it states in the Quran, “Submit to Allah or all who do not must be exposed at their necks”. I’m no expert on Islam but I read this when I was in Saudi Arabia 8 times within the past 6 years. I was also in Turkey and I traveled to Tarsus where I visited an old 3rd or 4rth century Bynzatine Church in Tarsus, where St. Paul was claimed to have been buried after he was beheaded under the rule and authority of Emperor Nero. (From a Catholic Encyclopedia on a website, it speaks of his beheading because of his Roman citizenship which doesn’t permit Roman citizens to be crucified) You’ve also claimed that our other member in this forum, both he and I, were wasting our time studying Revelation’s, and that we should spend more time trying to save lost souls. Which brings me to my fourth point.

Fourth- How can you say that debating about Revelations is a waste of time when you admit to debating about things like infant Baptism? After all, children are born into a world of sin, not born into sinning. Not that I wish to engage in this kind of debate, and for personal reasons. But my baby daughter at the age of less than 2 weeks old, born 2 months pre-mature, died in my arms about 3 years ago. A nurse, who must have been Catholic, kept pounding my wife and I about having a priest christen her. That offended my wife and I because we didn’t want to come to terms and believe that she was going to die. Thus, I asked for her to be removed and another nurse came. And, if you believe that she is in Hell because of a mistake my wife and I made, that would be the same as God punishing someone for the sins and mistakes of others. Yet, God teaches that the sins of the father doesn’t result in the punishment of the child. Nor does the sins of the child result in the punishment of the father. None-the-less, would you claim that my daughter is in hell?

Fifth-Most of my previous 2 posts were articles from other websites. Some were from other church historians and others from Islamic websites. Who more to understand the history of Islam than Islamic’s? Yet, you seem to believe that your opinions are fact and theirs are in error. You also challenged the article about Turkey, which was not even written by me. Yet you claimed no reliable sources for your opinions and merely expect others to take it as “thus saith Steve” for it to be correct.

Sixth-When I first gave you my estimated time frame of the early 2nd millennium, that was me speaking of the devastation between mankind and government which I believed sprang back to life. I may be wrong but I’m not afraid to admit it. That is why I keep telling you that those are merely my opinions. I’m not here trying to claim to anyone reading my posts that these are the true foundations for a belief. Rather, I’m expressing my ideas which seems to bring you to much fleshly display of personal insult, as if you have to defend your honor or other Catholics. Yet, if you met other friends of mine, who are Catholic, you would even offend them by your remarks! Especially when you tell both me and the other fellow on here that we’re crazy and wasting our time. That’s the same as someone watching others build a house, and say, “Why build? You’re wasting your time! Just quit, sit down, and relax because you’re doing things all wrong!” yet walk away without trying help build the right way or at least prove why they’re wrong with sources to back it up. Otherwise, that makes you nothing more than an argumentative spectator.

Finally-If you’re going to debate about historical events, do the right thing and list your sources. Otherwise, it’s only going to be taken as “So saith Steve”. Also, do not debate about anything at all, if all you’re going to do is look for “non- Catholics” to debate with. I know this is a Catholic Forum, but members like you do not entice people to join. Rather, your normal pattern of rude behavior only chases them away. If anything, it could be misunderstood as satanic by a young immature person wishing to become a member. I certainly have been offended by those few things which I’ve mentioned, but I’m mature enough to try and reason with you. I would counsel you to try a more compassionate approach and stop trying to spend much time being exact, when you yourself have no grounds or sources for proving your self proclaimed exactitude’s. It only ruins the minds of others and may either cause them to argue or, what could be worse, chase them away. If that’s your desire always, to chase them away, which obviously contradicts your desire to “save-souls” as you claimed earlier. I’m certain I will find a true Catholic which lives and loves to teach, explain, or debate in a gentler fashion, without rude comments when things get tough.

Nothing else. Be back later.

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 06, 2004.


“you don’t list sources for your historical opinions which you claim to be fact…you claimed no reliable sources for your opinions and merely expect others to take it as “thus saith Steve” for it to be correct.”

READ what I said Joey boy. Its not a matter of opinion or sources. As I have been telling you from the start three weeks ago, read what ANY reputable historian says. When all reputable historians agree on something, we can take it as a historical fact. It’s you who asserted all kinds of outrageous claims, without quoting your sources, no doubt out of embarrassment.

There is no such thing as "a non-denominational church". This is simply a weasel phrase to mean “no matter what denomination you were before, we’ll convert you to ours while pretending we’re not”.

So let me get this straight: you wanted to join the Catholic Church but because a priest was rude to you and had no time to see you right away (Maybe he was on an urgent call to save someone else’s soul?) you never enquired again. YOU are responsible for saving your soul. Do you plan to tell God after you die “I didn’t join the true Church because a priest (or “Steve”) was rude to me”?

“there are many different Catholics, just as their are many different Baptist’s, and other denominations in America.” No there are not. A few Catholics worship using different rites than the Roman (or Latin or Western) rite. But they all share exactly the same beliefs and sacraments and are all in full communion with each other. The Catholic Church does not have denominations and sub- denominations like the protestants do.

“would you claim that my daughter is in hell?” Certainly not. You are very misinformed about Catholic beliefs.

I’m sorry you don’t find me gentle, but try to disregard my personality and please re-read what I said and take my advice. You’ll find this rude sinner is telling you the truth.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 07, 2004.


Steve,

When all reputable historians agree on something, we can take it as a historical fact. It’s you who asserted all kinds of outrageous claims, without quoting your sources, no doubt out of embarrassment.

I'm sorry I didn't list my sources at the start. Once I realized how exact you needed to be, I began to list their websites. The only problem with "reputable historians" is not all historians agree on certain times and dates. Especially when many times / dates of events are educated guesses. An example would be, when was Revelation's written? Many believe it was written in the early, mid, or late 90's. (I don't remember the exact dates quoted.) The problem is they base this theory on Iraneus who said, "We received this book from John not very long ago near the end of Damitians reign...." What's not factored in is the time it takes to make copies, as well as the time it takes for letters, or even copies of letters (also taking more time), to circulate to the other churches, which could take many years. Remember they could not simply send an emailed copy, much less drop it in a mail box. Plus, there’s no way of knowing who imprisoned John, or even when, or also when it was written while he was in prison, and later released. Thus, historians can only estimate as close as possible. Many also believe it was written sometime after the death of Nero. I tend to take this stance, but I will take no exact position on this considering there are only theories to support this idea, but no firm ground to stand on. Thus, it only remains my "opinion". In any case, this is an example of historical time placement and estimation. When other information is later found, history will have to be changed / corrected. This has happened many times, especially regarding the dark ages. This is why I said I know where some of your dates comes from (Not the exact sources, but the "round-about" sources). Yet, these sources (some) are from a particular historian of the 5th century (name forgotten but will find later) which was later found to have many errors based on later discoveries. Therefore, what history is taught now may result in errors and changes later.

There is no such thing as "a non-denominational church". This is simply a weasel phrase to mean “no matter what denomination you were before, we’ll convert you to ours while pretending we’re not”.

I'm glad you mentioned this, apart from calling this a “weasel- phrase”, no insult taken thank you. Allow me to clarify this for you. When we claim "non- denominational", we're speaking of Church Authority. For example, we do not have a nation-wide dominance of "one-church ruling all” for others to follow". Granted there are measures taken to ensure the doctrine remains the same. However, this position prevents someone from tampering, changing, or perverting doctrine and demanding all other churches to submit to possible error. In other words, it keeps one church from messing with the others. All Christian Churches are treated as equals. I know Roman Catholic Churches has and still do, suffer this problem greatly, as does the Greek Orthodox Church’s. Sure the ceremonies and practices may be the same, but the doctrines are not. For instance, some Catholic, or rather those who claim to be catholic, believe it's okay to have gay bishops or priests, while others do not. Thus, this is what I mean when I say not all denominations are the same. With the Christian Church, the doctrine and practices are the same. If one church strays from original teachings, then they simply branch off into yet another sect. This is what happened during the early days of the Christian Church (Mine, not Catholic). Thus far since it’s beginning by Alexander Campbell (Founder of Christian Churches), the Christian Church (mine) has been divided three times. These are, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and Disciple’s of Christ. Each have at least one major difference, but the doctrines are close to being the same, with the exception of the Church of Christ belief of musical instruments being sinful (Also Church of Christ once practiced polygamy). The Roman Catholic Church, based on much of my own research, has changed a great deal since it’s early beginning. An example would be baptism. What was once practiced as total immersion later became sprinkling. One church historian quotes this change was due to assisting the extremely ill or sick who perhaps would encounter difficulties with total immersion. This changed into out- of-water washing, and finally into sprinkling with a simple drop of water on the forehead. In any case, I will admit that simply calling yourselves “Non-denominational” doesn’t mean anything, in my opinion.

So let me get this straight: you wanted to join the Catholic Church but because a priest was rude to you and had no time to see you right away (Maybe he was on an urgent call to save someone else’s soul?)

I doubt that very seriously. But not because he didn't have time to see me "Right away", but because he was extremely rude, as are many Catholics I speak to. Many Catholics I've done Bible study with claim to be very Catholic. Yet their tone, attitude, and even filthy language, are a direct contradiction to what a Christian is supposed to reflect. I know we're not perfect, but there's no excuse for some of the behavior I see. This certainly doesn't mean other churches don't experience the same problem, but with all of my encounters, it's mostly with Catholics. Especially with those who get upset when you don’t say, “ROMAN catholic”. My mother-in-law fits exactly. She smokes, drinks, curses, and nearly almost cheated on her husband time. When I spoke to her about these things, she said, “I’m a ROMAN catholic (From New York) and that’s what confession (To a church father I guess) is for, and God will forgive me. After all, I’m only human and God knows I’m not perfect”. Naturally, I left it at that because when I tried to explain to her that Christians are not to continue in sin, she always ignores me, but certainly swears for all eternity to the Roman Catholic Church. However, I do not consider her to be the “norm” for most Catholics. Only, it really disturbs me a VERY GREAT deal when most of my encounters of this sort are with Catholics....so rude. To my disappointment, you sounded the same way. But now, I try to read your posts without emotional imagination or exaggeration so as to refrain from a misunderstanding. But things like “Osama”, “Weasel”, “Crazy” and the like are not scoring very many points with me. Not as though I’m using you to join a church, but that I’m not surprised. The most you get from a Baptists member in language (From all whom I know and have met) is “Oh my Lord”, “Fiddle-sticks”, or “Lord have mercy on him / me”. Again, I’m making no accusations against any religion, so please do not take me as though I’m insulting you or the Catholic Church. As I’ve stated, this problem is within just about any church. However, my internal belief is that Catholics are the most correct on a great many things. However, I’m searching for what I would consider to be “Traditional”, meaning possessing original beliefs and practices of the early church, Catholic Church. I’ve even considered joining a Greek Orthodox Church because one told me they originated from the Apostle Paul. But then, I believe (right or wrong) that Catholics claim the Apostle Peter to be the first Bishop. Oh well, not much else good talking about it now.

I’ll close with this quote from the Apostle Peter, which seems to prove that Rome was considered to be Babylon, as John thus prophesies about....he says,

She, who is in Babylon, sends you her greetings.......

Well Steve. Hope your life continues in grace and that God will send his blessing upon His believers. Take care and God bless.

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 08, 2004.


Joey, Babylon still existed then, during Jesus days.

So Babylon could not necessarily be Rome.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 08, 2004.


Six centuries before Christ, Babylon, in what is now Iraq, was probably the world's most magnificent city. However, by the time of Christ it had been reduced to ruins, surrounded by arid flatlands and scattered hamlets of mud huts. It was no longer of any importance politically, culturally or geographically. There a few references to that city in Matthew's gospel. However, in Apostolic times "Babylon" was used as a codeword for "Rome", so that intercepted writings could not be used as evidence of insurrection. The references to "Babylon" in 1 Peter and in Revelation are clearly references to Rome. Peter was never in the area of Iraq, and would have had no reason to be.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 08, 2004.

Babylon is is the code for Rome in Revelation (Apocalypse), Paul M.

But Peter's letter is addressed to those of Asia minor (now Turkey) and Northern Iraq. Since Babylon is now in Iraq and there were Jewish communities there before there is no doubt that the letter came from some place near. Rome was too far away.

There must be a reason for the Babylonian Talmud (composed after JesusChrist)and so on.

Acts tells us

Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

So Mesopotamia (Babylon)is mentioned right before Rome. The other boldfaced places are in what is now Turkey and Northern Iraq.

So there were jews there back then in and around Babylon.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 09, 2004.


Babylon reply,

Well, I'm glad to see that others have been reading the posts between Steve and I. No doubt, it the posts between Steve and I served as a lesson for others, to some degree. Indeed, even I was able to learn a few things. However, there was still no resolve to our debates, considering there apparently only existed a "one-way" communication between Steve and I. Namely, that it was impossible for me to dispute Steve's historical outline without being precise (nothing wrong with that) but that our arguements about dates and time were only indifferent by a 1/2 century or more. This, to some, could be to different, while to others very acceptable.

Babylon, must be recognized as a coded name or term. Actually, more like an adjective. Literal Babylon, under the rule of King Nebokenezzar (spelling) during the prophet Danial was the kingdom in power. Without getting into much detail, Babylon was conquered by the medes and persions (according to many historians), who were conquered by Greece under Alexander the Great, and finally by the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was the kingdom in power during Christ and the Apostlic ages. Therefore, Babylon, most certainly was the intended metaphore for "Rome", and not a literal geographical location. As you've stated, Babylon no longer exists. Thus, it was Rome. When Peter says "She", he's referring to the Church which was in Babylon (metaphor), otherwise known as Rome. And if I'm not mistaken, Rome is where the Apostle Peter performed most of his ministry. It was Paul and Barnabas who ministered to non-jews otherwise known as Gentiles.

It must be noted the Rome, having expanded herself and ruling over many nations, became to foreign and realistically unable to maintain its control in accordance with traditional Roman practices. An example would be our wonderful country, the United States. We have become so foreign (no discrimination intended) that America's traditional beliefs and core values are under attack by the beliefs and core values of people from other countries. This, when compared to history, can create many problems. But, without getting into that kind of discussion, was the problem which I believe Rome had, which I believe represented what Daniel prophesied about when King Nebokenezzar (spelling) had the dream of the statue. Head of gold represented his kingdom, chest and arms represented medes and persians, thighs represented Greece, 2 legs represented Original Rome, and feet with iron toes mixed with clay represented Rome expanded and multi-cultural. And just as clay and iron cannot mix to form a solid compound, neither can multi-cultural nations with conflicting core values and beliefs. Thus, Rome collapsed, in my opinion because of internal conflict. Indeed there were also tax issues, internal corruption, civil wars and greed for power which all contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire. Them having been divided East and West would be an example. Which the western empire was eventually lost.

All in all, during the Apostles living, Rome was in power, just as Babylon was in power in its time, and thus Rome was a metophor as Babylon, the evil city holding us captive. So when Peter says, "She who is in Babylon sends you her greetings", he is saying, "The Church who is in evil Rome who holds us captive, sends you her greeting".

Now just imagine if Peter wrote this down literally. With evil Roman Emperors demanding emperor worship and commanding all those who speak evil of the Emperor to be put to death, what do you think would have happened to Peter? He would have, no doubt, been put to death. This of coarse happened at slightly later date under the rule of Nero, who not only put Peter to death, but the Apostle Paul as well.

Hope this explains everything. Thank you all.

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 11, 2004.


Guys I'm very sorry for my poor grammer and spelling. I will try to correct this as time goes on. I have a very slow internet service which is very cheap. I often lose my connection, thus losing everything originally typed. I then have to log back on and retype everything from memory, which can be pretty quick, thus I may have words spelled incorrectly and the like.

So please forgive me.

Thanks.

Joey

-- Joey (rehby@wmconnect.com), October 11, 2004.


One minor note to add so that anyone reading these post's will not get confused about my claim of Babylon being Rome. Peter ministered to the Church in Jerusalem, not the capital of Rome. However, Jerusalem was under the control of the Roman Empire. Thus, when I say, Rome representing Babylon, I'm saying Rome as the Empire controlling all nations in subjection to her. Jeruselam was certainly under the control of the Roman Empire. Thus, Peter, who performed most of his ministry to Christian Jews in Jerusalem, was speaking of Rome who controlled Jerusalem.

Just thought I'd mention this so that no one is confused into thinking I was saying that Peter taught in the capital of Rome, or something like that.

God bless.

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 17, 2004.


No, Peter, in using the term "Babylon", was referring specifically to the city of Rome, where He served as bishop in the last years of his life, where both he and Paul were martyred under Nero, and where the location of his tomb is known today.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

“Peter's letter is addressed to those of Asia minor (now Turkey) and Northern Iraq. Since Babylon is now in Iraq and there were Jewish communities there before there is no doubt that the letter came from some place near. Rome was too far away.” (Elpdio)

Poppycock. The Roman Empire had the most advanced communication system on earth with magnificent roads radiating from Rome in all directions. Many thousands of letters were sent from Rome to the furthest corners of the Empire.

Joey, St Peter was bishop of Jerusalem for a few years, then of Antioch for a few years, but spent at least the last 20 years of his life as bishop of Rome. And yes all reputable unbiased historians do agree on this.

“The only problem with "reputable historians" is not all historians agree on certain times and dates.” Yeah but re events of the early Christian era they all agree within a few years, they don't make your errors of up to 800 to 1000 years.

“the ceremonies and practices may be the same, but the doctrines are not. For instance, some Catholic, or rather those who claim to be catholic, believe it's okay to have gay bishops or priests, while others do not.” That is not a doctrine Joey boy, it’s a matter of discipline. And actually the ceremonies and practices do vary among different groups of Catholics.

If I understand you correctly, the denomination you belong to calls itself “the Christian Church”. Don’t you think it’s a trifle arrogant, not to mention deliberately confusing, for your novel protestant sect to appropriate to yourselves the name which describes all who follow Christ?

“The Roman Catholic Church, based on much of my own research, has changed a great deal since it’s early beginning. An example would be baptism. What was once practiced as total immersion later became sprinkling.”

Again this is a matter of practices. The doctrine of baptism, like all the Church’s doctrines, has never changed. “sprinkling with a simple drop of water on the forehead” is never done except in cases of dire necessity (eg premature babies in danger of death who can't be immersed). The normal Catholic baptism is by full immersion or by pouring copious water on the head.

“a priest was rude to you and had no time to see you right away (Maybe he was on an urgent call to save someone else’s soul?) I doubt that very seriously.”

Obviously you’ve got no idea how many demands there are on a priest’s time. If a priest was due to hear confession/s, say Mass or administer any other sacrament, he would be derelict in his duty if he did NOT say “come back later” to someone enquiring about joining the Church.

I did not use “filthy language”. I did not call you a Weasel or Crazy. I said “non-denominational church” is “a weasel phrase” which you agreed it is. I never even used the word "crazy" except to quote YOUR description of "crazy" to people who believe the Bible predicts chip-implantation etc.

“I’m making no accusations against any religion, so please do not take me as though I’m insulting you or the Catholic Church.” Yeah right, just accusing all the Catholics you know of being totally unchristian in their behavior in contrast to all the protestants you know who are universally saintly. Get real, Joey boy, we're all sinners.

“Especially with those who get upset when you don’t say, “ROMAN catholic”.

You’ve got it totally back to front. While “Roman Catholic Church” is an acceptable shorthand term for “that part (98%) of the Catholic Church which uses the Roman rite”, we prefer to be described as “Catholics”. “Roman Catholic” is rather offensive because it has been used in English-speaking countries to imply that Anglicans/Episcopalians are the true Catholic Church, and/or that "Roman" Catholics are not loyal citizens of their country.

From your description of her, I doubt whether your mother-in-law has darkened the door of a Catholic church since she was a girl, if ever. But she’s right that God will forgive any sin we confess, provided we have a firm purpose of amendment, that is, a determination NOT to “continue in sin”. That doesn’t mean we will never sin again, just that we intend to stop sinning. “Catholics claim the Apostle Peter to be the first Bishop.” No, only that he was one of the original 12 Catholic bishops (including Judas Iscariot) and he was the leader of them.



-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 18, 2004.


The only problem with "reputable historians" is not all historians agree on certain times and dates.” Yeah but re events of the early Christian era they all agree within a few years, they don't make your errors of up to 800 to 1000 years.

What are you talking about??? You keep saying that I’m 800 to a 1000 years off, yet none of that is true. You got confused on one of my earlier posts when I spoke of the Islamic crusades when I said problems began around the start of the second millennium. Yet, I wasn’t talking about the rise of Islam in 629 AD, rather I was talking about when problems began in what was ONCE Turkey. That was also another quote you got confused about. You speckled and cried over a simple detail as “Turkey” and “Asia minor”. What does it matter Steve? Names change but the territory was the same. Just like Babylon and Iraq....Isn’t that the same territory. It appears that you are the kind of a guy that says to someone who says “A wall was colored with a blue crayon in 1999”, but you’d say, “I think you’re confused buddy! It was colored in violet in 1992!” WHO CARES! I’m not going to feed your desire for exact dates. It’s foolish enough to spend so much energy debating with others about things YOU can’t even prove because you weren’t there.

“the ceremonies and practices may be the same, but the doctrines are not. For instance, some Catholic, or rather those who claim to be catholic, believe it's okay to have gay bishops or priests, while others do not.” That is not a doctrine Joey boy, it’s a matter of discipline. And actually the ceremonies and practices do vary among different groups of Catholics.

It appears that this statement has confused you as well. Allow me to explain. Indifferent ceremonial practices I spoke about, namely baptism, are one of many examples. Whether you like it or not, that’s the truth and will always be the truth. Whether you consider it to be a doctrine, or something else, it’s still a ceremony. “Practices” was not to be confused with prayer, fasting, or the like. I was referring to life style; holiness verses sinfulness. After all, we as Christians, are practicing to be more “Christ- like”. And a life style which engages the sinful pattern or practice of homosexuality, is anti- Christ like, and does not portray holiness.

If I understand you correctly, the denomination you belong to calls itself “the Christian Church”. Don’t you think it’s a trifle arrogant, not to mention deliberately confusing, for your novel Protestant sect to appropriate to yourselves the name which describes all who follow Christ?

“Novel Protestant”???? Is that another insult which Satan has inspired you to say? You know what Steve? My grandmother, who was a Baptists member, devoted over 45 or more years of her life to feeding the hungry, helping the poor, giving to the needy, and served as a member for the salvation army. She took in many orphans, over 200, and found each and everyone of them homes to live in, clothes to wear, food to eat, and families to be raised in. And from my perspective, she took in my father, who died serving my country in 1968. In any point, she was a Baptist, otherwise known as a “Protestant” which you seem to hate so much. She was never a historian nor has she ever been to college. Yet, I will say this in true faith. You’ve spent much of your time and life learning history and attempting to spend so much time arguing about things which are not even important. Yet, you forget the most important thing in life, and that’s to live for God. Since when does God care if Turkey was once Asia minor, or Iraq was once Babylon. I’ve also noticed that in all of your posts, you never quote any scripture, much less have anything Holy to say. I’ll tell you another thing. I no longer attend the church you believe is my denomination because I’m still searching for a true catholic church, or even a Greek orthodox church. However, if I encounter rude members such as yourselves, especially those who can’t even admit of their name calling, I know to avoid that church like the plague. And YES, you did call me, as well Elpidio Gonzalez, on here “Crazy” for our discussion on Rome and Revelation. Your quotes were exactly this.

“Elpidio, you've got way too much time on your hands. Why don't you do something useful with it?”, “Yeah thanks for the extract from the grade-school history book”, “Thank you Joey, or is it Osama?”, “extremely ignorant of Christian morality”, “Your blindly bigoted and chauvinist slogan”, “Joey boy With friends like this, who needs enemas?”, “This is simply a weasel phrase”, and “Poppycock”.

All these words were written by you on this post, and I can certainly say this with faith in God and His holy inspiration. You could not be a Christian based on the commentary and uninspiring words you put on here. I would that you find somewhere else to debate with and torment. And I pray God to give you a spirit of enlightenment and assist you in your heart, learn more compassion and love. It’s apparent you are in this site to fight off anyone who is not a Catholic. Let me ask you this? What have you done for God’s Church? How have you committed to serving those in need? How can you, who claim to be Catholic, bring someone in who is non-Catholic, with such unholy words you speak? Historical knowledge, that is. And you dare try to justify yourself and say in simplicity that “We’re all sinners” as if that somehow excludes you from God’s wrath? Yes, we all sin, but we are not all sinners. There is a difference. But instead of explaining that one to, I’ll leave it for God to decide in your enlightenment. You may be Catholic, but I question your Christianity.

From now on when you leave a post, I will only provide you with His words using scripture. Based on what I’ve read on here, you are afraid of scripture; especially scripture that teaches spiritual fruits and wisdom.

God forgive me in all my wrong doings.....but most importantly, forgive Steve, for he doesn’t know where the indwelling is.

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 23, 2004.


Yeah you “confused” me all right, Joey boy, I thought you might be honestly seeking the truth and I tried to help you by correcting some of your more bizarre and outlandish misconceptions about the Church and its history. But it’s obvious now that you have come here only to pick a fight, to argue and make up lies about me and other Catholics. I stand by every word I have written in this post in a spirit of truth and charity. Go back and read them properly when you have overcome your juvenile attitude. I'm not going to bother correcting you any more now because you just keep repeating the same calumnies.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 24, 2004.

Steve, how long did it take the Apostle Paul to reach Rome? Remember also what season of the year it was?

The Christian Yahwist

PS: in the preaching of Peter,which is use d to date Peter at Rome according to some People, Paul M, who orders Peter's death?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.


Steve,

The only corrections I accepted were your historical data. Indeed there were many differences. And in some ways, they assisted me to look into other areas. For example, when you explained your knowledge of Turkey, once Asia minor, that enabled me to research that era even further.

Here's my problem. Our communication was only helpful in historical data. You gave no ideas on Revelations. When asked, you only attempt to explain that we are all wasting our time. So, instead of trying to explain and debate your point of view, you only chose to insult someone else's research. You shot to pieces (That's a complement to you for a change) some of the historical facts I presented. However, I still do not agree with your comment about me being "400 to 1000" years off. Yes, I was a few hundred years off on some ideas, but then that depends on what specific event we're talking about. As I stated earlier, I spoke of Turkey having problems sometime after the year 1000 to 1l00 years (estimated). You fired back and said that Islam began its rise in 630 AD. I mentioned that again, explaining that I wasn't talking about Islam's rise in 600 AD. And you used my "rounding off" of 630 into 600 as an advantage for an attack of my unintentional quote. One lesson I did learn is when it comes to debating with someone who needs precision, then I must do so. However, with all the print outs, data saved on my computer, and on-line reports I've read on historical events, it makes it very difficult and extremely time consuming to re-read everything and quote exact dates. Thus, I prefer to "round-off" to the nearest zero. The Spanish inquisition was another example.

Look. I'll see if I can't put these flames out. Please listen very carefully. I'm not interested in debating about historical facts. Neither you and I could achieve anything, except cause one of us to stumble. So, I ask you to forgive me and allow this discussion to be kept on a more godly level. I'm very interested in your ideas about Revelations, if you are willing to share it. I will not, under any circumstance, call you crazy or make you feel as such. Trust me. I've heard enough silly ideas about it that my stomach turns in anger when I watch television programs on the trinity network. Perhaps that's my fault for watching to much TV. LOL! (Laughs Out Loud).

In any case, I will say that it's impossible for me to debate you about historical events because your knowledge obviously outweighs mine by a large factor. But it would be nice of you to acknowledge that there are other historians out there, whether in the Church or not, that contain slight differences from the things you've mentioned. Then again, there are some major differences. Constantine was one example of a major difference. You mentioned something about Constantine converting on his death bed. But I've not been able to find any written documents on this story. Therefore to me, I'm only able to accept it as a story. In any case, I will not debate someone as strong as you about history. I will, however, debate about your ideas on Revelation, only in a kind and gentle manner.

My ideas are not of my own. These were ideas that have changed over the years. As many Protestants believe, I once thought the mark of the beast could be an implanted chip, social security number, and the like. It wasn't until a minister in my former church that told me to read everything again. When I consulted with him on certain bibilical matters, that it’s possible Revelation's had to do with the fall of Jerusalem, he said to me, "Now, you may be getting somewhere!". It was then that I started my intensive research to discover the truth. Not as though I've attained it. However, as another minister told me, "You preterists do have an advantage over the rest of us..." I assumed he was talking about our ability to fit much of the early church history with Revelation.

You must also consider this my friend. If the early church fathers believed that Rome was the beast, why would it be so difficult for us to accept it today? We must strive to understands its meaning. And putting on our "First century glasses" would help make this much more easier. I, for one, believe that many first and second, perhaps even third, century Christians understood much of it's meaning. But some of it wasn't yet accomplished, so they were left to searching for the one was to come and exalt himself above all that is called God.

I don't know. Maybe we'll never understand it. But I'm pretty positive that micro-chip implantation is not the answer. And I know this idea doesn't exist (To my knowledge) in the Catholic Church. Rather, these are Protestant ideas.

One last thing my friend. I love the Catholic Church. I wish there were some way for you to believe me on that. I do not wish to war with any catholic. On the contrary, I'm searching for a true Catholic church. In our country, there are far to many false Catholic Churches, just as there are many false Protestant churches. I believe that we know them by their fruits. If there is love within, mixed with sincere discipline, then I know that to be a true church. Now when I say love, I’m not talking about a group of self proclaimed Christians sitting around a camp fire and roasting marshmallows and singing songs. I’m talking about those who help the afflicted, the poor, and the needy. I’m talking about those who love sound doctrine and are not afraid to teach. I’m talking about a great many things. I’m also talking about a Church that is not afraid to tell me that I’ve sinned, and I need to repent. Not a church that treats me as though I’m standing on a train track, with the train coming, but everything’s going to be okay. No, I try every way possible to subject myself to it. I just wonder if Catholics are as strong at this as they used to be. Or have may Catholic Churches do what many I’ve seen done. That is, they are afraid of chasing it’s current members off so as not to lose money......Okay, I’ve gone to far now, so enough of that.

My problems may have been with you. But not with the Catholic Church. So, once again, I ask you to forgive me and I’m willing to discuss our different beliefs on Revelations. Once I’ve heard what you say, I will decide for myself if I believe or not. Why not start with these simple questions. Okay? If you answer them, that will give me a slight idea on what you believe, and we’ll go from there. You do not have to answer them, but I would greatly appreciate your ideas.

1. Does Revelation have a great connection between Jerusalem and Rome?

2. Does Revelation only deal with futuristic events not yet occurred?

3. Do you believe the tribulation has come, or is it still to come?

4. Is the 1000 year reign the church era, as some Catholics have told me? Or is it still in the future, as most Protestants believe?

As I’ve indicated, you do not have to answer, but I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you Steve. I hope this puts out our fires. With a sincere and honest heart,

Joey

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 25, 2004.


"Steve, how long did it take the Apostle Paul to reach Rome?"

I don't know, Elpy, but I know that after he got there he wrote a lot of letters to people in Asia Minor and the letters were duly delivered.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.


OK Joey I’ll answer your questions.

1. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at, but there are a lot of references to the pagan Roman empire in Revelation (or St John’s Apocalypse as I prefer to call it.) The references to “Jerusalem” mean the Catholic Church.

2. No.

3 & 4. I wouldn’t give definitive answer. Many verses in the Bible are capable of two or more valid interpretations. I would not presume to make my own personal interpretations of the Bible as protestants do. I rely of the Church Christ founded, which produced the Bible, to tell me what the Bible it produced means. If you intend to become a Catholic you will have to do the same. It's at best a waste of time and effort to spend a lot of it on trying to work out which if any historical events in the future are predicted in the Bible. We know Christ will return to judge us. We know how we have to behave so that we will be saved. That is all of the future which strictly speaking we need to know.

I repeat there is only one Catholic Church. I presume by your search for the right “Catholic Church” you mean the right Catholic parish. EVERY parish is made up of broken sinners Joey. They all fail to live up to Christ’s commands in many ways. There is no Catholic parish and no individual Catholic who displays perfect charity and perfect faith. That should not deter you from joining the Catholic Church if you truly believe that it is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which Christ built upon the Rock of Peter. The Catholic Church is not a club for the perfect but a hospital for sinners like you and me.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 25, 2004.


Steve,

The kind of Catholic Church I'm searching for is one that's greatly involved in a community. Not just a church that contains members who only show up on mass, partake of communion, and then leave with no spiritual improvement or Christian growth. Ahhh....I won't get into all that. It's important to me, but there are other reasons of my own.

Yes, I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. One reason why I believe this is because of Christ telling Peter that he was the rock to which the church would be built on. Those weren't His literal words, but that is how I believe it to be intended. My other reason is that many Catholics I've spoken with believe that Nero was the beast, and that Dalmatian was the second beast. I know this isn't an "all-out" Catholic belief. But I believe the Catholic Church was the first to believe this, and it appears to have survived many centuries without change. At least, to the best of my knowledge it hasn't changed. But then, I wouldn't know because I don't know what's been taught all these centuries.

Yes, if I joined a Catholic Church, I would adapt to her teachings and beliefs. At least, so long as it doesn't include a life of sin and error, as many Churches do. (Error, as in homosexual misconduct or any other evil of that sort).

Well Steve, thank you for answering my questions. It gives me a slight hint at what you believe, though not entirely. But for the most part, I am satisfied. Maybe the only thing you and I disagree on is the 1000 year reign, and the post 1000 year reign.

God bless....and take care.

Joe

-- Joey (Rehby@wmconnect.com), October 26, 2004.


My wife once wrote the number 666 on her hand to prove that at this day and time it has no signifigance. But the book of Revelations tells us that those who take the number will drink of God's wrath, so her act greatly disturbed me. Why would it matter if such signifigance is attached to the number. Where would we draw the line as to what the number is? Could a backwards 666 mean the same as a regular one, or is that something different altogether? Is it only relevant at a certain period in time? If so what is that period?

-- Michael (mdp76@hotmail.com), November 24, 2004.

This is the absurdity that people are reduced to, who try to interpret the Bible for themselves. Michael, I presume, if you were given ticket number 666 in a raffle, or vest number 666 in a sporting competition, or licence plate number 666 for your car, etc. etc, you would refuse to take it for fear “that those who take the number will drink of God's wrath”?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 24, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ