Endtime Prophecy and the European Union

quote:

---

Let's see if I can keep this simple enough for you. 1. Men who assumed rule over the roman empire to a degree- and whewn it was significant as an empire- that are recognized as such by reputable historians. Read the "Twelve Caesars".

---

Technically, not Julius Caesar, then (Rome was not an Empire in his lifetime). Galba, Othos and Vitellius ARE included in The Twelve Caesars and therefore definitely should count. So that's 3 more for your count. (And do we have to wait for the history of those times to be written before we can call your "seventh" a "Caesar" at all ? Waiting for the historians would not seem wise!)

quote:

---

Okay, six (6) caesars because that was the count (5 previous who were 'fallen') and the one who was currently in power when John wrote the book of Revelation

---

Except that 8 had already "fallen". And we still don't have a reason why your "seventh" would be included but no other Emperors after Domitian.

quote:

---

Comprende: the count revolves around the time of the account that mentions it, NOT before or after. THAT is the specific demarcation of the timing.

---

And that would exclude your hypothetical "seventh", just as it excludes Commodus.So, by your criteria, if we include Julius, the seventh Caesar to "fall" is Otho, already dead at the time of writing. I guess that your interpretation is wrong.

quote:

---

The 7th refers to the (coming) anti-christ- who has not yet appeared, & will also be an 8th caesar.

---

By the criteria you listed the seventh was dead before Domitian became Emperor.

quote:

---

Don't miss the forest with your infatuation with individual caesars.

---

I don't have an infatuation with individual Caesars. I'm just interested in the truth. And the truth is that you are wrong.

quote:

---

1. At the time writing of the book of Revelation the 6th caesar- Domitian- was in power (is = presently).

---

By your criteria Domitian was the 9th.

quote:

---

2. 5 of the previous caesars had fallen.

---

Even you should be able to realise that having "fallen" is one of your criteria for being a"Caesar", so this would be redundant.

quote:

---

3. the 7th is yet to come, and when he comes he will be an 8th.

---

Unless we have some valid criteria for identifying "Caesars" this isn't really a prediction, is it ?Look, I know that your ego is wrapped up in this but the truth is that you are wrong.

quote:

---

Where are your cognitive abilities? How do you think that I in any was listed 'falle' as a qualification for being a caesar? There were, of course, more than 5 previous (to John's writing) that can be considered as caesars. But John was only concerned with the five who had died unnatural deaths.

---

You manage to answer yourself. Your count of "Caesars" only includes the "fallen". Except that you managed to miss three.

You're not answering anything I wrote. But for the record the Star is just a legend and doesn't refer to anything that actually happened. Using it to date Jesus' birth cannot work for this reason.In fact we can't reliably date Jesus' birth at all since the only two writers who give anything datable point to different dates (the author of the Gospel of Matthew points to a birth no later than 4BC, the author of Luke pointing to 6AD).

quote:

---

Sorry for my misspelling. 1. The caesars are referred to by John in Revelation in 3 basic groups. 2. John was NOT listing all of the caesars. 3. Group 'a' was a group of caesars who had been in power before the time of John's writing. Of that group (I don't know how many and it doesn't matter), John was only interested in the 5 who had specifically died unnatural deaths.

---

I don't know why I have to keep telling you this, but at the time you assign to the writing EIGHT Caesars had died unnatural deaths.Are you ever going to deal with this fact ?

quote:

---

s. 4. Group 'b' was the caesar who was in power at the time of John's writing- Domitian. 5. Group 'c' was a reference to a future caesar who would be a 7th, and then also be an 8th- yet even as an 8th, he would be of the previous 7 caesars. Period. I can't make any clearer

---

Well you could make it clearer by explaining how you created these groups instead of just insisting that we blindly accept your interpretation.

quote:

---

If you want to keep throwing in irrelevant nonsense about who was a caesar and who wasn't, then waste your hot air uon your mirror, please.

---

So much for coming here to "test your ideas". f the truth is "irrelevant" to you, why bother ?

quote:

---

Last time :
'a' is past with respect to the time of the writing of John's Revelation.
'b' is at the time of the writing.
'c' refers to something future to the time of the writing.
If this isn't clear, I can't help you.

---

Oh it's quite clear. You don't have a clue what you're talking about which is why you go on about vague irrelevancies.

quote:

---

Regarding how many prior were 'fallen', John lists 5. He was 2,000 years closer to the facts, those facts were of greater relevance to him than to us, and I trust John's account more than your opinion.

---

By which you REALLY mean that you put your ignorant opinions ahead of the truth.How long does it take you to just find a list of The Twelve Caesars and find out how many died unnatural deaths ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I'm getting the numbers from PaulGL who states: Suetonius includes Vitellius as one of the Twelve Caesars so by PaulGL's criteria he should be counted, too.

So, is it that your knowledge of the Biblical image ends with "a woman riding on a beast" or do you just choose to ignore the parts that don't fit ?Anyone familiar with the actual images would recognise the statue as being Europa and nothing to do with Revelation.

quote:

---

Look, I never said and none of the people I quoted said that the statue was a replica of the creature in Revelation, it's a simple equation of a woman on a beast with that idea.

---

So when you said that they "recognise" is as the woman riding a beast from Revelation, you mean that they know perfectly well that it is quite different in every other respect, but choose to make the identification regardless. I'd class that under choosing to ignore much of the Biblical description.

quote:

---

You can insist all you want that it SHOULD be something else but that's again just you insisting it should be something else when it's merely what I said it is.

---

I don't insist on the statues being anything. I do suggest that people who are actually familiar with the Bible can't honestly recognise either statue as an image from Revelation because they obviously aren't.

quote:

---

I can concede that my wording could have been better but that doesn't give you license to insist I meant something I didn't mean. Obviously the statue immediately reminds a bunch of us of the image in Revelation and you are just getting all nitpicky about my use of the word "recognize." Is "reminds" better or do you want to pick that to death as well?

---

I can only go on what you say. I can't read your mind and decide that you meant something else. Now I can guess that people might be vaguely reminded of Revelation and yet dismiss it because of the obvious differences - and the far better match with Europa. But that isn't what you mean at all.

quote:

---

The Tower of Babel seems to have represented pagan religion and what the scripture calls "will worship," that is self-invented worship, as well as the desire to climb up to God's seat rather than taking a humble role. It is certainly not the same as Christian worship.

---

Or in the context of the only image you have produced that actually references it, it refers to people speaking different languages.Now if you want to argue that God doesn't want people who speak different languages to work together, I guess you'd have a case, but I very much doubt that any of the traditions you favour interpret the Bible that way.

quote:

---

God wanted the people to disperse, He did not want them to "work together" at the specific project of "making a name for themselves" with attempts to reach the heights of God, and that's why He confounded their tongues. It did succeed in getting them to disperse.

​

I should also mention finally that we consider that God began to repair the curse of the confounding of tongues at Pentecost.

---

Then I guess you haven't got a case. If the obvious message is acceptable to you then imagining that there is some other meaning would require at least some supporting evidence.

I would say that while your opinion might be subjective there is a good deal that is objective here. It is objective fact that the statue does not resemble the image of Revelation to any significant extent - and you made a similar argument about the other statue, so it's clear that you concede that this fact is relevant.Whether the statues are intended to represent the image of Revelation is another question of fact, and the evidence is clear that they are not.Whether the author of Revelation had anything like these statues in mind is also a question of fact and even if it can't be answered definitively it's pretty clear that you don't have much of a case.So what's really going on here ? Is it simply desperation to find SOME sign that the End Times of your mythology (and I don't mean the Bible!) are upon us ? Or is it something else ?

How can you "recognise" it and why does the absence of a beast in the other statue matter, if the appearance of the statue is completely irrelevant ?