| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Loic |
Taking Christ out of ChristmasI know this is old stuff, but the big wigs of (English) Christendom have been making some tut-tut noises lately about government efforts to further secularise what was essentially a Christian festival honouring the birth of Jesus Christ. The Archbishop of York has criticised the Royal Mail for not featuring the Nativity in its latest batch of stamps this year. Since the Archbishop of York is a black, this makes him immune to charges of being a reactionary white supremacist.What do you make of it? How secular are Christmas traditions in your country? Do people greet each other with a Merry Christmas or will they take umbrage at any religious connotations in that expression of goodwill? Personally, do you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or even Season's Greetings? Also, I am interested in how the various denominations view Christmas. I read that the early Puritians in America even went as far as banning Christmas as they considered it a pagan activity. Well, there might be an iota of truth in that but the rituals and stories surrounding Christmas are essentially Christian and not pagan. Personally, I prefer Christmas Eves to Christmas days. There is something so magical in the night air on the eve of the infant Jesus's birthday. Silent Night, Holy Night, All is Calm.... |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Taking Christ out of Christmas
I like Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. I've actually met him one or twice as he used to be the Bishop of Birmingham. He's always so bright and colourful: 
However, considering that a fairly considerable percentage of practising British Christians are black anyway, I'm not sure how calls for stamps depicting the Nativity could be considered white supremacy.
People here tend to say 'Merry Christmas', which is what I say as well. Many people who aren't necessarily religious here often still like to go to carol services on Christmas Eve, which often take place outside with lanterns. On the whole, it seems as though most people here celebrate Christmas, including those of religious backgrounds outside of Christianity. I'm going to apply the same view of Christmas to what Elaine said about the festival of Thanksgiving in the United States — you can make it as religious as you want it to be.
Unitarians celebrate Christmas as the birth of a great man who has influenced the world immensely... and because it is a traditional (winter, in my case) festival where we live. We're usually happy to sing traditional Christmas carols because we like them, even if the words of some of them contradict our views of Jesus. |
||||||||
| Deborah |
Re: Taking Christ out of ChristmasThere was never even a whiff of religious feeling about Christmas in my family, which isn't surprising since everyone was either agnostic or atheist. It has always been about getting together with the family, having a tree, exchanging presents and singing...Christmas carols, of course! I don't consider that to be a sign of religious feeling, but rather adhering to custom. My favorite Christmas carol happens to be "Deck the Halls", which isn't religious at all.Once my grandparents were gone, I kinda lost interest in Christmas, and now that my mother is gone, there's really not much reason to keep any traditions going, since my brother and I don't care about it and neither of us ever reproduced. |
||||||||
| KSa |
Well, although changes concerning secularization are becoming more and more visible in my country, fortunately people still greet each other with "Merry Christmas" and nobody has come up with an idiotic idea to ban Christmas trees (or other Christmas symbols) in public places. | ||||||||
| Joanne |
There are a lot of workplaces around here that are actively trying to de-Christ Christmas. Calling Christmas trees "non-denominational holiday trees" and Christmas parties "non-denominational holiday tree trimming parties", is becoming more common. And just in case you think only Christmas is getting this treatment, Hannukah menorahs get dumbed down to "non-denominational holiday candelabras." It's ridiculous PC run amok, really.
One day we're going to have to greet each other with a "Happy Hannuchristmakwanzakah." Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? 
|
||||||||
| KSa |
Joanne: this is what I predicted long time ago. This policy is leading to ridiculous nonsense. Something that was designed to make people happier and feel more peaceful in multicultural societies has distorted reality and led to confusion.
What I would like to see in a multicultural society is people of different religions celebrating their religious holidays overtly. With the traditional names and without all this coinage of language monsters which is simply dismal. |
||||||||
| Joanne |
I know it's very easy to think that a trend becoming prevalent in one part of the US must be becoming prevalent in all parts of the US, but that really isn't the case. As long as there are people sane enough to recognize the idiocy of "non-denominationalizing," I think the majority of Americans will be calling the holidays "Christmas" and "Hannukah" for a very long time, despite howls of indignation from PC moonbats. (And I think most of those moonbats work in Human Resources, which is why we get these stupid non-denominational company tree trimming festival email invites , or warnings that putting up holiday trees and candelabras that are higher than your cubicle wall will get you a day in sensitivity training )
|
||||||||
| Loic |
A rearguard action by the PC army to deny the rights of Christians to celebrate their birthright.
How do these gits plan to make the Muslim religious festival of Eid PC then? |
||||||||
| Elaine |
I've adopted the policy of simply giving a generic holiday cheer like "Happy Holidays" or "Have a great holiday season" ever since those penny-pinching college years when I worked in food service and retail. Middle-aged ladies would sneer at me "I'm Jewish!" whenever I would good-naturedly say "Merry Christmas". I even send out non-denominational holiday greeting cards so that I don't spend extra money buying a set of religious Christmas cards, another set for Hanukkah, Yuletide cards for my pagan and wiccan friends, Kwanzaa for my African-American friends, etc. How do I feel about it? Well, I'm not religious so I don't mind taking out the religious connotations that have the potential of alienating others in our heterogenous society. I'm all for total integration where everybody can be a part of the festivities.
Have you ever been to a Chrismukkah celebration? |
||||||||
| Shouga |
Hehehe... |
||||||||
| David |
I think it ruins the whole point of Christmas, which is the celebration of Christ's birth. | ||||||||
| Loic |
Amen to that, David. | ||||||||
| ddog800 |
Hmm, interesting thread. I tend to come from the school of thought that Christ really has nothing to do with Christmas in the first place. Christmas is based on old winter-solstice worship festivals dating back to ancient Babylonia which focused on the birth (or rather, the annual re-birth) of the Sun-god (as opposed to the Son OF God), and was wrapped up in other winter-solstice festivals like the Saturnalia, Bacchanalia, etc. This is actually where Jesus so-called "birthday" comes from, and you'll find its nowhere mentioned in the bible in a sense involving any sort of Christian worship. This is also where the old saying comes from about Christ "driving his chariot across the sky" or whatever. That was actually the sun, riding across the sky every day. People were celebrating Dec 25 looong before Christ came along, and you'll find that on the older calenders Dec 25 was considered the actual date of the winter-solstice, before the calenders were improved and we moved it to the more accurate Dec 21-22. Christ was injected into the winter-solstice festivals by Rome centuries after He died (beginning with events like the Council of Nicaea in 325ish A.D.), and nothing relating to Christmas or even the celebration of the birth of Christ was practiced by the church or any of the Apostles after He died. This happened when Constantine began "replacing" (read: melding) the de-facto state religion of the day, sun-worship, with what had previously been a renegade rag-tag religion, Christianity. This is when many of the familiar elements we see today in what is now called Christianity began to appear. Interestingly, this was actually somewhat confusing to the citizens of Rome at the time. I've read that for quite some time, at the temples, which had previously been sun-worship temples, the priests would have to stop the patrons from turning around and bowing homage to the sun before they entered the temple, as had previously been the custom.
Most people tend to forget for some reason that Jesus was a Hebrew, and when He referred to "the scriptures" He could only have been referring to what we now call the old testament. Anything that can be deemed "Christian" can only be what HE spoke about and the elements that He added and amplified concerning the original old texts, which the apostles repeated until they died, nothing more, nothing less. I can find no evidence of any winter-solstice related celebrations either in the old testament, or in the writings of Jesus or the Apostles, or the celebration of anyones birth. Of course it was a wonderful event when Christ was ACTUALLY born, but I don't recall anyone celebrating that date annually. What's more, King Solomon (whom, if you'll recall, God saw fit to bestow great wisdom upon) declared that the day of a persons death is better than their birth. (Ecclesiastes 7:1) This would also include Christ's death, seeing He DIED for our sins, and was not BORN for our sins. In fact, even The Catholic Encyclopedia itself asserts that: "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday" (vol. 3, pg. 724). Protestant churches don't seem to have a clue either, as they happily follow suit with dozens of practices began by the Catholic church that they are supposedly "protesting" from. Somehow I just don't think Jesus is being offended by me not celebrating a holiday that was practiced by pagans before He came to us, and then adapted by these same pagans from paganism to a holiday supposedly celebrating Him. Mixing paganism with God's Law was specifically covered and forbade numerous times in the bible anyway (for example Matthew 15:9, just to name one... there are plenty more). So I guess I'm just a generic "Christian" and my religion is just the bible, as churches seem to have no problem bending and adapting the rules to serve their needs. In fact, the prophet Daniel described one of the most abominable man-made creations ever, the 4th beast of the Babylonian king Belshazzar's dream, as "..he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.." (Daniel 7:25). Incidentally, I feel compelled to point out that pretty much all modern biblical scholars from all walks of life have correctly identified the 4th beast of King Belshazzar's dream as none other than the Roman Empire. Nowadays, the only reason Christmas is as popular as it is, especially in this increasingly secular world, is its commercial value. Christmas is a very very lucrative commercial holiday. Only <insert number here> shopping days until Christmas! Taking all of this into account, I find it very very difficult to rationalize following any modern holidays that are based upon paganism, but attempt to put a Christian facade on it. Any thoughts? |
||||||||
| Porthos |
I couldn't agree anymore with the above D-dog. Your post is all very factual from a historical standpoint. However, there is one error. You mention the start of the adoption of the Saturnalia celebration in Christendom to be around the time of the Council of Nicea. If memory serves me well, this was actually the beginning of the adoption of the un-bibical teaching of the "divine trinity", which itself has origins in Mesopotamia and other pagan religions, dealing with a triune god-head. The Christians thought they were "Christianizing" the pagans, but rather, the pagans proved to be the ones "paganizing" Christianity. Modern Christianity is far different from the form practiced by Jesus' disciples, and the majority of it is based on principles not found in the bible, in other words, "traditions of men", as Jesus called it. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. but I was keeping it kind of broad so i just said "beginning with events like ...", because that kind of a deep topic in itself  . Actually, as I recall, no one is actually 100% sure when Christmas came about to replace the existing winter-solstice festivals, but I believe it is generally agreed to have been sometime in the 4th century. There are things recorded such as comments from old church officials (such as Pope Gregory from the 5th century) having viewpoints on Christmas, so it was definitely around by then. He actually tried to abolish some of the Christmas practices for the specific reason that they came from the Saturnalia festival, but to no avail.
The Council of Nicaea was the really the first time the state decided to reign in control of the different Christian churches from all over the empire, and they established a number of doctrines there, including the one about the Triune God (which, as you have said, comes from a very old practice as well). Interestingly, another thing that took place there was that they decided to re-establish the Christian Passover to a different day, effectively separating it from the Hebrew Passover. There was a distinct impression of the day that they wanted to separate anything remotely Hebrew from Christianity. It wasn't long after the Council of Nicaea that they had the Council of Laodicea, about 25 or 30 years later. There they specifically prohibited Christians from "Judaizing", which basically meant that they couldn't do any customs that seemed Jewish, and they also formalized the changing of the Christian Sabbath from Saturday over to Sunday, a day pagans were already very familiar with worshipping on anyway, and was also related to the so-called de-Judaization of the new Christian church. Once again, this reminds me of Daniel 7:25, saying that that 4th beast would "speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.." Sounds remarkably familiar, as that is precisely what they did. |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Are you a Jehovah's Witness, ddog800? | ||||||||
| ddog800 |
Ohhhh absolutely not, they've got their own set of ideas as well, as they have created their own set of doctrine that was convenient for them at the time. I just fancy myself a bit of a historian, thats all. This is all just stuff you'll find in Encyclopedia's and books written by well-known historians. Edit: I became very interested in this stuff when I was about 18 and started reading the bible myself. I found pretty early on that the bible itself depicts a very different scenario than what all the churches I saw seemed to depict, so I've been studying deeper and deeper into it ever since. 
|
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I know. It's just that you seem to be opposed to the celebration of Christmas on the grounds that it has 'pagan'* origins, which is similar to the view of Jehovah's Witnesses. * Personally, I don't describe religious beliefs and practices as 'pagan' unless the believers themselves describe themselves as such. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Ahh ok yeah, you're right, the Jehovah's Witnesses do reject Christmas as well on those grounds. On that note though, there are a lot of random other Christian sect's that do so as well. You will, however, notice that there are very few, if any, "mainstream" Christian sect's that will reject Christmas and other holidays such as that... that just wouldn't be good business. Also, pretty much ALL protestant sects rejected Christmas, and any other holiday with pagan origins up until just a century or 2 ago, but very few do now.
I have covered this topic with people before also, this seems to be a common idea. What it boils down to though, in what I've read, is that in the bible there is no precedent for God's people (Hebrews, or Gentiles alike) taking in surrounding customs of pagan cultures and attempting to worship God. In fact, that very thing is one of the elements that caused God to dismantle the nation of ancient Israel: The meshing of surrounding pagan customs with their worship of Him. Also, you would have to think, during the time of Jesus, Judah was part of the Roman Empire. They were more than aware of the winter-solstice festivals taht went on every year, whilst they (the Jews) were celebrating their customary "feasts of the Lord", including Jesus. Considering that most of the original converts to Christianity were Jewish, it seems like they would have found it a bit odd to suddenly be turned around and told that they're now supposed to begin celebrating birthdays (a practice at the time only done by pagans), and whats more they were to celebrate their God's birthday at the very time that all the pagans around them were celebrating the various births of their winter-gods. That would be like going into a Christian church today and telling everyone "Ok guys, we're all gonna worship Jesus here, but we're gonna start doing it how they worship Buddha, and Allah, and we'll throw in a little bit of that Hindu stuff too... cool?" Meshing in pagan practices with a Christian facade was started because Rome was ready to go out and convert the pagan masses to their new religion, and frankly, the church officials didn't feel that the "heathen masses" would be able to comprehend such change and be able to live by it. So they authorized their bishops to just take whatever local custom they have and convert it to Christianity along with the people themselves. The people would then go on with their new religion, but continue to celebrate whatever festivals they already had in place, albeit with a new face. In this advanced and modern age, where people blessed enough to live in such well-to-do countries as we here all do, where the literacy rates are very very high, and we are all fairly intelligent people, I feel that to be somewhat of an antiquated notion. I would take offense to the idea that my brain isn't capable of viewing the truth of the bible without the crutch of some ancient pagan religious elements. |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Yes — this is why Christmas was still technically 'banned' in Scotland until the 1960s, and is why it's still seen as a less significant festival than New Year there.
Very well, but that wasn't what I was saying. Basically, I object to describing religious beliefs as 'pagan' unless the believers themselves describe(d) them as such. I find your approach, which seems to classify all non-Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'pagan', to be overly Christian-centric. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Actually, all non-Judeo-Christian beliefs (as well as Abrahamaic-based Islamic beliefs which are identical to Judaic beliefs) are, by definition, pagan. 
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan
|
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That is one definition, yes. However, I choose to reject that usage, because I find it offensive. | ||||||||
| Porthos |
Also true. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christians cannot celebrate birthdays. Yet, the only records of birthday celebrations in the bible are spoken of in a negative light, such as the birthday celebration in which John the Baptist was beheaded. Jesus himself never advocated the celebration of his birthday, as it was not even a custom among the Jews. But he did instruct his followers to celebrate his death in rememberance of his ransom sacrifice during the Lord's Meal. It's also interesting to note that candles on a cake as a part of modern birthday celebrations are also of pagan origins. In ancient times, pagans would light candles on the day of people's birth to ward off wicked spirits. They superstitiously believed that with each passing year, you were one year closer to your death, and thus feared than on the anniversary of your birth, wicked spirits or the fates might try to kill you. So they lit candles as a way of protecting themselves. I find it appalling that the vast majority of today's Christians have no problem celebrating pagan holidays. |
||||||||
| Liz |
Appalling? Isn't it too strong an expression to use in this context? I don't see what's wrong with pagan traditions. Celebrating pagan holidays doesn't make you pagan (I also find this word rather out-of-date and slightly offensive). Most atheists celebrate Christmas, which is a Christian holiday. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
In what way? I'd be very interested to hear your side of this issue. Honestly, most people that I end up engaging in this topic take it so personally that they do not want to discuss it with me from the moment I first spout out my initial data, so I have not had much opportunity to properly discuss it and talk the points over with a real person. I realize that there is a bit of a raw spot with people concerning their beliefs and logic behind it, myself included on many occasions. However, I would really just like to have the opportunity to hash out the specifics and see whats left. As it says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. ". Perhaps this is more of a topic for another thread. |
||||||||
| Porthos |
But have you ever considered what God might want? Try seeing it from his point of view, assuming like the Judeo-Christians that he exists. The pagan religions and the worship of other gods was something detestable to God. He punished the nation of Israel repeatedly for worshipping pagan gods such as Baal. So, being that God does not change, there is no reason to conclude that he wouldn't find such practices just as detestable today, as he did back then. Jesus told his followers that those who worship God must worship him in spirt and in truth. Therefore, we can't worship God whichever way we see fit, or whichever way seems most convinient. A lot of people do that however. The bible says that many would have a form of Godly devotion, yet prove false to its power. Sadly, the vast majority of Christian churches fit that description. |
||||||||
| Liz |
Pagans had their God/gods, too. From their perspective, that's what God wants.
You are mixing different things, Josh. You seem to be implying that present-day Christians really *do* worship pagan Gods as they used to do in the old times. Well, they definitely aren't - most of these "rites" (for want of a better word) are merely formal now, just the revival of old traditions. I don't really know how these things are going on in the States, but there are lots of countries (including mine) where ancient pagan and Christian traditions are naturally and traditionally intertwined. It's part of the folk culture, and no-one questions its credibility, not even profoundly religious Christians. Besides, it varies from culture to culture. You might have started out as Christians, we didn't. It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Well, it's not appalling from the perspective of atheists because they have no reason to think it should be. Most atheists that do follow Christmas are typically not doing so for religious reasons, but are doing so simply because its customary. If you don't have any religious conoctations associated with it, you would have no reason be appalled by it as there is no "appalling" precedent that you're aware of. From a biblical standpoint however, it is appalling because you're essentially mixing ways of men, made up from our own minds, with the ways of God. God laid his plan out very specifically and for reasons far more greater than us. Mixing other beliefs in with His ways is akin to taking a physics course, but then adding your own methods for doing things that you just made up off the top of your head, or changing numbers and elements at your discretion because it's "easier" or you simply prefer it. You'll still run into logic problems real fast if you simply choose to see water as "H3O2" instead of the proper "H2O". However, simply believing that water has an extra hydrogen atom and an extra oxygen atom still doesn't make it so. In the same way, for instance, the 7 'feasts of the Lord' depict the salvation of mankind and the establishment of God's Kingdom.. If the Hebrews tried to just change that at their whim then the whole point of the festivals broke down and lost their true meaning. Ancient Israel did just that, and God made it very clear to them how He disapproved, and that's one of the many reasons that He took back from the what He had given them... A land of their own with everything they'd ever need. Also, another excellent example of God punishing His people for taking the practices of the surrounding peoples is during the Exodus. As I recall, while Moses went up to the mount and spoke with God, the people at the bottom grew weary of waiting, and decided to melt down all of their gold and form a golden calf, and begin to worship it. This enraged Moses to no end, leading up to him actually throwing down and breaking the newly minted '10 commandments'. Because of that transgression God told them that the Israelites would not even get to see the promised land until all of that generation was dead and gone, and that only their children would enter, which is why they wondered through that desert for 40 years. Even Moses himself never entered the promised land. Also, I had not realized that there was such a percieved negative association with the term "pagan", so I will try to refrain from using it. When I use 'pagan' in my previous posts, I simply meant any believe or practice that didn't fall into directly biblically supported beliefs, so please just take it as that.
|
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Because it's Christian-centric, and because most of the people whom you would describe as 'pagan' do not see themselves as such. The only people I would describe as 'pagans' are those who describe themselves as pagans — which includes only a few new religious movements. Hindus, for example, do not see themselves as 'pagans'. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Very good point, but I guess the question that remains is, after all of that melding and meshing has occured, is it really still Christianity, or a new creation all its own? If I take a pot of vegetable soup and mix it with some chili, some alfredo sauce, and throw in a few hamburgers, then is it still vegetable soup? |
||||||||
| Porthos |
It has come to carry a negative conotation among Muslims/Christians/Jews similar to words such as "infidel" or "heathen". But the word itself is not necessarily negative, and so I won't refrain from using it. It merely means polytheistic religions, in contrast with the monoethistic religions of Islam/Christianity/Judaism. So when I use the term, I don't mean it in a pejorative sense. That being said, I will continue to use the term based on its actual meaning, negative associations aside. |
||||||||
| Porthos |
You seem to use a lot of illustrations. I take it you're following the precedent set by Jesus in that he frequently made use of illustrations in his teachings. They're a great instruction tool. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Oh yeah, absolutely, the idea of being "pagan" is purely a subjective concept. At its base meaning, it can simply mean "anything outside your beliefs". Thats why, like i said above, I will refrain from using the term as it apparently has too many possible interpretations. Actually now that I think about, the only time I really hear 'pagan' used in mainstream culture is when referring to certain 'new age' groups, etc. Ironically, these 'new age' groups are not new at all... they almost all draw their beliefs on the exact same ancient systems that have been meshed in with Christianity now. |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
In that case, how would you describe Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and the Bahá'í Faith? And contrary to popular Western assumptions, it isn't entirely reasonable to describe Hinduism as 'polytheistic'. |
||||||||
| Liz |
Well, you are right, Daniel (it's your name, isn't it?) - as an atheist, I don't have such an insight into these issues. I don't intend to have an argument with you as we obviously have different world views, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's why I regard faith debates as rather inane discussions.
I was merely trying to point out that celebrating some pagan holidays aren't tantamount to worshipping pagan gods. Furthermore, some of those customs have been integral part of Christian tradition and practice of religion for long, long years in several countries. I elaborated on that in my above post. You ignored that as we have written cross posts I reckon. PS: I know that the situation is a bit different in the US as you started out as a Christian state, having been colonised by Puritans and other Christians. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Lol, I suppose hehe. Actually, i think also, a lot of where I get that habit is watching Star Trek over the years...Almost every episode they'll try and take some abstract concept and equate it with some simple metaphor.. "Captain we seem to be caught in some sort of quantum slipstream and its pulling us away from this sector!" "Ahh yes Mr. Kim, just like being caught in a river without a log to grab on.. lets see if we can find that log Mr Kim".. lol.. But yeah, makes a great teaching tool, and worked out great for Jesus. |
||||||||
| Liz |
Sorry, Daniel, cross post, really! 
|
||||||||
| Liz |
It's a very logical and almost convincing, albeit a little specious argument. Certainly, you are right, but look at the ingredients - you have an abundance of other things than vegetables in your soup, whereas the rather exiguous number of pagan customs will never outnumber Christian traditions in present-day religious practice. They are like spices in a dish but the ingredients you mixed into your soup definitely spoil the taste of it. You will never recognise that it has once been a vegetable soup. At the same time, the presence of pagan customs/traditions is nigh-on symbolic and they are hardly ever implemented in their original form. You don't even think of all of those customs as being pagan. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Yep 
Ah yeah, sry bout that :P Actually, the main reason for the blending of the Christian traditions was what I had stated in an earlier post. Rome went out to convert Europe and instructed his bishops to essentially "Christianize" the local traditions, an act that I disagree with. What we see now 1500 years later is the result of that. But, had they not done that at the time, the Roman Empire would not have endured for as long as it did, in all of its many incarnations. It was the glue of the church that held the Empire together, which is why, over time, the church came to hold the true power in the Empire. Essentially it was done for political reasons as a way of controlling the masses, hence controlling regional power. Not a very "Godly" method of expanding a church, but very logical for expanding an empire.
Very true, but do not forget that we were colonized by primarily by Europeans, especially at the beginning. They were primarily protestant, yes, but believe me the Catholic church followed pretty quickly. Today you will not find much difference between us and Europe in that respect. We are primarly now a secular society, regardless of the percentage of people who go to church--it's merely a symbolic thing for most of them.. I know this from personal experience--and regardless of what the so-called "Christian-right" would have you believe. We are pretty much an identical meshing of ancient forgotten traditions with modern Christianity, we have the same Catholic church, and all the mainstream protestant organizations are banded together in systems like the "National Evangelical Association", which pretty much follow de-facto standard protestant beliefs that you'll also find in Europe. The only difference is over in Europe, you'll probably find those traditions more wrapped up in the local cultural customs, whereas here you'll only find them wrapped up in religious customs. |
||||||||
| Liz |
That's true. King Stephen I converted to Christianity and implemented Christian customs, making them obligatory for all Hungarians for the prosaic reason that he wanted our nation to survive, get integrated into Europe and prevent it from sinking into oblivion. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn't exist now - in all likelihood. However, it raises the question whether the philosophy based on the statement "the end justifies the means" is compatible with Christianity or not. In my opinion, it isn't but the fact that it all happened in the ancient and medieval times shouldn't be overlooked, either. PS: I hope my posts make at least a modicum of sense as I'm writing too quickly and carelessly. I bet I didn't get most of the prepositions right.
We made another cross post: you didn't notice that I reflected on your vegetable soup simile.
|
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Interesting. So when I see the results of surveys which suggest that about 92% of Americans believe in God, compared to only about 45% in Britain, this isn't really accurate? I've also seen survey results which suggest that about 40% of Americans believe that the world was created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago — which to most Europeans would seem hilariously cute at best or an example of extreme religious mania at worst.
Except that mainstream 'Protestant' denominations in the United States tend to be rather more 'conservative' than, say, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Evangelical Church of Germany, the Church of Sweden etc. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Well, i guess the point of that is, from a biblical point of view, there is a certain meaning in place that God intended to have there that has been watered down or altered through "re-interpretation", or the addition of foreign elements such as the so-called "pagan" influence. The original meaning is now lost. I have an excellent case-in-point. America was founded on the Constitution of the U.S. It holds certain rights and things that are guaranteed every American citizen, and even many non-citizens. Things such as the freedom of speech, freedom to dissent, and many other freedoms. This has been around for centuries now and it has stood the test of time quite well. We now have someone in the office of the President who has, quite literally, taken upon himself to nullify the constitutional rights at his and his friends in power's whim. He has effectively "re-interpreted' it to what he believes it should read (which happens to be convenient for him as well) by adding in foreign elements (Presidential signing statements, and such). They have also "re-interpreted" the Geneva convention to their convenience. We are only now really feeling the repercussions of this as we now know that under the guidelines are they holding people without trials, there have been COUNTLESS incidents in the last few years of them refusing to let people protest, etc etc. all under the guise of these new guidelines. Basically, by reinterpreting these things and adding elements of their own, the Constitution of the United States , as well as our Bill of Rights, has been completely watered down to hold new meanings and legal precedents for interpretation. I can promise you that our founding fathers are rolling around in their graves, as we have pretty much tossed out everything that once kept America relatively near the moral high-ground, and the things that made us flourish in the first place... In many ways we're now no better than what Saddam was. I will not delve any further into that topic any further on this thread, but I wanted to use it as an example of what re-interpreting and adding/changing elements will do. It is in this same way that the original meaning of Christianity and Jesus Himself have been long altered and watered down.
I too am inclined to think that, at least in this case, the ends to not justify the means. Nowhere did Jesus state "Go out and use my name to form a vast empire". In fact His primary message was to go out preach the coming Kingdom of God, a subject that greatly frightened Rome at the time. This was why they had to have Him killed, from the moment He was born. They were well aware of Hebrew traditions, particularly the ones surrounding the Messiah, and they knew that the Hebrews believed the Messiah would come and establish a kingdom all over the Earth. From Rome's point of view in the 1st century, that was tantamount to treason. They likely didn't believe Jesus was really God, but they saw Him as someone who could unite the people against them, which is why King Herod tried to have Him killed from the day He was born. God constantly says that you need only faith in Him, but many times people take it upon themselves to do what THEY think is right.. and, I hate to keep bringing this up, but this is precisely why God took out ancient Israel... Bringing in practices from outside cultures and thinking it was ok and that it wouldn't hurt anything because it was just harmless. What they didn't realize is that it destroyed the glue that held them together, as their very culture was also based on those values, and when they broke down so did their culture. Once God removed His protection from them and let them have what they wanted, which was basically to be part of the rest of the world, then they effectively were forced to succumb to the forces of the world, and probability was certainly not in their favor, especially at the time. Assyria quickly invaded, and after about a 3 year siege they had pretty much trucked the majority of Israelites out of the northern kingdom and into Assyria, and replaced them with Assyrian migrants, and others. The only thing that saved Judah was that they repented at the last minute and abolished all the foreign practices and for some reason Assyria decided not to mess with Judah. But it only took a generation or 2 for the people to forget again, and about a century later Judah was taken captive by Babylon for the same reason Israel was taken by the Assyrians. Essentially what we have now is a counterfeit Christianity which slightly resembles the original, but is just a bad copy. A few interesting words of note from Jesus: Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Matthew 24:5 and Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying *, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (note: this one is how its supposed to be once it gets REALLY bad) There is a constant theme in the new testament of a counterfiet Christianity coming about. Needless to say, it looks as if Jesus really saw this coming, and tried to actually let us know.
Nah, your english is great 
|
||||||||
| ddog800 |
like i said, regardless of the percentage, most people do not take it seriously. I live in the so-called 'bible belt' where most people do go to church, but I can promise you that most of them do not take it seriously at all, especially the younger generation, for which its almost a non-issue with them. Its just somewhere they go on sunday so they can dress up nice and socialize and appear to be "good church-going people" like they're supposed to be. Of course there are still a lot people who earnestly care about it, and believe they're really doing the right thing, but so are there in Europe as well. I will be interested to see those same previously mentioned statistics in another 20 or 30 years once these younger generations and their kids take over the majority. Contrary to popular belief, even the remote possibility of teaching about God or even "intelligent design" in school WILL land you in court, and it will be rule against you. Many school boards all over the country in the last few years have made big public issues about it and they pretty much always toss any idea of a God or designer out the window. I have seen stories of countless teachers being dismissed for even bringing up the possibility in the curriculum. And all I was ever taught in school was evolution, big bang, universe is 15 billion years old, there is no God. Whatever people believe now anyway, it will be very different in 20 or 30- years after everyone has grown up in what our society has now become. Personally I believe that the universe is obviously much older than 6000 years, and that also is biblically supportable.. but once again, thats a complete other topic that may need a new thread.
Yes, this is very true, they are a little more conservative this side. |
||||||||
| Porthos |
D-Dog, are you familiar with the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South in the book of Daniel?
Are you familiar with the the ten horns that rose out of the fourth beast, and the one horn who proves victorious over the rest? What world power do you interpret that horn to represent?
Are you familiar with the parable of the weeds and the wheat? |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Finally got back to this, but alas, life had called me away  . Actually I've focused a lot of my energy on bible prophecy, as it is closely related to my studies of history, and also prophecy actually encompasses around a quarter of the bible itself, so it's definitely an important topic. I went ahead and refreshed myself on the book of Daniel as its been about a year or so since I've really delved into it.
Yes, i'm familiar with this topic. Its difficult to say the identities of these Kings though there are many guide markers for that subject, but the thing to remember is that it should be taken from the viewpoint of Jerusalem. So it would be kings north and south of that location. To speculate on the identities would require a lot of historical backstory and context that would be overkill on this thread, but i'm definitely open to discussion on that one.
This is also an interesting topic that requires a bit of backstory, but I think its do-able (is that even a word? i felt an unusual urge to hyphenate it :P) here. In my experience, the bible will always interpret itself. And we need only look at our own history to see what has come about. To understand the meaning of the fourth beast and the horns, you really need to go back to the beginning of the book of Daniel, to King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which was described and interpreted to the king by Daniel, starting in Daniel 2 I believe, and also Daniel's dream years later. The king viewed in his dream a large image rising up above the plains of Shinar that had a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, thighs of bronze, and legs of iron. At the bottom of the legs were feet and toes of clay and iron mixed (which in practice, do not mix well, btw). Then from out of the sky came a large stone that was "cut without hands", that crashed down onto the toes and destroyed the entire image, which blew away. Then the stone became a great mountain which grew and encompassed the entire earth. Later in the chapter, he describes to Nebuchadnezzar that HE is the head of gold from the image, and that 3 kingdoms would rise up in succession after his, which obviously take the part of the silver, bronze, and iron/iron-clay sections of the image. The mountain rising up would represent the Kingdom of God, encompassing the entire earth, as is shown in numerous prophecies (which is consistently shown as a mountain throughout the bible), and the stone which was "cut without hands" would be Christ destroying this system with Babylon at its head, and beginning the reign of His kingdom (the mountain). Years later Daniel has a dream of his own, which starts in Daniel 7. He stood and saw a raging sea with dark clouds swirling about, and from these clouds he saw "four great beasts" emerge and go one by one to the shore. The first looked like a lion, the second like a bear, the third was a four headed leopard, and the fourth he could only describe as a horrible beast with great iron teeth at which point 10 horns came up from its head, or something to that effect. This dream concludes with the saints receiving God's kingdom, and possessing it forever. According to verse 17, these four beasts which arose successively represent four kings or kingdoms, and verse 23 states that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom on the earth. Thus you can see that these two dreams are just different visions of the same events. Going back to recorded history, you will see that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian empire under Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, Belshazzar, which hundreds of years later fell to Alexander's Greco-Macedonian empire. Alexander ruled for about a decade before he died, and after a failed attempt to stabilize the empire, it was divided among 4 prominent Greek generals who them pronounced themselves Kings, fulfilling the prophecy from Daniel 8--The four heads of the leopard (the 3rd kingdom) had emerged. There is more about these 2 kingdoms (the 2nd and 3rd) in Daniel 8. vs 3-4 talk about a 2 horned ram that goes out and subdued everything around it. Then it talks about a 1 horned he-goat that comes up and the takes out the ram. The ram represents the doubled-armed Medo-Persians, with each horn representing the king of each, and the he-goat represents the king of Greece, with the single horn representing its first king. This is confirmed in verses 20-22: Daniel 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. Verse 22 is confirming the succession of "Grecia" into the 4 divisions for the remainder of its reign. After that the 4th beast came up, which would have been Rome swallowing up Greece and taking its place as "the 4th kingdom on the earth", and was the kingdom in power by the time of Christ. This was obviously not a happy creature in Daniel's dream, and he couldn't even equate it with a real animal, just a terrible beast. In Daniel 2 the 4th kingdom is described as strong as iron, which shatters and breaks everything, and that the kingdom would break and shatter all others. In Daniel 7 he describes the 4th kingdom as diverse or different from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet, and also as diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. This is basically the empire that would be around until the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom, also as depicted in both dreams. This empire can only be Rome, which descended from Babylon, which was absorbed by the Medo-Persians, which was absorbed by the Greco-Macedonian empire, which was finally absorbed into the Roman Empire, as history has recorded. Anyone familiar with the prophecies of Revelation, in particular chapter 13, should find the imagery in Daniel very familiar. These creatures are one and the same as what appears in John's vision as he stood on the island of Patmos. He looked out into the ocean and saw dark clouds lowering and then a strange creature came up out of the sea. It had the mouth of a lion, the body of a leopard, and the feet of a bear. It also had 7 heads along with 10 horns. This is identical to Daniels dream in which he saw all 3 of these creatures along with the terrible beast encompassing 7 heads across them (remember the leopard had 4 heads). The primary difference here is that all of the animals, or kingdoms, are of course combined, just as in the dream in Daniel 2. There is also a dragon, which gives the beast its power and authority, which Revelation 12 identifies as the devil, Satan, the old serpent which deceives the entire world. Daniel 7 makes it clear that the 4 creatures are 4 kingdoms, and Revelation 17 states that the 7 heads are 7 kings (remember that 4 ruled Grecia simultaneously after Alexander), or 7 mountains (as mountains usually indicate kingdoms), and these 2 chapters also make it clear that horns represent kings as well. You'll notice that John stated that it appeared as if he saw crowns on each of the horns. As indicated by Daniel 7, the 10 horns appeared on the head of the 4th beast, Rome, and so those 10 kings must be associated with that kingdom. Also, of quick note, John also saw that one of the heads received a deadly wound, which was healed. From his point of view, the first 6 heads would have already passed away into history, so that can only be the 7th and last remaining head, the one that was currently in power at that time. This takes us into Roman history.. in the late 3rd century, the emperor divided the empire into east and west regions, which completed the image of the "2 legs of iron" that would continue down until the end result of the prophecies where they would recombine as the 10 kings mixed of iron and clay (i.e. 2 substances that do not mix). In the early 5th century there was a barbarian group, the Vandals, that invaded Roman territory in north Africa, and eventually made a treaty with Rome that basically said the Vandals were the continuing government of Rome in that region. In the mid 5th century they actually looted the city of Rome, and they became a nuisance and hated by the church of Rome. By the late 5th century the western empire had pretty much succumbed to the barbarian invasions and looting coming from the european side, culminating in the death of the last western Roman emperor "Romulus Augustulus", which signifies the 'traditional" fall of the Roman Empire. This was accomplished by the Herulii, another barbarian group. The eastern empire then recognized their leader, Odacer, as the legitimate Roman government on the Italian penninsula. At this point another figure began to flex its influence that it had built up over the last few centuries, especially as the previous civil government had crumbled throughout the 5th century.. the bishop of Rome had aquired a lot of power during that time, particularly political power, as well as major religious influence. He wasn't to comfortable with the barbarian influence that was entering the area, as they practiced a less orthodox form of Christianity, Arianism. They were afraid they might destabilize the unity of the empire, so the church supported another Arian leader, of the Ostragoths, Theodoric. He eventually overtook the Herulii and removed them, but then the Ostragothic rule became unpopular with the bishop as well as the population. In the early 6th century the eastern empire invaded from Constantinople to remove the Vandals from north africa, then removed the Ostragoths from italy. They entered Rome with no opposition from the bishop, as the general was seen as a liberator, and he was also a trinitarian which put him into favor with the bishop. Later in the mid-6th century, once all the barbarians were conquered, Justinian, the emperor of the eastern empire, issued his "Imperial Restoration" which basically bestowed control of the western empire to the bishops and chief's of each province. It would be their job to appoint people to administer the government. You will find that all the successive attempted revivals of the Roman empire have had the blessing, as well as are crowned by, and coronated in the presence of the bishop of Rome. Its not difficult to see how the 7th head, Rome, received the deadly wound to its head, which was the fall of the Roman Empire in 476ish AD. The ten horns are the 10 kings that would come up from the empire and each attempt to revive it to its glory, leading up until the time of the end. The first 3 horns were the Vandals, Herulii, and the Ostragoths, the first to try and revive the dead western leg of the Roman Empire. Then came up the little horn, which as Daniel said "in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." Justinian then plucked out those first 3 horns before , and at the behest of, the little horn that appeared (you'll notice in Daniel 7, that the little horn does not pluck the first 3 up itself, but they are plucked up BEFORE it. 'Before' is translated from the Aramaic word 'Min', which means 'from, out of, by, by reason of, at, more than, as a result of, according to'), in this case, that little horn is actually the bishop of Rome, and not technically a world power as you suggested, though they have always flexed enormous political influence and control then, and so on until even today. At that point, the Imperial Restoration took place not long after, and so began the rest of the attempted revivals through out medieval and modern history, which began with Charlemagne, who was crowned on Christmas day by Pope Leo in front of St. Peter's alter around 800 A.D. I will stop here, as I've reached my point concerning the 3 first horns, and the little horn. Also, I do feel compelled to point out that, from the point of Jerusalem, and with the knowledge that the Roman empire will reach its final and most deadly incarnation at the time of the end when the Kings of the North and South become relevant, that it is the most likely identity of the King of the North. Also, given the modern geo-political landscape, I would put my best guess at this moment for the King of the South as being of Arab origin, but that is purely speculation on my part based on current facts. I'd love to hear someone elses opinion or comments on this topic.
Its very late and I've got to go to sleep before I pass out right here, I'll surely post something tomorrow on this. Happy 4th of July! |
||||||||
| Porthos |
My interpretation is different, as I look at in longer terms. I would say that the horn that rises above all others is the Anglo-American world power. The North-South kings at least initially, were to the north and south of Judah, yes. But eventually, as history unfolded, that no longer held true, when we were well into the Gentile times and the post-Christian era. The North-South struggle was prophesied to carry on until the time of Armageddon, or the "last days", which would mean that there are still a king of the North and a King of the South right on up to our day. |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I would say that interpreting the Book of Daniel in the context of modern events is completely inappropriate.
According to most modern biblical scholars, the Book of Daniel is apocalyptic literature written in the 2nd century BCE as a way of encouraging the Jews during the Greek occupation of Jerusalem, under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. It basically details how the righteous Jews will be rewarded after life, and how the persecutors will get their comeuppance. What use would prophecy referring to the 21st century CE have been to people living in Palestine 2,200 years ago? (Or 2,600 years ago, if you adhere to the traditional view that the Book of Daniel really was written by Daniel in the 6th century BCE during the exile in Babylonia). |
||||||||
| Porthos |
You don't believe the Bible is the word of God, Benjamin. So your approach to the bible is one of a secular scholar, and you view the bible like any other man-made book. So, it's pointless for you to debate this topic. But to answer your question: 2 Timothy - 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, reproving, for setting things straight, and for disciplining in righteousness. So, the book of Daniel was not written only for the Jews, nor was it even written primarily for them. It was a book of prophecy, prophecies which in large part, would not see their fulfillment until the "Lord's Day", or the "Conclusion of the system of things". It was written for our benefit, as Christians. And last time I checked, we were still around in the 21st century. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
Please explain. Remember that these 10 horns spring out of the 4th beast, which the bible indicates is Rome, so the horns must also be of Rome. However, if the little horn is Anglo-American world power (and there has been nothing little about Anglo world power, beginning with the rise of the British Empire in the 19th century), then who are the 3 little horns that it has had plucked up, and who plucked them up "before" that little horn? And what of the remaining 7? There is yet more detailed information on this topic that can still be covered. In fact, there will be a horn that overtakes Anglo-American world power, which is already on the decline as everyone can painfully see. And just as with all of the other horns, they will receive their power from the little horn... the final horn, which is the final revival (and most "successful") of the empire, which is yet to come. Lets look a bit more at what the scriptures say about the little horn: (comments are inline in italics) Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots <leaving only 7 behind, as the first 3 have been removed from the image>: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. 7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom <emphasis added> are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse <i.e. different> from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. <so here it makes clear that the first 3 horns are 3 kings, as are the remaining 7, which will rise up out of this single kingdom.. but the little horn is different, it is not a 'king' per se, which means it could not be a world power> and remember, this following verse we have already discussed, regarding the alterations and additions made to the Christian practices by the church of Rome.. this is that same horn, as it goes on to say: 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Now, in Revelation 17, you'll find a more detailed description of that final head which contains the 10 (now 7) horns/kings. Remember that Revelation describes the events leading up to teh "Day of the Lord", or the "Lord's Day", an event signified both in the new testament and the old as the time when God will establish his kingdom over the earth. Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. <as you'll recall, the first dream from Daniel 2 showed that Babylon was at the head of this system, and even in its final incarnation it is still recognized as Babylon> 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. I find this interesting, because even John could not help but marvel at her with admiration, at least until he learns what it is. The angel even asks him: 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. At first glance most people just assume this is the same beast from Revelation 13, but a close examination reveals that its rather a more detailed description of the final beast, the 4th kingdom. Notice the differences: The beast of Revelation 13 is described as being parts of the different creatures from the book of Daniel, as John simply saw them all as components of a single entity, but this beast in chapter 17 is just a 'scarlet coloured beast. And now there is a rider present, also draped in scarlet and more, the great whore that sits on many waters. Additionally, we can refer to Revelation 13 to further connect the 4th kingdom to this new beast in chapter 17: Revelation 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. This parallels with chap 17: 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition <meaning utter destruction>: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. This is accounting the same thing... He saw one of his heads (the beast that "was"), that then received a deadly wound (now the beast "is not"), which is then healed (and now the beast "yet is"). In both accounts the world marveled at the beast at how it was healed and how it, somehow, "is" again, and in both scriptures the same Greek word is used in the place of wonder, "Thaumazo', meaning "to wonder, wonder at, marvel,to be wondered at, to be had in admiration". This is obviously the same entity. So you can see more clearly the connection between the beast of Rev 17 and the 4th kingdom, or that 4th beast from the previous image. As you'll follow these narratives from the beginning of Daniel to the end of Revelation, you'll see that it goes from being a broad description before any of it occurs (as was the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream) to becoming more and more detailed and refined as the years pass and certain elements have already occurred (as is the final image in Revelation 17). In fact, by the time you get to Revelation 17, John is witnessing events that will happen in the very days leading up to the rise of the final beast power just before Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom. This is why it is so focused only on the fourth incarnation, and then the final elements of that incarnation. So, the beast from Rev 17 represents the 4th kingdom, while the 7 heads represent the final remaining 7 horns from that kingdom, upon which the woman sits (17:9-10). The rider represents the one who is in control of this great power, just as any rider controls a horse, etc. We know from history that that power over this 4th kingdom was given to the church during the Imperial Restoration, as the church was issued the power to appoint and crown the heads of state, just after those first 3 horns were "plucked". The 10 horns present on this beast represent the 10 toes of mixed iron and clay from the original vision in Daniel 2, and they are quite different from the kings of the previous image, because these are kings that already have power, and they will willingly give that power up to the woman and to the beast. As this beast in Rev 17 represents the final end-time result of the Babylonian system, it can only be synonymous with the feet and toes of that first image, since that image ends with Christ coming from out of the clouds and smashing the image at its feet, the final stage of that image starting with ancient Babylon at its head. Lets read on: 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.<remember, this is now in the context of being very close to the Lord's Day, and that these 7 kings are synonymous with the 7 remaining horns of the 4th beast from Daniel 7. At this point in the vision there have been 5 fallen kings, or 5 fallen attempted revivals of the empire, 1 is, and 1 still to come> 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. here it describes the 10 horns on this second beast, which clearly are not described the same as the 10 horns from Revelation 13, or Daniel 7. The original 10 horns (now represented as heads) were reduced to 7 by the 'little horn', and you'll note that in this scenario there is no little horn... that is now being represented as the rider 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Rome has always been an empire of many tongues and peoples, and this will extend to many nations as well, in its final incarnation 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. As we can see, the bible interprets itself quite well. There is no need for us to attempt to put our own interpretation of it without a proper, logical, and scriptural reasoning. As you quoted from 2 Tim 3:16 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Interpretation of the bible is not ever meant to be a mystery, or secretive or something that "certain" people can understand, and the bible will ALWAYS interpret itself, so there is no need for us to try and use our imaginations. Also, another very important bit to remember is from 2 Peter 1: 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, your correct in that the center of world events has certainly drifted away from Jerusalem over the last few thousand years, but as even Jesus Himself indicated, when the latter days came about, then world events would also then be surrounded around Jerusalem. The majority of the bible has centered itself around the land of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, going all the way back to the time of Abram, when he left his home in Ur of the Chaldeas (a region of ancient Babylon) and into the land of Caanan (the promised land, Israel). From that point on the bible is always centered around either people in the promised land, or people trying to get to, or get back to the promised land, and even up to the time of Jesus, they were in Jerusalem. Even in Jesus' prophecies concerning the last days, it is still centered around the city of Jerusalem, as spoken in numerous prophecies, such as Luke's account of the Olivet prophecy (Luke 21:20). The battle of Armageddon actually refers to a place in the promised land, the Hill of Megiddo, which overlooks the Valley of Jezreel, about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, where the armies would gather to fight Christ upon His return. Once Christ returns, He will descent onto the mount of olives, in the promised land and establish the capital of his kingdom in Jerusalem. Also, note Zechariah 12 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces * , though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. Even now, world events are more and more centering around Israel and Palestine. Tell me, how much to do you hear about Palestine and Israel in the news today? It is indeed a burdensome stone for all peoples, and it will only get worse and worse until it culminates into something awful. Lets take a look at Daniel 11 also. 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land (Israel, the promised land), and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. So here we can see that the King of the North in the end time will come against the King of the South, and this will involve the King of the North entering Israel. This bit of prophecy was all written from the point of view of Jerusalem, and there is no indication that the positioning of the Kings of the north and south would change over time. In ancient times, Syria would have been considered the King of the North. They were conquered and absorbed into, none other than, the Roman Empire, in the 1st century A.D. |
||||||||
| ddog800 |
It actually wouldn't, and didn't serve any purpose to the people living there at the time, and that is precisely why it wouldn't make sense at all if it was just some book written in 200BC to juice up the Jews with a little encouragement. Thats some encouragement, "You're pretty much screwed until centuries after you die, and everything hits the fan." As nice as it is just having the knowledge of a future resurrection (which they already had had for centuries, btw), it would have done nothing to stir the spirit of the Jews at the time. Which is why it was written down and preserved, and here we are 2600 years later in the 21st century reading it, and amazingly it meshes up perfectly with writings done by different people hundreds of years apart, and then found hundreds or thousands of miles apart, centuries apart. In fact, the book of Daniel specifically states that it is for those in the latter days.. note the following verses: Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. A lot of these words were clarified later by Jesus, and then by John, and lots of it still made no sense to the people at the time. The book of Daniel focuses primarily on prophecy leading up to the end times. Daniel did not even understand what he was seeing, and when he asked for the answer he was simply told to go away, that the words were not for him, they are for the 'time of the end'... not very encouraging. Then in vs 13 the Lord tells him again to go his way, and rest (die), until the end of days when he will stand in his lot (referring to Daniel 12:2) |
||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Presumably you reject modern biblical scholarship off-hand then, simply dismissing concepts like source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and narrative criticism as 'secular'. |
||||||||
| Porthos |
If modern scholars try to view or portray the bible as just any other book, written by men, then yes, I reject them. Because you can't view it as such if you wish to understand it. Do I belive that some of the bible is true, while other parts are fantasy, or mythology, or folktales? No. Because I believe it to be the word of God, with God as the author of every one of the books. And the bible does not contradict itself, despite being written over the course of hundreds of years by people of many different backgrounds. |
||||||||