How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled

[Huram Abi]

Really? The bias found in eulogy carries more credibility than those who were personally removed?

Socrates of Constantinople said of Eusibius' unfinished worked: "Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts."

That does describe a eulogy, though, doesn't it?

 

[Huram Abi]

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God; And the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

*fixed


See? Nothing about Constantine or 12,000 soldiers. This has nothing to do with something so far removed from the actual context as Constantine's conversion.

Also, you might want to consider that Eusibius doesn't report anything about the dead rising while relating the conversion.


Thessolonians and Constantine are mutually exclusive.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To be honest, I have mostly skimped through Josephus and am poorly educated regarding the man and what he claimed/recorded.

I will tell you this: If the things Josephus claims aid in convincing others of his own apotheosis or enable him to politically control an otherwise negligent group AND he is the only one to report on these events, I would highly doubt them.

Thks for posting

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Really? The bias found in eulogy carries more credibility than those who were personally removed?

Socrates of Constantinople said of Eusibius' unfinished worked: "Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts."

That does describe a eulogy, though, doesn't it?

How does that relate to Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse? Just curious

 

[cupid dave]

How does that relate to Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse? Just curious

He struggles to discredit Eusibius because the historian that was right there when Constantine reported his vision of the Cross as the sign of the coming of man in the clouds is all too good.




As reported to us by the historian of that day, Eusibius:

In the year 312, Constantine the Great, the emperor of the Roman empire, which comprised all of the civilized world at that time, was conquered by the sign of the Christian Faith.

Just before a decisive battle, he and all of his soldiers saw a Cross of light in the sky with the inscription, "By this sign you will conquer."

The following night Christ appeared to him with the Cross in His hand and told him that by this sign he would defeat his enemy, directing that each soldier's shield bear the sign of the Cross.
The emperor fulfilled the command of God and conquered.

Seeing the power of the Cross he abandoned paganism and embraced the Christian Faith, placing his entire empire under the protection of Christ and His Cross. Constantine legalized Christianity and then moved the seat of the empire from Rome to Constantinople to make a new beginning, calling this city the second Rome. Thus arose the Byzantine Empire the first Christian society that was governed by Christian principles.

 

[Huram Abi]

On Eusibius's report:

"Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts."

-Socrates of Constantinople

 

[cupid dave]

On Eusibius's report:

"Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts."

-Socrates of Constantinople

No.
Lame case.
There is every reason to believe Eusibius repoted exactly what Constantine had told him ON HIS DEATH BED.

Socrates was a secular historian who also favored the Trinity in his religious views.
He followed Eusibius and built upon the works that he had began as the History of Christianity.

He also discarded and dismissed many of the works Eusibius had produced.
The story of Constanbtine however, was one of the works he kept.

Eusibius was actually an Arian, and he apparently opposed Constantine in that view, which suggests an integrity in that Eusibius still reported the story of the sign of the son of man.

 

[Huram Abi]

No.
Lame case.
There is every reason to believe Eusibius repoted exactly what Constantine had told him ON HIS DEATH BED.

.

Except that it is reported that this story is elevated because it is a eulogy.

As well, it is possible and most likely that Constantine elevated his own story as he conveyed it so that history would reflect that he was in direct communication with God, since he did make an effort to assert his own divinity in his lifetime, so that his story would attain the status of those other famous epics.

In any case, it is no reason to assume that what Eusibius describes is exactly what Constantine actually experienced.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

On Eusibius's report:

"Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts."

-Socrates of Constantinople

So what is your view of Matthew 24 fulfillment, which is what this topic is about. Thanks

 

[Huram Abi]

None of it. Those who are focused on eschatological thinking and such occurrences in their own lifetime will find a way to see those signs.

But Jesus says he will come like a thief in the night, so looking for signs is an exercise in one's own relevance or self importance, because it is about "my" lifetime.


Rather, simply be prepared, because when those signs appear, there will be no question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

None of it. Those who are focused on eschatological thinking and such occurrences in their own lifetime will find a way to see those signs..

Thank you for your view. Did you vote? God bless

 

[Huram Abi]

Did I vote? Not sure of the context, but if you mean "did I vote for president?" then the answer is yes.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Did I vote? Not sure of the context, but if you mean "did I vote for president?" then the answer is yes.

Yer a funny guy...truly
I meant vote in my poll ya silly

 

[Huram Abi]

Oops. Yeah, I voted just now.

 

[cupid dave]

Except that it is reported that this story is elevated because it is a eulogy.

As well, it is possible and most likely that Constantine elevated his own story as he conveyed it so that history would reflect that he was in direct communication with God, since he did make an effort to assert his own divinity in his lifetime, so that his story would attain the status of those other famous epics.

In any case, it is no reason to assume that what Eusibius describes is exactly what Constantine actually experienced.

The matter is not whether you personally denigrate the written report and perfer to ignore it because it supports exactly the conditions required in Matt 24 as part of the prophecy.

What is invaluable is a statement dictated to a known historian by the very man who ushered in the Christ kingdom that reigned for the 1000 years which was predicted elsewhere in scripture.


Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (of the revival of that Roman Culture including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they, (the saints or apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since 32AD, those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).
(see Matt 24:30, Rev 6:12-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)


So what we have is history, or academics supporting theology and a prophecy that is specific in regard to its terms that only a bias person would not say "Pretty much on target."

 

[Huram Abi]

What is invaluable is a statement dictated to a known historian by the very man who ushered in the Christ kingdom that reigned for the 1000 years which was predicted elsewhere in scripture.


Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years

So what we have is history, or academics supporting theology and a prophecy that is specific in regard to its terms that only a bias person would not say "Pretty much on target."

Yeah, once we eliminate your additions, we see that this passage has nothing to do with Eusibius. It's a clear miss.

 

[razeontherock]

The matter is not whether you personally denigrate the written report and perfer to ignore it because it supports exactly the conditions required in Matt 24 as part of the prophecy.

What is invaluable is a statement dictated to a known historian by the very man who ushered in the Christ kingdom that reigned for the 1000 years

WHOA! Bolded word. Past tense?

 

[Huram Abi]

WHOA! Bolded word. Past tense?

He thinks this happened exactly between 54 AD and 1054 AD.

 

[razeontherock]

He thinks this happened exactly between 54 AD and 1054 AD.

Well as I read it, he seems to prefer a start date more like 328. At least I could almost make sense out of the end date, if I really stretched the imagination. But how could a start date of 54 possibly be defended?

Anyway this is so far off the clear intent of Scripture ...

 

[Huram Abi]

Well as I read it, he seems to prefer a start date more like 328. At least I could almost make sense out of the end date, if I really stretched the imagination. But how could a start date of 54 possibly be defended?

Anyway this is so far off the clear intent of Scripture ...

He started at 1054 (the great schism) and counted backwards.

I forget what significance he has assigned to 54 AD. (Probably because there is none.)