Search Jerome for Roman empire revival

[Interplanner]

I'd like to hear Jerome's comments on how quickly Rome would revive; please post links here.

 

[Interplanner]

Here are some reasons why modern Europe is not a revived Roman empire, if that's what it's about!

http://whenthepiecesfit.org/images/5.luredbypiper.revised.2.pdf

Note the lines about the two Roman empires after the Great Schism, simultaneous to the mixing of politics and religion, a sort of double 'mixing of clay and iron'. I see the point.

 

[TPeterY]

I'd like to hear Jerome's comments on how quickly Rome would revive; please post links here.

Here are some reasons why modern Europe is not a revived Roman empire, if that's what it's about!

http://whenthepiecesfit.org/images/5.luredbypiper.revised.2.pdf

Note the lines about the two Roman empires after the Great Schism, simultaneous to the mixing of politics and religion, a sort of double 'mixing of clay and iron'. I see the point.

This can't be. How do you jump from Matthew 24A to modern times when all this already happened during the DofJ in 70AD?

 

[Interplanner]

I'm not agreeing with the dissertation. I'm just trying to find out whether Jerome was near-future or distant-future when he wrote, in @420, that the Roman empire would revive (Rome was sacked in 472). Ie, was it already his view that such a revival would be distant and how distant? The "Holy Roman Empire" was 3-400 years later. The dissertation was one source to look at.

And I have to agree with him, if I was viewing things that way, that modern Europe does not qualify. There are too many nations and they are extremely anti-religious. tTe author of the paper on the RRE says it is Islam.

 

[TPeterY]

I'm not agreeing with the dissertation. I'm just trying to find out whether Jerome was near-future or distant-future when he wrote, in @420, that the Roman empire would revive (Rome was sacked in 472). Ie, was it already his view that such a revival would be distant and how distant? The "Holy Roman Empire" was 3-400 years later. The dissertation was one source to look at.

And I have to agree with him, if I was viewing things that way, that modern Europe does not qualify. There are too many nations and they are extremely anti-religious. tTe author of the paper on the RRE says it is Islam.

I was teasing you for I couldn't resist the opportunity of poking fun back at you for always advocating the DofJ.

So if not Rome, where in the world do you think the AC will arise from?

 

[Interplanner]

I think Dan 8, the Thess letters and the Rev, and the AofD are about the disaster that took place in Judea in 70. Dan 8 refers to a leader of the rebels who is particularly wicked. Paul referred these Thess things as present, very soon.

 

[TPeterY]

I think Dan 8, the Thess letters and the Rev, and the AofD are about the disaster that took place in Judea in 70. Dan 8 refers to a leader of the rebels who is particularly wicked. Paul referred these Thess things as present, very soon.

Lemme guess, are you saying Nero spoke blasphemy in the Temple?

 

[Interplanner]

No. You don't sound familiar with the extent of zealot rebellion in Judea in the 1st century. It was apocalyptic, claiming messianic inspiration, and believing God would fight Rome for them in the battle of the ages, and set up a Davidic golden age upon victory.

So besides not knowing they would crucify Christ, Israel in general did not know they would foster their own rebellious forces that would even storm and use the temple as a fortress for an impossible battle about which they had delusions of victory. The leader of this was a miserable person, and the more extreme conditions were the more psychotic he became, while confident that God would fight.

None of this information is well known today because of futurism's auto-skip to our future upon Mt 24:3. I have come to the conclusion that microchips are planted in people's bibles at that verse that send them into wild speculations about the EU, and modern tsunamis and atomic war rather than the ancient materials on what happened in the 1st century, which Christ was speaking about.

 

[TPeterY]

No. You don't sound familiar with the extent of zealot rebellion in Judea in the 1st century. It was apocalyptic, claiming messianic inspiration, and believing God would fight Rome for them in the battle of the ages, and set up a Davidic golden age upon victory.

So besides not knowing they would crucify Christ, Israel in general did not know they would foster their own rebellious forces that would even storm and use the temple as a fortress for an impossible battle about which they had delusions of victory. The leader of this was a miserable person, and the more extreme conditions were the more psychotic he became, while confident that God would fight.

None of this information is well known today because of futurism's auto-skip to our future upon Mt 24:3. I have come to the conclusion that microchips are planted in people's bibles at that verse that send them into wild speculations about the EU, and modern tsunamis and atomic war rather than the ancient materials on what happened in the 1st century, which Christ was speaking about.

Well I got the impression of Nero because of the line written below about the AofD.

AofD are about the disaster that took place in Judea in 70.

And you're right, I have no idea what the zealot rebellion is, never heard of it either.

But I got two questions to ask. Is this stuff in the bible?

If not, why would we put additions in the bible? Couldn't we study only what's there?

The bible warned us not to make additions. That also goes with what we choose to study.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NKJV)
A Warning
18) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



.

 

[parousia70]

And you're right, I have no idea what the zealot rebellion is, never heard of it either.

This link has a nice overview

Zealotry in Jewish history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zealots were the sole incendiary force that brought the DofJ upon themselves, exactly as prophesied.

Is this stuff in the bible?

Yes.

They were "the people of the prince" who "destroyed the city and Sanctuary".

By the time the Romans breached the walls, it was merely a clean up operation, for the Warring Zealot Factions had already laid waste to their own City, exactly as prophesied.

 

[TPeterY]

This link has a nice overview

Zealotry in Jewish history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zealots were the sole incendiary force that brought the DofJ upon themselves, exactly as prophesied.



Yes.

They were "the people of the prince" who "destroyed the city and Sanctuary".

By the time the Romans breached the walls, it was merely a clean up operation, for the Warring Zealot Factions had already laid waste to their own City, exactly as prophesied.

Thanks Paro, I'll check out the link and informations.