Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 17      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,067
Reply with quote  #31 
"Anti" in Greek is a very common preposition and prefix for nouns. Antiochos has nothing to do with the Anti Christ except that they were/will both be pretty bad guys. The Augustine quote seems quite fake, unless you can provide me a direct reference to which work of Augustine's it was from.

Finally, as for this prophecy as a whole, it has it's origins in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest of the eastern territories of the Eastern Empire. It originated among the Romanoi as the rise of a future Basileus who would restore Imperial rule to the world and bring about an age of peace before the apocalypse began. The franks and the westerners picked it up at some point, wrote their own Frankish kings or bourbon kings into the prophecy and called it the "great monarch." As nice a thought as it may be, I don't believe it and think its a waste of energy to worry over far fetched prophecy.
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
"Anti" in Greek is a very common preposition and prefix for nouns. Antiochos h[IMG][/IMG]as nothing to do with the Anti Christ except that they were/will both be pretty bad guys. The Augustine quote seems quite fake, u less you can provide me a direct reference to which work of Augustine's it was from.

Finally, as for this prophecy as a whole, it has it's origins in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest of the eastern territories of the Eastern Empire. It originated among the Romanoi as the rise of a future Basileus who would restore Imperial rule to the world and bring about an age of peace before the apocalypse began. The franks and the westerners picked it up at some point, wrote their own Frankish kings or bourbon kings into the prophecy and called it the "great monarch." As nice a thought as it may be, I don't believe it and think its a waste of energy to worry over far fetched prophecy.

Fair Enough. Some people believe it is a fairy tail. 

Your claim about how Antiochus having nothing to do with the Antichrist is false. Daniel 11 prophesied the kings who would eventually control Israel, and eventually the prophecy was fulfilled. Later, Jesus Christ makes reference to Daniel 11 while speaking about the end times. Daniel's prophecy, which had already been fulfilled, foreshadows the end times since Christ makes reference to it while speaking about end times. Antiochus IV was the last king of Daniel 11. The last king of the end times will be the Antichrist. Coincidentally, both names contain the prefix "Anti". 

If Daniel's vision does not foreshadow end times then why would Jesus Christ make reference to Daniel's vision while speaking about end times? Especially, since the events of Daniel's vision had already taken place.

Plus there are cross references between Daniel's vision and the book of Revelation.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,102
Reply with quote  #33 

Ummm...the book of Daniel was originally writen in Hebrew . So although the name Antiochus begins with "Anti", the word "Antichrist" which has a Greek root, would not begin with "Anti" in Hebrew.  Making such linguistic correlations between languages is a bit of a reach don't you think?


__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist

Ummm...the book of Daniel was originally writen in Hebrew . So although the name Antiochus begins with "Anti", the word "Antichrist" which has a Greek root, would not begin with "Anti" in Hebrew.  Making such linguistic correlations between languages is a bit of a reach don't you think?


It could be a reach, but Antiochus IV was greek. Plus the New Testament was written in greek so the word "Antichrist" in revelations would probably have the same prefix as Antiochus. I never checked though so I could be wrong.


Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #35 
Actually some of Daniel was originally in Hebrew, or at least the Hebrew is the earliest source we have, the rest has Aramaic as the earliest source. Which is unusual. Either it was all written in Aramaic and some portions translated (the other way round seems unlikely, as why bother when it wasn't done with any other book), or it is a conflation of separate sources.

Doesn't matter though, Aramaic or Hebrew your point remains. As for its prophecies coming true, we have no idea when it was written and whether before or after the events prophesied. One suspects after. Much of Revelation, despite its general air of lunacy, is that nicely-judged kind of prophecy that almost any events can be said to have fulfilled. People have been expecting something to match its more major and unmistakable events for getting on two thousand years now. I personally think they needn't hold their breath.
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Actually some of Daniel was originally in Hebrew, or at least the Hebrew is the earliest source we have, the rest has Aramaic as the earliest source. Which is unusual. Either it was all written in Aramaic and some portions translated (the other way round seems unlikely, as why bother when it wasn't done with any other book), or it is a conflation of separate sources.

Doesn't matter though, Aramaic or Hebrew your point remains. As for its prophecies coming true, we have no idea when it was written and whether before or after the events prophesied. One suspects after. Much of Revelation, despite its general air of lunacy, is that nicely-judged kind of prophecy that almost any events can be said to have fulfilled. People have been expecting something to match its more major and unmistakable events for getting on two thousand years now. I personally think they needn't hold their breath.

I think Daniel 7-12 is the easiest way to try to understand Revelation. There a few cross references here and there...

Daniel 7:7-"After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

[Revelation 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 [Antichrist].

A lot of what Revelation talks about is symbolism.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #37 
Do you think the author of Revelation might have read Daniel? Just maybe?
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Do you think the author of Revelation might have read Daniel? Just maybe?

It's possible. But I do think, with very good reason, that God spoke through Daniel before he wrote Daniel 11. The prophecy is real. It was really fulfilled in the way that Daniel 11 describes. So God certainly played a role in Daniel 11 being written. I think, for a skeptic, the best way to attack this is by going after the book of revelations. But I will say the events in Revelation have not occurred yet. So it would be kind of hard to do.

I have a good understanding of prophecies in the Old Testament being fulfilled in New Testament times so it is kind of hard for me to see this as just some fairy tail or story. I know enough now to say that i really do think that Jonah lived in the belly of a large fish for 3 days. Where as a skeptic would probably look at it as some kind of story. With that being said, I view the book of Revelation as real future events only being told in a symbolic way.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #39 
Unfortunately the key to the symbolism is not provided, therefore you can make of it all what you will. Revelation actually was among the last inclusions in the canon, many having doubts about it, and Martin Luther originally excluded it from his own translation of the Scriptures, but relented. I sometimes wonder if this would be a saner world had things gone the other way.
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Unfortunately the key to the symbolism is not provided, therefore you can make of it all what you will. Revelation actually was among the last inclusions in the canon, many having doubts about it, and Martin Luther originally excluded it from his own translation of the Scriptures, but relented. I sometimes wonder if this would be a saner world had things gone the other way.

There are, as mentioned above, a few things we can refer to the Old Testament in order to shine light on what Revelations is all about. Not just in Daniel but also in Isaiah, and the other prophetic books of the Old Testament. What made the prophets of the Old Testament real prophets was their belief in the coming of the Messiah. It really does show.

One can also refer to Private Revelations by some of the most prominent members of the Church in order to get a closer glance at things. At this time, I can't show proof of the writings of the Saints. Some of the private revelations come out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and books written by priests and such. An example of a book would be "The Prophets of Our Times" by Fr. Gerald Culleton. If you are asking to see the actual document written by St. Augustine then good luck with that. I don't think you will ever see it. Unless it is on display at the Vatican or something.

Some things you may run across are not legitimate. Such as the predictions made by Nostradamus. He was not considered a prophet, but more like a Jules Verne who made predictions.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #41 
I consider it all charlatanry and nonsense and am not interested in what it might mean and the ways of discovering that. I don't think it means anything.
clark

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,067
Reply with quote  #42 
I was asking to know what work of Augustine the quote is from. Pretty much all of his works are easily available in English and what isn't can easily be found in the Latin to those who have the resources.

As for Revelation, it's not meant to be a literally prophecy of future events. It's a symbolic message of hope for Christians being persecuted by the Roman Empire at the time.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #43 
That's one interpretation. Another is that it was a production in a popular genre of literature at the time. Another is that it was inspired by God to warn against and condemn the Catholic Church, which happens to be the interpretation I was most familiar with as a boy. That's the trouble with symbolism, the symbols can stand for most anything you want.
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clark
I was asking to know what work of Augustine the quote is from. Pretty much all of his works are easily available in English and what isn't can easily be found in the Latin to those who have the resources.

As for Revelations, it's not meant to be a literally prophecy of future events. It's a symbolic message of hope for Christians being persecuted by the Roman Empire at the time.

Are you sure they are all that way?

I got it out of a book called "The First Part of the Tribulation" by Ronald Conte Jr.
infinitelord

Registered:
Posts: 60
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
That's one interpretation. Another is that it was a production in a popular genre of literature at the time. Another is that it was inspired by God to warn against and condemn the Catholic Church, which happens to be the interpretation I was most familiar with as a boy. That's the trouble with symbolism, the symbols can stand for most anything you want.

Yes, things can be taken and interpreted in a way that progresses a certain agenda. I personally believe, however, that there is a real answer behind everything.

What is your explanation for the scriptural argument that I provided earlier? You have already expressed your opinion on the private revelations.

Actually no I got this one from an internet source. but I have seen that particular quote by Saint Augustine in multiple different sources. Here is another one that I got from the Book from my last post....

"The Great French Monarch, who shall subject all the East, shall come around the end of the World"

~Saint Hippolytus, 236 AD (Before the christianity was legalized in Rome)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.