|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 16, 2003 17:47:13 GMT -5
1) I can't find anyone who can agree on the population of Ancient Rome.
The peak population of the city of Rome reached it peak around 300 AD at 1 million. Actual estimates vary between 500,000 and 3,000,000 depending on the definition of "Rome" -- inside the wall only, surrounding area, citizens vs slaves, men vs women and children, etc.
2) I can't find anyone who can agree that something as memorable as one million plus people disappearing from from the city streets of Rome ever happened.
I've not been able to find any real definite article that shows a memorable sudden event that writers recorded between 450 and 550 AD and a sudden huge population drop. The biggest event was Rome's conquest by the Goths in 476.
3) I doubt that 95% of Rome's population was Christian.
As I understand it, you're attributting the loss of 95% of Rome's population to the Rapture -- implying that 95% of Rome's population was Christian.
|
|
|
Post by AJoyfulHeart on Jul 17, 2003 8:43:44 GMT -5
Great research by your dad My Dad wrote this, BTW 1) I can't find anyone who can agree on the population of Ancient Rome. The peak population of the city of Rome reached it peak around 300 AD at 1 million. Actual estimates vary between 500,000 and 3,000,000 depending on the definition of "Rome" -- inside the wall only, surrounding area, citizens vs slaves, men vs women and children, etc. 2) I can't find anyone who can agree that something as memorable as one million plus people disappearing from from the city streets of Rome ever happened. I've not been able to find any real definite article that shows a memorable sudden event that writers recorded between 450 and 550 AD and a sudden huge population drop. The biggest event was Rome's conquest by the Goths in 476. 3) I doubt that 95% of Rome's population was Christian. As I understand it, you're attributting the loss of 95% of Rome's population to the Rapture -- implying that 95% of Rome's population was Christian.
|
|
Alleluja
Full Member
James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Alleluja on Jul 17, 2003 16:13:16 GMT -5
Alleluja, These pkmtyolpages that you posted were written for those they were addressed to not you and I. Therefore they could have been fulfilled in the year Larry talks about. It is a possibility as much as it happening now would be a possibility. Sheaves could also mean armies couldn't it? Jesus coming in the Clouds is also depicted in how He ascended to heaven.. The discription in Acts 1:8-10 says that He was taken up in a cloud and they could not see Him after the cloud came.. so cloud could signify that it is really a spiritual...spiritual ascention because if you will remember, He just 'popped' in on the disciples more than once... He was already changed from corruptible to incorruptible so He really could just pop anywhere. Just some thoughts to mull over... Hi There guidemeLord, I am finally able to get back to your question, sorry for the delay
Sheaves could also mean armies couldn't it?
No, Sheaves is an agricultural term, relating to wheat or corn: it is the muliple of Sheaf = `omer {o'-mer} 1) omer
a) a dry measure of 1/10 ephah (about 2 litres)
2) sheaf
Sheaves: 'alummah {al-oom-maw'} or (masculine) 'alum {aw-loom'} 1) sheaf (as something bound)
a) of Israel returning from exile (fig.)
Gen 37:7 For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round about, and made obeisance to my sheaf.
Lev 23:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
Deu 24:19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
Job 24:10 They cause him to go naked without clothing, and they take away the sheaf from the hungry;
Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.These pkmtyolpages that you posted were written for those they were addressed to not you and I. Therefore they could have been fulfilled in the year Larry talks about. It is a possibility as much as it happening now would be a possibility. The pkmtyolpages are ment for all of us, especially for us today, we are to learn by the example of those who followed God in Truth and Spirit, even when they were opposed by society around them! see 1st Scripture below:
And yes, we are living in a time of much FULFILLED SCRIPTURE ....IF...we live by faith and not sight... but nonetheless, there is a MORE PERFECT TIME or Day coming....wherein ALL OF THE BIBLE WILL BE FULFILLED, Hebrews Chapter 4 explains it very well, also it claifies the fact that there was no Rapture in the past, but that we all together will be changed. even Job in the Old Testament speaks of that day!!!
James 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
1 Peter 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
Hebrews 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Jul 18, 2003 11:24:27 GMT -5
I am sorry, but my computer keeps cutting me off-line when I try to post, and I lose everything I have written, so shall try again to respond to some questions:
Alleluja: Your theory is something you might want to look into,m and get back to us, as for me, I think Isreal is completely out of the picture.
I find that church to have been the mainstream church of the day, but was, in fact, heretic, as it did not recognize the Christ, so that the small sect that split from the Jewish church, was, in fct, orthodox, and the mainstream church still today, is the heretic remant, known as the Jewish faith. I believe they were one until then. Just as ancient Isreal failed to life up to promises made to God, they did not, and never shall obtain the lands promised to Moses, which would have given them both Ninevah, and Memphis, making them the global superpower of the day. They failed God, and their chances are gone forever, time to get away from thinking that they are important at all. Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
Woodyblueeyes: I do believe that the word of the Living God, is itself, in fact, both Living and Breathing. That as world understanding and knowledge grows, those words written long ago have new meanings to us, so that the Bible is as relevant in the 1st cenutry, as it is in the 21st, but the understanding has changed. Do not get stuck with 17th century understanding of the Bible, that is where the modern church makes its mistakes. As for your view of the Ascension, I agree completely, Yours in the Ever Lving Christ, Larry
TarueBeliever:
I never said that 95% of the population was Christian, or that it dissappeared. I was stating extreme example of population loss. I doubth that more than 150,000 disappeared from Rome at the time, and this during a period of constant war, and plague, the remainder were too busy to even report it, and this is how Christ came as the thief in the night, and took the saints. After 538 A.D., the church, which had been growing by leaps and bounds, can barely survive, and does not again begin expansion for hundreds of years. I also think the biggest even for Rome was the conquest by Alaric in 410 A.D. with her population at its peak, and complete defeat. In 476, Ravina was for all puposes the capitol, and Rome, just the major city. Yours in the Ever Living Christ; Larry
parousai70: my firend, your post must wait, as I am out of time, but your history background, and theology are excellent, I defintely want to continue discussion with you. I do; just want to state that many of your references are RC in origina, and they had an agenda, to prove that they had the correct susccession to the Papacy, not Constantinople; so they may have been prejudiced. I shall go into this further. Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by guidemeLord on Jul 18, 2003 12:57:26 GMT -5
I don't believe that Jesus just "popped" in on the disciples here and there. I'm sure there is someone who might have a timetable for when Jesus was with the disciples after his death. But in Acts, Chapter 1 verse 9 tells of Jesus ascending into the clouds and out of their sight...WHAT a wonderful moment that must have been for them. I don't believe however that it was a spiritual ascension. In the 20th Chapter of John verse 27, Jesus said "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach tither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."
If Jesus were a spirit at that point, then they could have poked and prodded anywhere on him and their hands would have gone through, but Jesus showed them that he was real, he was there, and HE WAS GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think his ascension in Acts and the disciples losing sight of him in the clouds would be just as an aircraft today would take off from a runway, and you could see it until it went into the clouds...you can't see it anymore, but it's still real....
again, just some more thoughts...
Woody
Woody, A couple of things to note: Jesus' ascension is described as Him being taken up. Yes.. but there is also a cloud that receives Him out of their sight. Right? Where else in the Bible do we see a cloud in relation to God? There are several instances in the New Testament and numerous in the Old Testament. God appeared as a cloud and spoke that He was well pleased with Jesus at Jesus' baptism! You see, God is 4 dimensional. Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith: Eph 3:18 That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all Saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height: Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which pkmtyolpeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all fullness of God. So if God is 4 dimensional we cannot possible see all of Him in our 3 dimensional perception. If I showed my finger to a 2 dimensional being it would only perceive a slice of my finger and would conclude that I was a circle, to another 2 dimensional being I may appear as two circles, or two fingers.. but the 2 dimensional being would not understand what I, a 3 dimensional being, am really like. The same is between God and us.. We cannot understand what God is like because He cannot fit in our 3 dimensions. So we only see a part of Him. I believe that part is the cloud. God spoke from a fiery cloud to Moses. God spoke from a cloud at Jesus' baptism and those around are discribed as: Luk 9:34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud and overshadowed them, and they feared when they were entering into the cloud. Luk 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is that my beloved Son, hear him. They feared the power of God.. The presence of God. This same cloud received Him out of their site. The cloud is God in Spirit. 1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, that all our fathers were under that cloud, and all pkmtyolped through that sea, 1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses, in that cloud, and in that sea, 1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat, 1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink (for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ)Christ has always been a cloud... before He became flesh, anyway... I don't think this is indicating that Christ will come down on a cloud visibly riding a cloud at His second coming. I think in conjuction with other verses, that every eye would see Him as a cloud: Rev 10:1 And I saw another mighty Angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and the rainbow upon his head, and his face was as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire. That is the portrait of the Second Coming. Every eye sees Him yet they cannot see HIM but His clothing.. the cloud.. just as when He ascended like the disciples were told in Acts 1:11. Ok procede with your conversation....
|
|
|
Post by Shirley on Jul 18, 2003 16:17:45 GMT -5
I think you are taking quite a stretch here with the cloud thing! The verse says "This same Jesus will return.." Not the cloud He rose up in will descend. You've gone way to symbolic for me, sad to say. I take things more literally and when it says "He" will descend, I believe it. Every knee shall bow...well, every knee does not bow to a cloud. In fact, I don't know anyone who does. With that, I may have to excuse myself for a while from this particular discussion. God Bless, Shirley
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 18, 2003 16:46:23 GMT -5
quideme said Wow! Christ, in His deity, is usually surrounded by a cloud: Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne (Psalm 97:2). Bickering Israel witnessed the glory of the Lord [appearing] in the cloud (Ex 16:10). When God gave Moses the 10 commandments of judgment, He descended in a thick cloud, and immediately the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud... (Ex 19:9) On the Mount of Transfiguration, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleases; hear ye him (Matt 17:5). There are other examples as well. Christ is not a cloud or has He ever been a cloud <><
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Jul 18, 2003 17:33:55 GMT -5
parousia70:
I have done some research, and find that many of your references reference each other, and your earlier references, so that you are going in a circle, do not have solid fresh references. In fact, they all go back to Clement, who had an agenda to show that Paul, not John was the rightful heir to the Papacy, so that Rome could claim it. I doubt that this is a big deal to most, but I rather use the historical dating of secular authorities, who had no agenda, and certainly were non or anti-Christain, but never erred on the dates to make something appear as it could not have been. I have references to Ireaneus from 98 A.D., that would make him really old in 175 A.D. He was prolific, but also needed to so line of succession, as he was a bishop. If you look at a book like the Jesus Mysteries, which is certainly anti-Chrsitian, while appearing to be neutral; you at least get hundreds of unbiased references for time, and will show that John both was on Patmos at the time stated, and that other events differ from the RC church position. We can not cover up history, then try to defend error, and hope to claim infalibility. 1. Look at what Patmos was used for 58-100 A.D. Look at the Roman records of the types of prisioners sent there. Just when were people like John first going to this place? Knowing this limits the times that John could have been sent there. Now I know the RC church may not like it, but then the Eastern church took on John and Michael, and the Western church did Peter and Paul; so now we have striff not between the original people, but in their successors. I say this, as their are no records of the time showing John's death; unlike the other disciples, so just what does that mean?
Like your quotes from the Bible, your history is out of context, and needs to be better based. One can show many things taking verses out of the Bible, and then putting them in a list, I generally do not get upset, as one can prove almost anything doing this. Historical references need to be unchallengeable, like the Bible itself. Once we use these in combination, we then can open our minds, and our eyes, and our ears, so that we can see, hear, and learn.
Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 18, 2003 23:04:17 GMT -5
Interesting scripture. Revelation 3:3. Revelation 3:3 is an actual letter, actually written for and delvered to actual 1st century air breathing, blood pumping Christians at the actual Church of Sardis. And the church at Sardis did not exist during Paul's time..so Revelation had to be written after 68 A.D....and since it was well established at the time of the letter to them in Revelation, some years must have gone by since it was established....like 30. Bringing us to 95 A.D.!
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 18, 2003 23:10:32 GMT -5
quideme said Wow! Christ, in His deity, is usually surrounded by a cloud: Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne (Psalm 97:2). Bickering Israel witnessed the glory of the Lord [appearing] in the cloud (Ex 16:10). When God gave Moses the 10 commandments of judgment, He descended in a thick cloud, and immediately the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud... (Ex 19:9) On the Mount of Transfiguration, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleases; hear ye him (Matt 17:5). There are other examples as well. Christ is not a cloud or has He ever been a cloud <>< Good points! Hafta admit that I have never read anybody saying Jesus was a cloud before.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 18, 2003 23:17:57 GMT -5
In agreement! <><
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 18, 2003 23:29:47 GMT -5
Quotes from Scholars on the Date of Revelation Robert Young (late 1800s) "It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.) huh...I used quotes in another thread showing the basis for the 95A.D. date...and you just criticized. Guidemelord accused me of beleiving the ECF were infallible! Interesting that now you are trying to find a basis for your belief in the ECF, and by using more modern day 'scholars'. Yet, I provided quotes from Eusebius, Clement, etc, to back the later date of 95 A.D. and that the church held to a future Second coming. Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself. They saw the Second coming as future. Iranaeus wrote that John was banished to Patmos by Dominitan. Not a Dominitus Nero. The Didache, an early church document from the early second century refers to the Second coming as future. Your quote of Clement is incomplete, and has another person's opinion added in. The Syriac is the only manuscript of the many, that places the writing of Revelation in 68 A.D. - and that commentary is written 600 and some years later - well after Iranaeus. A few other points - Nero's persecution of the church was restricted to Rome. He killed and tortured Christians - he didn't banish them. Tertullian simply points out that Rome is where Peter and Paul are killed and John is banished - but he doesn't say that it happened at the same time or by the same Ceasar, just done at Rome. I provided this quote too. For those who would like to see those quotes - check out the thread "Jesus is Coming - Are you ready". for some reason, I cannot post there.
|
|
|
Post by Heart4Him on Jul 18, 2003 23:31:10 GMT -5
alleluia - great posts! Thanks for the websites and information!
;D
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 18, 2003 23:35:54 GMT -5
For some reason, since both you and I have last been on the board, this thread was deleted Uhmmmmmmm.......... <><
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 18, 2003 23:36:56 GMT -5
I meant to add: It must have gotten "nasty" <><
|
|