Preterism

[Jason]

Do we know if any Arians espoused the Preterist theory? Does the ACC today accept preterism in any form?

[dark_knight]

I can't give a good answer, but I know that JW's, Bible Students and some Christadelphians believe that these biblical prophesies happened in past, but there is other fullfillment in the future - like some things of Matthew 24 happening in 70 CE but not all then - other fullfillment in Second Coming.
This would thus make them, perhaps, "semi-preterists" ?

Hope this helps even a bit.

[Danage]

There are four main views - idealism, preterism, historicism and futurism.

Idealism sees Revelation as spiritual language, referring to everyone on Earth.

Preterism is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church in response to Historicism, and sees the fall of Jerusalem and the Western Roman Empire as the events prophecised. The problem is it sees the Roman Catholic Church as the "Virgin Bride" of Revelation.

Historicism was believed by the Protestants upon the beginning of Revelation. The Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church and Revelation refers to Christian history (but, at this time, the last Bowl judgement has yet to be poured out). The language is interpreted by previous prophecies and their fulfillments (e.g. an earthquake in prophetic terms is interpreted as political revolution). The language is spiritual.

Futurism - another invention of the Roman Catholic Church, futurists see every prophecy as literal, spare the Beast and a few others. This is the most popular, but also the most illogical, view.

[David Kone]

My beliefs tend towards Modernism. I was taught Historicism in my youth. This is a little problematic just as Rome inherited the title of whore from Babylon many today see New York City as the modern holder to that appellation. I live a few miles from the belly of the beast in that case. I am learning so many new things right now, I have decided to not to take sides at this point. I do think that the prophetic symbolisms found in the Bible make very useful analogies to life events. For example, I believe that many of us go through our own apocalyptic sequence in our life’s journey.

[bupanishad2012]

I hate to be dense, but just what is "preterism" and how does it relate to the Arian Catholic Church?

[Danage]

Preterism is the belief that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Christian New Testament/Brit Chadassah, have already come to pass, completely.

Put forward during the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, Preterism attempted to destroy Protestant Historicism's credibility, and hence their claim that the Papacy is Antichrist throughout the ages.

Preterists, those who believe in Preterism, believe that the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and the fall of Rome</ST1:p four hundred and six years later, fulfils the prophecies of the Book of Revelation. This view can be seen to be anti-Jewish, but this is not necessarily the case with all Preterists.

The two churches, the Whore (of Babylon</ST1:p) and Bride (of Jesus/Yeshuah), are equated to Roman Paganism and Roman Catholicism respectively. This is completely at odds with Protestantism, which believes the Whore refers to the Papacy and the Bride refers to the 'true church'.

<O:p</O:pHowever, this is all due to speculation, for no-one knows the meaning of the prophecies. It is, as always, open to speculation.

[bupanishad2012]

Preterism is the belief that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Christian New Testament/Brit Chadassah, have already come to pass, completely.

Put forward in the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, Preterism attempted to destroy Protestant Historicism's credibility, and hence their claim that the Papacy is Antichrist throughout the ages.

Preterists, those who believe in Preterism, believe that the fall of Rome</ST1:p four hundred and six years later, fulfils the prophecies of the Book of Revelation. This view can be seen to be anti-Jewish, but this is not necessarily the case with all Preterists.

The two churches, the Whore (of Babylon</ST1:p) and Bride (of Jesus/Yeshuah), are equated to Roman Paganism and Roman Catholicism respectively. This is completely at odds with Protestantism, which believes the Whore refers to the Papacy and the Bride refers to the 'true church'.

<O:p</O:pHowever, this is all due to speculation, for no-one knows the meaning of the prophecies. It is, as always, open to speculation.
I must be VERY dense! This makes me, to quote "Alice in Wonderland,"
" . . . curiouser and curiouser." I know the ACC holds a sedevancantist doctrine of the Papacy, but I fail to see how St. Arius's doctrine fits into "End Times" prophecy (which I usually associate with some form of Protestantism). But, I'm learning; I'm learning! Don't give up on me!

[David Kone]

:jlol: Alice and I have been traveling together for some time in mutual wonderment. By the way what is sedevancantist mean?

[Danage]

What does 'sedevancantist' mean?

[bupanishad2012]

What does 'sedevancantist' mean?
It means that no lawful Pope with authority sits or has set on the throne of Peter for some period of time. To declare that the Papacy had no valid Pope for any length of time is "sedevacantist." (I just learned that within the last few days myself. The Society of Pope St. Pius V---SSPV--- is sedevacantist, as is the ACC.)

[Danage]

Thank you.

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Sedevacant means literally "The Seat is Vacant!" The Roman Catholics usually apply this to the seat of St Peter being that of the Pope, but it can also be applied to any Bishop's seat!
:reveek:
The ACC is NOT Sedevacant as the seat of the patriarchate is filled! The idea of a Pope (taken from "papa" = father) is actually a Roman invention, however according to Roman Catholic's own canon laws their Papal seat is Sedevacant!:krazz:

See: http://arian-catholic.org/arian/vatican2heresy.html

Kind regards,
in the Grace of our Father through Immanuel,

[Matt2817]

Sedevacant means literally "The Seat is Vacant!" The Roman Catholics usually apply this to the seat of St Peter being that of the Pope, but it can also be applied to any Bishop's seat!
:reveek:
The ACC is NOT Sedevacant as the seat of the patriarchate is filled! The idea of a Pope (taken from "papa" = father) is actually a Roman invention, however according to Roman Catholic's own canon laws their Papal seat is Sedevacant!:krazz:

See: http://arian-catholic.org/arian/vatican2heresy.html

Kind regards,
in the Grace of our Father through Immanuel,

Esteemed brother, grace and peace be with you and this communion!

I have read with much interest your post and link. We are in concurance that Since John XXIII; Paul VI. et al, RCC canon law would preclude a legitimate bishop of the see of Rome.

All the same, these canons are little known outside the walls of Vatican City. In fact, they have no bearing outside an ecclesial court. Who among Canon lawyers would dare bring charges against a sitting pontif?

It has been left to diligent students to find the charges of impeachment. Few have stepped forward. Fr Malachi Martin is one notable example. The Society of St Pius is the only example that comes immediately to mind.

Your Grace, I ask this next question in all humility and will preface it by writing, The catholic imperative of Apostolic Succession is understood as necessary for the effectual confection of legitimate sacraments. With this in mind, could you please direct me to your valid pedigree? I thank you in advance. I look forward to your reply.

In blessing, bless
_____________________________

+Wayne Matthew Mari, SM, OSAR
Consecrated Vocational Hermit
DD, D.Met, MDiv, MA Spiritual Formation/Direction,
BA Christian Ministry, BTh Religious Studies, LTh.
Presbyter General, Epiphany Hermitage

[LeviathanNI]

I hate to be dense, but just what is "preterism" and how does it relate to the Arian Catholic Church?

Mate, worry not, as I just read most of the time, and hit the internet trying to get a grasp of the discussion. :krazz:

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Dear Wayne,

I have read with much interest your post and link. We are in concurrence that Since John XXIII; Paul VI. et al, RCC canon law would preclude a legitimate bishop of the see of Rome.

All the same, these canons are little known outside the walls of Vatican City. In fact, they have no bearing outside an ecclesial court. Who among Canon lawyers would dare bring charges against a sitting pontiff?

It has been left to diligent students to find the charges of impeachment. Few have stepped forward. Fr Malachi Martin is one notable example. The Society of St Pius is the only example that comes immediately to mind.

I understand that there is fear in the Vatican harboured by Clergy who dare not step out of line. There are stories of Bishops who voiced their complaints being found dead in the Vatican car park having suffered a mysterious heart attack and others being committed to psychiatric institutions! The solution would be for Bishops to leave or retire from the Vatican and either become independent or join us, however most of them have pensions and other commitments tied to the Roman church preventing them from doing so. However I am grateful that some offer us their quiet support.

...The catholic imperative of Apostolic Succession is understood as necessary for the effectual confection of legitimate sacraments. With this in mind, could you please direct me to your valid pedigree? ...

Apostolic descent of the Gift of the Holy Spirit

Thank you for your respectful enquiry, although this is straying off the topic you have touched on an important topic which I shall address in more detail in a new thread. I would be pleased to provide you with the details of my Apostolic pedigree as best I can although I must guard the identity of Bishops whom still have commitments (e.g. pension, stipendiary, Honorary Assistant Bishop &c) for which the revelation of their support for Arianism could cause a problem, however this is definitely something that I will need to have compiled and published eventually.

My Apostolic pedigree through my consecration links to the Anglican See of Canterbury, which itself leads to the See of Rome and the Orthodox Sees of Antioch and Constantinople, and through the assistant Bishops links again to the See of Rome. These lineages are well documented and converge several times throughout history.

<Link to be added later.>

Blessings, in the grace of our Father, through Immanuel,

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Dear Jason,

Do we know if any Arians espoused the Preterist theory? Does the ACC today accept preterism in any form?

The early Church had a distinct Premillenialist belief, which was ruled to be heresy by Rome in the fourth century. The Arian Catholic Church has awakened to the partial fallibility of the scriptures and especially of the manuscripts that have conveyed their messages, and the metaphoric language used in the books of the bible such as Genesis, Daniel, Matthew, 1 Thessolonians and the Apocalypse (Revelation), they are not as far fetched as one might believe when account is taken of their true meaning through their metaphores.

For example it could be argued that the first day of creation lasted 15 × 10<SUP>-33</SUP> of a second, and that the second day of creation lasted about 9.35 Billion years. The 1,000 years referred to by John (in Revelations 20:1-10) could simply mean a long time that exceeds living memory. The timings given in the bible mean different things to different authors and seldom can be taken literally.

We accept that most prophecies have both a short term and a long term outcome and while the book of Revelation refers to the time of Nero and the masacre of the Jews (Preterism), it also refers to a future time when Christian (Messianic) Jews return to Israel (Millenarianism). Many Messianics believe in a literal 7000 year period for the human history of the world, with a Messianic Millennial Sabbath Kingdom before a final judgment.

However, I always advise caution with prophecies as in all truth no one is 100% sure as to what they really mean and up until now, when a prophecy is fulfilled it isn't until after the event when people begin to realise what has happened.

Blessings in the grace of our Father, through Immanuel,

[Danage]

I believe that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters that the prophecies of the holy books of Judaism and Christianity were not open to private interpretation. This leads to the obvious statement:

Let the symbols interpret themselves.

This means that if you wish to know what a symbol means find a (fulfilled) prophecy where the symbol is mentioned and then take the symbolism of that prophecy and apply it to the (perhaps unfulfilled) prophecy you wished an explanation for.

E.g. The symbol of the Eagle in the prophecies of Daniel refers to the power of Rome. Let's say there is a prophecy concerning a return of the Eagle. If we look at the Book of Daniel the Eagle is Rome, hence a return of the Eagle is to be interpreted as a return of the power of Rome (This 'prophecy' is fabricated, and while the Eagle means Rome in the Book of Daniel the second rise of Rome was not a neccessary prophecy, despite the fact it did happen (the rise of the Papacy)).

[Postulare42]

QUOTE: "...I believe that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters that the prophecies of the holy books of Judaism and Christianity were not open to private interpretation..."
__________________________________________________ _________


Where ?

[Danage]

QUOTE: "...I believe that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters that the prophecies of the holy books of Judaism and Christianity were not open to private interpretation..."
__________________________________________________ _________


Where ?
Here is where it is: The Second Letter to Peter 1: 20
"no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation"

[Postulare42]

I believe that should read "...OF..." rather than "...TO..." .

Of course, Peter was never wrong . . . :jlol: . . . and the councils which codified and canonized the official NT were also never wrong . . . :jlol:

[Matt2817]

Your Grace,

I most humble apologise for being away from this forum for the past few months, and thus unable to respond to your Grace's reply to my above post.

Thank your for the "broad brush" with which your Grace has pointed me. I can fully appreciate the need for an element of confidentiality. My inquiry was not to point fingers at those of our brethren who hold trintarian allegiances. It was more in the vein of establishing a link of trustworthiness to this jurisidiction. I mean here, no disrespect, Your Grace. It is only that during my pilgrimage, I have seen many jurisdictions of Independent Catholics come and go. Sadly, I must admit, that even my original ordaining body, The Independent Catholic Union, under ++Bruce Campbell has met such a fate.

I appreciate your answer and look forward to being able to read your lineage once it is made available.

Yours, in Christ's love, I remain
____________________________
+Wayne Matthew Mari, S.M., OSAR
Consecrated Vocational Hermit
DD, D.Met, MDiv, MA Spiritual Formation/Direction,
BA Christian Ministry, BTh Religious Studies, LTh.
Presbyter General, Epiphany Hermitage

[Danage]

Esteemed brother, grace and peace be with you and this communion!

I have read with much interest your post and link. We are in concurance that Since John XXIII; Paul VI. et al, RCC canon law would preclude a legitimate bishop of the see of Rome.

All the same, these canons are little known outside the walls of Vatican City. In fact, they have no bearing outside an ecclesial court. Who among Canon lawyers would dare bring charges against a sitting pontif?

It has been left to diligent students to find the charges of impeachment. Few have stepped forward. Fr Malachi Martin is one notable example. The Society of St Pius is the only example that comes immediately to mind.

Your Grace, I ask this next question in all humility and will preface it by writing, The catholic imperative of Apostolic Succession is understood as necessary for the effectual confection of legitimate sacraments. With this in mind, could you please direct me to your valid pedigree? I thank you in advance. I look forward to your reply.

In blessing, bless
_____________________________

+Wayne Matthew Mari, SM, OSAR
Consecrated Vocational Hermit
DD, D.Met, MDiv, MA Spiritual Formation/Direction,
BA Christian Ministry, BTh Religious Studies, LTh.
Presbyter General, Epiphany Hermitage


I must ask this, and do apologise if it comes across as insulting (for it is not my intention) but:

To have a Roman Catholic see in Rome before even the Second Council of the Vatican would surely be illegitimate, and besides the true leaders of the Church would surely wish headquarters in Jerusalem or New Jerusalem (some speculate the USA (New JerUSAlem), Great Britain (due to the prophecies and promises concerning the rise of the Davidic Line in Europe (the line that shall never be disinherited - e.g. any current monarchs could fit this description), and the promise that in the C19th Abraham's seed shall rule Earth (the European Empires, or possibly just the British Empire would most likely be a fulfillment of the promises), and bring benefit to Earth (alright slavery was completely wrong, I will admit (despite the Biblical slavery laws of ancient Israel), but the Bible was brought to millions of people))?

Where New Jerusalem is (if it exists at this time) is open to speculation, off course.

[Matt2817]

I must ask this, and do apologise if it comes across as insulting (for it is not my intention) but:

To have a Roman Catholic see in Rome before even the Second Council of the Vatican would surely be illegitimate, and besides the true leaders of the Church would surely wish headquarters in Jerusalem or New Jerusalem (some speculate the USA (New JerUSAlem), Great Britain (due to the prophecies and promises concerning the rise of the Davidic Line in Europe (the line that shall never be disinherited - e.g. any current monarchs could fit this description), and the promise that in the C19th Abraham's seed shall rule Earth (the European Empires, or possibly just the British Empire would most likely be a fulfillment of the promises), and bring benefit to Earth (alright slavery was completely wrong, I will admit (despite the Biblical slavery laws of ancient Israel), but the Bible was brought to millions of people))? Where New Jerusalem is (if it exists at this time) is open to speculation, off course.

Esteemed Danage, grace and peace be with you.

Since you quoted me in your post, I thought it appropriate that I should answer you with all courtesy and comfort.

According to ancient ecclesial history, there were five Sees.

The Church gradually spread through the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) and outside it gaining major establishments in cities such as Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem), Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch), and Edessa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edessa%2C_Mesopotamia).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-11)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-12)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-13)</SUP> Christianity became a widely persecuted religion, hated by the Jewish authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Jews) as a heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy), and by the Roman authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans) because, like Judaism, its monotheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism) teachings were fundamentally foreign to the traditions of the ancient world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism), as well as a challenge to the imperial cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-14>[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-14)</SUP> Despite this the Church grew rapidly until finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Galerius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerius) and Constantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great) in the fourth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_century). A major controversy as the Church was being formalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council) was the Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) vs. Trinitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism) debate which occupied the Church during the fourth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_century).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-15>[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-15)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-16>[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-16)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-CONSTANTINE_AND_THE_CHRISTIAN_STATE_1>[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-CONSTANTINE_AND_THE_CHRISTIAN_STATE)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
After various Church councils (Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea), Tyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Tyre), Rimini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rimini), Seleucia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Seleucia), Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople), etc.), the matter was effectively settled by the Trinitarian Emperor Theodosius I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I) who made Christianity the state religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) (some Germanic tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples), though, remained Arian well into the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages)).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-17>[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-17)</SUP> This period would begin the long-term persecution of pagans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan) and "heretical" Christians in the Empire and the kingdoms that followed.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-18>[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-18)</SUP>

The Church of the Roman Empire was divided into Patriarchal Sees with five holding particular prominence, (emphasis mine) one in the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire) (Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome)), and the rest in the East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire) (Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople), Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem), Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch), and Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria)). The bishops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) of these five would become the Patriarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy) of the Church.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-19>[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-19)</SUP> Even after the split of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Tetrarchy_.28285.E2.80.93324.29_and_C onstantine_I_.28324.E2.80.93337.29) the Church remained a relatively united institution (excluding Oriental Orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy) and some other groups which separated from the rest of the Church earlier). The Church came to be a central and defining institution of the Empire, especially in the East. In particular, Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople) would come to be seen as the center of the Christian world, owing in great part to its economic and political power.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-20>[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-20)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-21>[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-21)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>That there were these five historical bishoprics that were considered ecclesiastically equal is without question. In fact, there were many "sees" established throughout the cities, provinces, and rural areas across the Roman empire. But owing to the fact the above five were the originals, these historically gained a pre-eminence; Rome as the political seat of power, was granted the designation of </SUP><SUP>"First among equals." Primus inter pares. This designation was not due to any Judeo-Christian precendent. Rather it was on account of the usurption of the state (Roman empire) of Constantine via the Nicean Council.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>In fact, Jerusalem would have been the "first" see. This you accurately ascribed. All the same, saying/writing that to have a Roman Catholic See in Rome even before the Second Vatican Council would surely be illigitimate would be contrary to the historical record. Corrupt as it is/was, the fact remains that Rome was among the original five bishoprics of the church.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>><><><</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>Your allusion to what has been commonly called the "Identity Movement" or British/Israelism, is not to remain unchallenged. By this, I mean to reference your statement: </SUP>
(some speculate the USA (New JerUSAlem), Great Britain (due to the prophecies and promises concerning the rise of the Davidic Line in Europe (the line that shall never be disinherited - e.g. any current monarchs could fit this description), and the promise that in the C19th Abraham's seed shall rule Earth (the European Empires, or possibly just the British Empire would most likely be a fulfillment of the promises), and bring benefit to Earth [...]

Please see HERE (http://www.americanreligion.org/cultwtch/identity.html)

I would encourage a more detailed study of this topic, and would encourage a seperate thread for a more detailed discussion.

It is my hope that something written here is useful.

In blessings, bless,

Yours, in Christ's love, i remain,

Wayne Matthew Mari, S.M.

[Danage]

Esteemed Danage, grace and peace be with you.

Since you quoted me in your post, I thought it appropriate that I should answer you with all courtesy and comfort.

According to ancient ecclesial history, there were five Sees.

The Church gradually spread through the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) and outside it gaining major establishments in cities such as Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem), Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch), and Edessa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edessa%2C_Mesopotamia).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-11)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-12)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-13)</SUP> Christianity became a widely persecuted religion, hated by the Jewish authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Jews) as a heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy), and by the Roman authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans) because, like Judaism, its monotheistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism) teachings were fundamentally foreign to the traditions of the ancient world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism), as well as a challenge to the imperial cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-14>[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-14)</SUP> Despite this the Church grew rapidly until finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Galerius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerius) and Constantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great) in the fourth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_century). A major controversy as the Church was being formalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council) was the Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) vs. Trinitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism) debate which occupied the Church during the fourth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_century).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-15>[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-15)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-16>[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-16)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-CONSTANTINE_AND_THE_CHRISTIAN_STATE_1>[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-CONSTANTINE_AND_THE_CHRISTIAN_STATE)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
After various Church councils (Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea), Tyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Tyre), Rimini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rimini), Seleucia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Seleucia), Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople), etc.), the matter was effectively settled by the Trinitarian Emperor Theodosius I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I) who made Christianity the state religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) (some Germanic tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples), though, remained Arian well into the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages)).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-17>[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-17)</SUP> This period would begin the long-term persecution of pagans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan) and "heretical" Christians in the Empire and the kingdoms that followed.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-18>[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-18)</SUP>

The Church of the Roman Empire was divided into Patriarchal Sees with five holding particular prominence, (emphasis mine) one in the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire) (Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome)), and the rest in the East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Roman_Empire) (Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople), Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem), Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch), and Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria)). The bishops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) of these five would become the Patriarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy) of the Church.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-19>[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-19)</SUP> Even after the split of the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Tetrarchy_.28285.E2.80.93324.29_and_C onstantine_I_.28324.E2.80.93337.29) the Church remained a relatively united institution (excluding Oriental Orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy) and some other groups which separated from the rest of the Church earlier). The Church came to be a central and defining institution of the Empire, especially in the East. In particular, Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople) would come to be seen as the center of the Christian world, owing in great part to its economic and political power.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-20>[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-20)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-21>[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church#_note-21)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church)</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>That there were these five historical bishoprics that were considered ecclesiastically equal is without question. In fact, there were many "sees" established throughout the cities, provinces, and rural areas across the Roman empire. But owing to the fact the above five were the originals, these historically gained a pre-eminence; Rome as the political seat of power, was granted the designation of </SUP><SUP>"First among equals." Primus inter pares. This designation was not due to any Judeo-Christian precendent. Rather it was on account of the usurption of the state (Roman empire) of Constantine via the Nicean Council.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>In fact, Jerusalem would have been the "first" see. This you accurately ascribed. All the same, saying/writing that to have a Roman Catholic See in Rome even before the Second Vatican Council would surely be illigitimate would be contrary to the historical record. Corrupt as it is/was, the fact remains that Rome was among the original five bishoprics of the church.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>><><><</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>Your allusion to what has been commonly called the "Identity Movement" or British/Israelism, is not to remain unchallenged. By this, I mean to reference your statement: </SUP>
(some speculate the USA (New JerUSAlem), Great Britain (due to the prophecies and promises concerning the rise of the Davidic Line in Europe (the line that shall never be disinherited - e.g. any current monarchs could fit this description), and the promise that in the C19th Abraham's seed shall rule Earth (the European Empires, or possibly just the British Empire would most likely be a fulfillment of the promises), and bring benefit to Earth [...]

Please see HERE (http://www.americanreligion.org/cultwtch/identity.html)

I would encourage a more detailed study of this topic, and would encourage a seperate thread for a more detailed discussion.

It is my hope that something written here is useful.

In blessings, bless,

Yours, in Christ's love, i remain,

Wayne Matthew Mari, S.M.

Thank you for replying. I was aware of five sees, but could only remember Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome, and not Antioch or Alexandria. The whole idea of putting a see in Jerusalem is obvious, and an Arian bishop in Alexandria would also be a logical choice. Rome, however, despite being one of the original five sees was and is heavily corrupted due to past Imperial influence (from the Roman Empire and Empires). The same for Constantinople. Antioch I'm not so sure on though.

Having a see in the former Roman capital (of the empire described in Daniel as making war against the saints (possibly also the RCC as well) and conquering the former Babylonian, Persian and Grecian Empires) would sound contradictory.

Despite being one of the sees it is in Rome that the Pope sits, it is within Rome that the Roman Empire had designs on conquering the world, it is within Rome where Constantine first thought of corrupting Christianity, it is where Trinitarianism came out of etc. The city of Rome is essentially a city whose history is written in blood (war, invasions both within and without, papal persecutions, martyrs, religious wars, crusades and the like).

Constantinople was the richest city on Earth for many centuries (all trade from West to East and back went through the city for generations), but only in material wealth (not spiritual).

Antioch I'm not so sure about.

Jerusalem - her reasons are obvious.

New Jerusalem - as you said a longer discussion is needed.

Alexandria is where Arius hailed from, the defender of the Lord being one, and a fervent opponent of Rome's Trinitarianism.

[Postulare42]

"Danage",

For more data, check :

http://www.orthodoxforum.com/

Watchout, though. These people don't know the meaning of the word "tolerance". Use "street smarts". Ask questions, but don't debate.

Especially be cautious around "Parascheva1014" (moderator and a pentecostal convert, she thinks she's the font of all holy correctness, and though she is frequently corrected by the occasional priest . . .she never acknowledges it) and "Lover of Monasticism" (a real study in religio-fascism). "macacic" is a relative moderate.

With these caveats, the site can be informative and useful for sources and other links. Be sure to take the opportunity to study these people. Listening to some of them, no wonder Russia stayed backward, and the Balkans self-destructed !!! Gads! No wonder the Leninists were anti-religion! The Romans haven't been THAT bad in well over a century.

"It's not fascism if WE do it!" :jlol:

[Danage]

Russia was backwards thinking because of the Tsars of Russia and the Balkans have for a long time been an area of unrest. I will look on the message board you provided a link for though.

[Danage]

Most of the Eastern Orthodox on there seem to come from the USA, and from what I can tell they have many Eastern Orthodox doubting their faith, or parts of it. They rebuke all other forms of Christianity utterly, including those who are on a part of their forums.

[Postulare42]

Yes, they are mostly American...and if that teaching can do that to "rebellious", "individualistic", etc Americans !! Whew! Talk about "Sister Mary Holier-Than-Thou" !

Under the Csarist Orthodoxy, the Czar (or Caesar) was believed to be the inheritor of the Byzantine Tradition and Head of the Church, and with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, the inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire...hence the double-headed eagle in the heraldry (East and West). Peter the Great had to move the capitol and almost crush the church to modernise even a portion of the country. The vast majority were property of the Czar, and taught to be so by their priesthood because the Czar was the "anointed of God" and a "living icon" for their veneration. They were kept illiterate and near starvation, and taught that it was God's punishment for their sins. Sound familiar? Kinda like Europe for far too long, huh?

With regards to the Balkans, one might rightly ask the question of the orthodox thought system, "what is it about your teaching that helped to create the history we've all read about...anti-semitism, ethnic cleansing, etc." Consider the links between how they are taught, what they believe and the way they think, and onward to how they apply these.


INRE the website, if you look at the Enquirer's section (the only place you can post as a non-EOC) you will see a more didactic and catechetical approach applied to non-adherents. The other sections, for EOC membership is only apparently doubtful about their subject matter. Many of them are seminarians hacking their way through the rats nest and tangle that is orthodox "theology". The EOC does not have a true theological tradition.

Have fun, but watchout for the landmines, of which there are many. It takes a while to discover where they are.:jlol:

[Danage]

Sedevacant means literally "The Seat is Vacant!" The Roman Catholics usually apply this to the seat of St Peter being that of the Pope, but it can also be applied to any Bishop's seat!
:reveek:
The ACC is NOT Sedevacant as the seat of the patriarchate is filled! The idea of a Pope (taken from "papa" = father) is actually a Roman invention, however according to Roman Catholic's own canon laws their Papal seat is Sedevacant!:krazz:

See: http://arian-catholic.org/arian/vatican2heresy.html

Kind regards,
in the Grace of our Father through Immanuel,


Surely the true head of the church is Jesus/Yeshuah, thus the seat has been filled since Christianity began? The 'Vatican II Heresy' must surely also be applied to the entire Roman Catholic Church and the churches of Christendom?

[Danage]

Surely the true head of the church is Jesus/Yeshuah, thus the seat has been filled since Christianity began? The 'Vatican II Heresy' must surely also be applied to the entire Roman Catholic Church and the churches of Christendom?

I suppose the church does need a physical head, a physical leader, with them being subservient to the one true G-d, who is the real leader and meta-physical leader of the Church.

[Yochanan]

I will translate directly from the Greek, as from the Aramaic, the texte of II John 1: 19 to 21. « And we have more firm the prphetic word to well doing taking heed as to a lamp shining in a murky place untill day downs and daystar rises in the hearts of you; this firstly knowing that every prophecy of scripture of own solution not becomes; for not by will of man was borne prophecy at any time but by Spirit (the) Holy being borne from God to men. »
So, 'Private Interpretation' does not mean only of one person but also by the will of a group of persons. I. e: the number is not relevant but the pre-disposition of one or each person.
The prophecy is a lamp but a lamp to shine needs to be polish, must to be well clean for the light came out in a more clear way. Of course that the light will never shine in is complete totality, at least for now.
So, if the light shines, if the pure in us grows, without one or a group knows, repently the interpretation appears not by man but by the Spirit the Holy.
Now, philologicaly: I have gave you an example of direst translation allways accomplishing the grammatical rules. But what hapens when you read the text above? You will observe a style like a telegraphic one. All Bible is writed in this way: subject, verb, complent, atributs ... and ... stop. Lots of times the complement is deductible so it not appears and, in Aramaic like in Hebrew, sometimes the verb already contains the subject.
Impossible to understand? Not at all, it is just a propose for develop the mind working this way.
This way and from the text of I John we can observe the great qualities that we must develop inner us for our interpretation - the interpretation that comes out of our mouth -, never more be ours but from the Holy Spirit.
Personally and since long years, I think and even I assume the Prophecy has a measure of my achievments. But all what I achieve even this is not by my will but by the power of the Almighty God.
I hope I will put this correctly hahahahaha any mistake, please, advise me because I am new at this Forums of any kind.

[Danage]

Preterism is the belief that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Christian New Testament/Brit Chadassah, have already come to pass, completely.

Put forward during the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, Preterism attempted to destroy Protestant Historicism's credibility, and hence their claim that the Papacy is Antichrist throughout the ages.

Preterists, those who believe in Preterism, believe that the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and the fall of Rome four hundred and six years later, fulfils the prophecies of the Book of Revelation. This view can be seen to be anti-Jewish, but this is not necessarily the case with all Preterists.

The two churches, the Whore (of Babylon) and Bride (of Jesus/Yeshuah), are equated to Roman Paganism and Roman Catholicism respectively. This is completely at odds with Protestantism, which believes the Whore refers to the Papacy and the Bride refers to the 'true church'.

However, this is all due to speculation, for no-one knows the meaning of the prophecies. It is, as always, open to speculation.

Sorry, I didn't know how the emoticon got into the text, for it was not my intention.

[Danage]

Under the Csarist Orthodoxy, the Czar (or Caesar) was believed to be the inheritor of the Byzantine Tradition and Head of the Church, and with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, the inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire...hence the double-headed eagle in the heraldry (East and West).

As an aside, the Tsar wasn't the only monarch to have the double-headed eagle as his standard, and while Moscow (and perhaps Saint Petersburg (or Petrograd as it was known during World War I)), as you noted, was regarded as the third Rome, the double-headed eagle was also an icon of the German Kaiser, the Austrian (and subsequently Austro-Hungarian) Kaiser and the Ottoman Sultan.

[Postulare42]

The double-headed eagle has also been assumed by Albania. I don't know why either Albania or the Ottomans assumed that symbol, but the German/Austrian use was do their status a "holy" Roman empires at one time or another.

Petrograd is once again the proper name, after a brief hiatus splashed with Lenin's name.

[Danage]

The double-headed eagle has also been assumed by Albania. I don't know why either Albania or the Ottomans assumed that symbol, but the German/Austrian use was do their status a "holy" Roman empires at one time or another.

Petrograd is once again the proper name, after a brief hiatus splashed with Lenin's name.

Oh yes, I forgot about Albania, and the link between the Holy Roman Empire, and Prussia and Austria is obvious, considering that the Austrian Emperors were originally Kaisers of the Holy Roman Empire.

I also thought that the citizens of Saint Petersburg (called Leningrad at the time) had voted to restore the essentially German name to the city. The city was only called Petrograd during World War I when the Tsar was trying to distance himself from his German enemy, despite the fact that his wife was German.

[Postulare42]

The "Romanov" after Big Petey were mostly of German descent, only lightly intermarried with Rus. European "royalty" are all related, sometimes quite nearly incestuously. lol. Hmmm. Maybe the double headed eagle should be viewed as an unintended joke.
:jlol:

[Danage]

The "Romanov" after Big Petey were mostly of German descent, only lightly intermarried with Rus. European "royalty" are all related, sometimes quite nearly incestuously. lol. Hmmm. Maybe the double headed eagle should be viewed as an unintended joke.
:jlol:

They did, and still do, intermarry quite a lot. I think this tradition was started by Queen Victoria, although she stated that the Habsburgs, themselves represented by a double-headed eagle, were of lesser blood than the other royals, and so she banned anyone of her family from marrying the Habsburgs.

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

QUOTE: "...I believe that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters that the prophecies of the holy books of Judaism and Christianity were not open to private interpretation..."
__________________________________________________ _________


Where ?


2 Peter 1:19-21

"19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit."

As in all prophetic subjects in the scriptures the focus here in the context is the "Holy Spirit." This is the "more sure word of prophecy" mentioned. The "light." (Yahshua said "I am the light of the world" and he also said "you are the light of the world" and I most definitely believe that this light is the same light described in the Gospel of John 1: 7-9). Which explains why the apostates cannot grasp how Yahshua is the "light" yet is not "God incarnate" because they cannot understand the Spirit.

The apostle Paul told the Corinthian church that we preach the wisdom that God teaches "comparing spiritual things to spiritual."

The Torah says "let the spirit of the prophet be subject unto the prophets." In our current age (now that the true light has come forth), we are all given the spirit of prophecy (The Holy Spirit). The same unction and inspiration that gave birth to the prophecies and yes all the scriptures now dwells in us bodily (yet another thing the trinitarians call heresy for obvious reasons). We have the word "written in our hearts and in our minds" through the New Covenant.

Thus there remains the promise that the prophecies and the mysteries and the parables will be available for us to understand but not those who deny the Spirit. (Christ in you, the hope of Glory).

Luke 8: 10

"10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

Messiah Yahshua drove home the vital importance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (as a result of the cross) in John chapters 15 through 18. Stating in one place, "it is absolultely necessary (expedient) for you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter shall not come to you." He then said that the Comforter would show us "things to come" and "bring to your remembrance every word I have spoken to you."

Those caught in the apostacy call this heresy (for only their Christ has this special unction). I have been banned from Christian forums all over the internet for preaching it, and yet, it is the very purpose of the cross of Christ!

This ultimately is why prophecy in scripture cannot have any "private" interpretation for he who interprets must rely on the Holy Spirit which comes directly from God the Father, and God the Father cannot lie and cannot contradict Himself!

Does this mean we won't have disagreements concerning matters of escatology? Of course not. Yet, the prophecies speak of a specific matter, I believe, and all else is conjecture and speculation (which is very fine to do, as long as we recognize that which is conjecture and that which is God breathed in us).

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

QUOTE: "...I believe that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters that the prophecies of the holy books of Judaism and Christianity were not open to private interpretation..."
__________________________________________________ _________


Where ?


2 Peter 1:19-21

"19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit."

As in all prophetic subjects in the scriptures the focus here in the context is the "Holy Spirit." This is the "more sure word of prophecy" mentioned. The "light." (Yahshua said "I am the light of the world" and he also said "you are the light of the world" and I most definitely believe that this light is the same light described in the Gospel of John 1: 7-9). Which explains why the apostates cannot grasp how Yahshua is the "light" yet is not "God incarnate" because they cannot understand the Spirit.

The apostle Paul told the Corinthian church that we preach the wisdom that God teaches "comparing spiritual things to spiritual."

The Torah says "let the spirit of the prophet be subject unto the prophets." In our current age (now that the true light has come forth), we are all given the spirit of prophecy (The Holy Spirit). The same unction and inspiration that gave birth to the prophecies and yes all the scriptures now dwells in us bodily (yet another thing the trinitarians call heresy for obvious reasons). We have the word "written in our hearts and in our minds" through the New Covenant.

Thus there remains the promise that the prophecies and the mysteries and the parables will be available for us to understand but not those who deny the Spirit. (Christ in you, the hope of Glory).

Luke 8: 10

"10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

Messiah Yahshua drove home the vital importance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (as a result of the cross) in John chapters 15 through 18. Stating in one place, "it is absolultely necessary (expedient) for you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter shall not come to you." He then said that the Comforter would show us "things to come" and "bring to your remembrance every word I have spoken to you."

Those caught in the apostacy call this heresy (for only their Christ has this special unction). I have been banned from Christian forums all over the internet for preaching it, and yet, it is the very purpose of the cross of Christ!

This ultimately is why prophecy in scripture cannot have any "private" interpretation for he who interprets must rely on the Holy Spirit which comes directly from God the Father, and God the Father cannot lie and cannot contradict Himself!

Does this mean we won't have disagreements concerning matters of escatology? Of course not. Yet, the prophecies speak of a specific matter, I believe, and all else is conjecture and speculation (which is very fine to do, as long as we recognize that which is conjecture and that which is God breathed in us).

[Postulare42]

Yes, it WAS Cephas not Saul who said that.

He was one of the leaders of the new school of prophets established by Yeshua.

For me, Saul was a heretic. Arguments citing him carry no weight . . . except where (and only where) he agrees with the writings of the apostles.

That said, your point?

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Yes, it WAS Cephas not Saul who said that.

He was one of the leaders of the new school of prophets established by Yeshua.

For me, Saul was a heretic. Arguments citing him carry no weight . . . except where (and only where) he agrees with the writings of the apostles.

That said, your point?

I thought the point was clear.

So I infer, therefore, that to you 80 percent of the New Testament of the Bible is heresy? (for 80 percent is attributed to Saul)

[Postulare42]

More accurate to say that 80% was written by (or ascribed to) a heretic. Not all that he wrote was heretical, but much not only tended in that direction but later bore the full fruit of it.

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

More accurate to say that 80% was written by (or ascribed to) a heretic. Not all that he wrote was heretical, but much not only tended in that direction but later bore the full fruit of it.

Can you please give some examples? I'm not aware of it.

Thank you.

[Postulare42]

We could perhaps continue this in the Saul/Paul thread?

[Danage]

However, I always advise caution with prophecies as in all truth no one is 100% sure as to what they really mean and up until now, when a prophecy is fulfilled it isn't until after the event when people begin to realise what has happened.

I agree completely. Prophecy is generally only understood after it has come to pass. I might note that John 14:29 says, iirc 'I have told ye what is to come to pass, that when it come to pass, ye might believe'. It goes something along those lines. I use the archaic language of the AV because I use the AV more for serious study, more specifically the one his Grace gave me for my baptism, of which I am exceedingly grateful for.