The Prophecies of Daniel

[Acts6:5]

Although those Wikipedia entries nicely summarize the last years of the Heruli, Vandal, and Ostrogothic tribes, I fail to see any place where the papacy was credited with their demise. Was there something about those articles in particular that you felt was relevant besides general information?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

Although those Wikipedia entries nicely summarize the last years of the Heruli, Vandal, and Ostrogothic tribes, I fail to see any place where the papacy was credited with their demise. Was there something about those articles in particular that you felt was relevant besides general information?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

The Battle of Mons Lactarius (also known as Battle of the Vesuvius) took place in 553 during the Gothic War waged on behalf of Justinian I against the Ostrogoths in Italy. I do not know why you can not see the words Rome, Roman, Italy... And again the Roman empire was vast, and different nations served the Roman military for Rome also.

 

[Acts6:5]

The Battle of Mons Lactarius (also known as Battle of the Vesuvius) took place in 553 during the Gothic War waged on behalf of Justinian I against the Ostrogoths in Italy. I do not know why you can not see the words Rome, Roman, Italy

I see the words, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove exactly. Are you suggesting that the Bishop of the city of Rome was responsible for the destruction of tribes like the Vandals and the Ostrogoths simply because the Eastern Roman Empire’s military carried it out? If so, that doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

... And again the Roman empire was vast, and different nations served the Roman military for Rome also.

Different nations served the Eastern Roman Emperor during the fall of the three tribes, but those nations were not serving the city of Rome, let alone the city’s bishop.

Now, if you had originally picked the Longobards/Lombards as one of the three uprooted tribes, then you could have made a case that the papacy was partly responsible for their demise, since it is a well-established fact that the Roman See called in the Franks to save itself from the Longobards, and the Eastern Emperor played absolutely no part in it. But there is simply no evidence concerning any papal involvement in the fall of the Heruli, Vandals, or Ostrogoths, and all contemporary historians who wrote on the matter placed sole responsibility for the Vandals and Ostrogoths at the feet of the Byzantine emperors.

And BTW; when the Heruli kingdom was destroyed by the Longobards, both the Heruli kingdom and the Longobards were north of the Danube and outside of the empire, so at that point in time the Longobards were not serving the Roman military. They had been subjugated by the Heruli for several decades when they started an uprising early in the 6th Century and overtook Heruli lands. Usually when historicists talk about the destruction of the “Heruli†they are referring to Odoacer’s kingdom in Italy in 493AD, but as I explained to brakelite early in the thread, Odoacer’s kingdom was little more than a mixed band of mercenaries with representatives from several tribes, Heruls included.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

The Battle of Mons Lactarius (also known as Battle of the Vesuvius) took place in 553 during the Gothic War waged on behalf of Justinian I against the Ostrogoths in Italy. I do not know why you can not see the words Rome, Roman, Italy

I see the words, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove exactly. Are you suggesting that the Bishop of the city of Rome was responsible for the destruction of tribes like the Vandals and the Ostrogoths simply because the Eastern Roman Empire’s military carried it out? If so, that doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

... And again the Roman empire was vast, and different nations served the Roman military for Rome also.

Different nations served the Eastern Roman Emperor during the fall of the three tribes, but those nations were not serving the city of Rome, let alone the city’s bishop.

Now, if you had originally picked the Longobards/Lombards as one of the three uprooted tribes, then you could have made a case that the papacy was partly responsible for their demise, since it is a well-established fact that the Roman See called in the Franks to save itself from the Longobards, and the Eastern Emperor played absolutely no part in it. But there is simply no evidence concerning any papal involvement in the fall of the Heruli, Vandals, or Ostrogoths, and all contemporary historians who wrote on the matter placed sole responsibility for the Vandals and Ostrogoths at the feet of the Byzantine emperors.

And BTW; when the Heruli kingdom was destroyed by the Longobards, both the Heruli kingdom and the Longobards were north of the Danube and outside of the empire, so at that point in time the Longobards were not serving the Roman military. They had been subjugated by the Heruli for several decades when they started an uprising early in the 6th Century and overtook Heruli lands. Usually when historicists talk about the destruction of the “Heruli†they are referring to Odoacer’s kingdom in Italy in 493AD, but as I explained to brakelite early in the thread, Odoacer’s kingdom was little more than a mixed band of mercenaries with representatives from several tribes, Heruls included.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

And here all this time I thought the Lombards became the Italians. So you make it sound as if the Romans are responsible for nothing. So what do you believe?

 

[veteran]

It means a lot of the Historicist view does not align with God's Word.

 

[JudaicChristian]

It means a lot of the Historicist view does not align with God's Word.

Like every one says: History is written by the victorious. There was a time when it was against the law to have a bible in your possession, or history. I think it was some kind of Papal decree. Not sure. I bet the Adventist may know. Hey, any one here have any documentation about that?

 

[Acts6:5]

And here all this time I thought the Lombards became the Italians.

The Lombards were concentrated in the northern part of Italy, so there may be Italians with ancestrial ties to the ancient Lombards in certain Italian areas. Throughout the Middle Ages, Italy was occupied by the Franks, Normans, etc., so there are probably any number of bloodlines scattered throughout the penninsula. But most Italians are probably direct descendents of the ancient Romans, not the Lombards.

So you make it sound as if the Romans are responsible for nothing. So what do you believe?[/size]

The Eastern Roman emperors, like Zeno and Justinian, were very much responsible for the wars against Odovacer's kingdom, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. Those rulers conceived and executed the aforementioned conflicts in order to regain valuable portions of the Western Roman Empire, no question about that. So yes, "Romans" (ie: Eastern Romans) were indeed responsible for the destruction of those kingdoms....but not the bishop of the city of Rome. There is no historical evidence showing that the papacy was responsible for "uprooting" those kingdoms, and there is no evidence that the Roman See or the Byzantine emperor caused the Arian Lombards to overthrow their Heruli masters in a region that lay beyond the Empire's jurisdiction.

Now I realize that I certainly can't stop you or brakelite from believing that the pope was the evil puppet master who secretly pulled the strings of the Byzantine war machine and orchestrated the demise of the tribes from behind a curtain. You’ll probably believe this because you need the pope to fulfill Daniel 7:8 regardless of what I say. But I hope both of you at least recognize the difference between personal belief and historical verification, and that your viewpoint falls squarely into the former catagory.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

And here all this time I thought the Lombards became the Italians.

The Lombards were concentrated in the northern part of Italy, so there may be Italians with ancestrial ties to the ancient Lombards in certain Italian areas. Throughout the Middle Ages, Italy was occupied by the Franks, Normans, etc., so there are probably any number of bloodlines scattered throughout the penninsula. But most Italians are probably direct descendents of the ancient Romans, not the Lombards.

So you make it sound as if the Romans are responsible for nothing. So what do you believe?[/size]

The Eastern Roman emperors, like Zeno and Justinian, were very much responsible for the wars against Odovacer's kingdom, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. Those rulers conceived and executed the aforementioned conflicts in order to regain valuable portions of the Western Roman Empire, no question about that. So yes, "Romans" (ie: Eastern Romans) were indeed responsible for the destruction of those kingdoms....but not the bishop of the city of Rome. There is no historical evidence showing that the papacy was responsible for "uprooting" those kingdoms, and there is no evidence that the Roman See or the Byzantine emperor caused the Arian Lombards to overthrow their Heruli masters in a region that lay beyond the Empire's jurisdiction.

Now I realize that I certainly can't stop you or brakelite from believing that the pope was the evil puppet master who secretly pulled the strings of the Byzantine war machine and orchestrated the demise of the tribes from behind a curtain. You’ll probably believe this because you need the pope to fulfill Daniel 7:8 regardless of what I say. But I hope both of you at least recognize the difference between personal belief and historical verification, and that your viewpoint falls squarely into the former catagory.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

And so what leads you to believe the Papacy had no power over the Roman empire, and other governments.

 

[Acts6:5]

And so what leads you to believe the Papacy had no power over the Roman empire, and other governments.

During the time period that we are discussing (476-552AD) the papacy did not have power over the Roman Empire or over other governments. What leads you to believe the papacy had that power between the reigns of Zeno and Justinian? Can you provide examples?

The question that should really be asked is this; what leads you to believe the papacy was responsible for the uprooting of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths? What evidence do you have for this idea? So far I haven’t seen anything.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[parousia70]

And so what leads you to believe the Papacy had no power over the Roman empire, and other governments.

During the time period that we are discussing (476-552AD) the papacy did not have power over the Roman Empire or over other governments. What leads you to believe the papacy had that power between the reigns of Zeno and Justinian? Can you provide examples?

The question that should really be asked is this; what leads you to believe the papacy was responsible for the uprooting of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths? What evidence do you have for this idea? So far I haven’t seen anything.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

ACTS!...Howdy!
How've you been?
Nice to see you over here at the dot net!

 

[Acts6:5]

ACTS!...Howdy!
How've you been?
Nice to see you over here at the dot net!

Hey Parousia. It's been awhile.

 

[JudaicChristian]

And so what leads you to believe the Papacy had no power over the Roman empire, and other governments.

During the time period that we are discussing (476-552AD) the papacy did not have power over the Roman Empire or over other governments. What leads you to believe the papacy had that power between the reigns of Zeno and Justinian? Can you provide examples?

The question that should really be asked is this; what leads you to believe the papacy was responsible for the uprooting of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths? What evidence do you have for this idea? So far I haven’t seen anything.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Did the Roman Catholics ever cease to exist? There were two halves to the Roman empire, and only one side temporarily collapsed. historians mark 476 as the traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. In the East, the Empire continued until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Although known as the Byzantine Empire by contemporary historians, the empire was simply known as the Roman Empire to its citizens and neighboring countries. The fall of the Roman empire is a garbage can term used by a historian.

 

[Acts6:5]

Did the Roman Catholics ever cease to exist? There were two halves to the Roman empire, and only one side temporarily collapsed. historians mark 476 as the traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. In the East, the Empire continued until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Although known as the Byzantine Empire by contemporary historians, the empire was simply known as the Roman Empire to its citizens and neighboring countries. The fall of the Roman empire is a garbage can term used by a historian.

How does any of that answer the questions I raised in the previous post? What leads you to believe the papacy had power over the Roman Empire and other governments between the reigns of Zeno and Justinian? Can you provide examples? And what evidence do you have showing that the papacy was responsible for the uprooting of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths?

Whether Roman Catholics ceased to exist or not is immaterial; maybe you are under the impression that the 5th/6th Century papacy enjoyed the same rights and privedges as, say, a Gregory VII or an Innocent III, but that simply was not the case. Debating whether or not Odovacer's coup should be considered the "fall of Rome" has nothing to do with this particular discussion. You need to show that the papacy had power over the Eastern emperor, as well as other governments, after the "establishment" of the 10 tribes, which brakelite stated was around 476AD, and you need to give some kind of evidence that the papacy was responsible for uprooting three tribes.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

How does any of that answer the questions I raised in the previous post? What leads you to believe the papacy had power over the Roman Empire and other governments between the reigns of Zeno and Justinian? Can you provide examples? And what evidence do you have showing that the papacy was responsible for the uprooting of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths?

Whether Roman Catholics ceased to exist or not is immaterial; maybe you are under the impression that the 5th/6th Century papacy enjoyed the same rights and privedges as, say, a Gregory VII or an Innocent III, but that simply was not the case. Debating whether or not Odovacer's coup should be considered the "fall of Rome" has nothing to do with this particular discussion. You need to show that the papacy had power over the Eastern emperor, as well as other governments, after the "establishment" of the 10 tribes, which brakelite stated was around 476AD, and you need to give some kind of evidence that the papacy was responsible for uprooting three tribes.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Here is a time line of the Popes with some highlights in politics. http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/ortho ... ations.htm

 

[Acts6:5]

Here is a time line of the Popes with some highlights in politics.[/size] http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/ortho ... ations.htm

Right, but where specifically in the 5th/6th Century timeline is evidence that the papacy had power over the emperor and over other kingdoms? Where is the evidence that the papacy uprooted three tribes? Lets move away from generalities and get into specifics here.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

Here is a time line of the Popes with some highlights in politics.[/size] http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/ortho ... ations.htm

Right, but where specifically in the 5th/6th Century timeline is evidence that the papacy had power over the emperor and over other kingdoms? Where is the evidence that the papacy uprooted three tribes? Lets move away from generalities and get into specifics here.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Either you did not read it, or you chose to over look certain parts. I'm done talking to you.

 

[Vic C.]

MDO, maybe it was missed. I'm looking at the site and it would have been nice if you would have pin-pointed it for us, instead of making unfriendly comments.

Lets build one another up instead of cutting each other down.

Thanks.

 

[Acts6:5]

Either you did not read it, or you chose to over look certain parts.

Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid. I did read the article, and I was very familiar with most of the events mentioned in the 5th-6th Century timeline prior to our discussion. Now you suggested that I may have overlooked “certain partsâ€, but yet you did not bother telling me specifically what those “certain parts†were. If you truly believe that the information in the timeline makes your case, then you shouldn’t be leaving it up to me to guess what you’re talking about; the onus is on you to point to specific events in the papal timeline and to show me what I’m missing.

The only place in the timeline between 300-550AD that you could be referring to is the “recrowning†of emperor Justin by Pope John I in 526AD. But although it may have been an act of respect and rekindled unity between the East and West (after experiencing 35 years of division due to the Acacian Schism), it certainly was not an example of the pope exercising power over the emperor; Justin’s successor, Justinian, made it abundantly clear throughout his reign that the final authority in the Church was the imperial power, not the bishop of Rome, regardless of any deference or respect paid to the Roman See.

I'm done talking to you.

I think you’ve been done talking to me for a few posts now; foregoing answering any of my direct questions, while being content with giving me information that fails to address the specific points that were raised.

I really don’t think that at this point you are interested in engaging in a discussion involving specifics, and the reason I think that is because you probably haven’t taken the time to study papal or Roman history in great detail up to this point. If that is the case, I understand. So if you are unwilling or unable to provide historical evidence of the papacy’s responsibility in the fall of 3 barbarian kingdoms, or examples of the papacy exercising power over emperors and governments in the 5th-6th Centuries, then we really have nothing more to discuss. But if you change your mind I will be more than happy to carry on the discussion.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[JudaicChristian]

OK then, here is one example. 526 AD. "Pope John is praised by the Byzantines as the “successor of Peter,†and is called upon to re-crown Justin as emperor --a precedent that will later lay the foundation for the crowning of Charlemagne (i.e., the Pope as “king maker.â€)" It seems to me that you guys are putting all of your energy into playing the Devils advocate. Beginning with Constantine the Great until these days with little break, the Papacy has had political powers. The Vatican is the smallest nation in the world. East, West, Vatican, or not; The Roman nation is the Roman nation. And about the break! The beast received a deadly wound. Did you know that as a nation Israel was much larger than it is today. Part of Arabia use to be Israel.

 

[Acts6:5]

OK then, here is one example. 526 AD. "Pope John is praised by the Byzantines as the “successor of Peter,†and is called upon to re-crown Justin as emperor --a precedent that will later lay the foundation for the crowning of Charlemagne (i.e., the Pope as “king maker.â€)"

Ok, let’s take a look at that example. Notice the pope had “recrowned†Justin; so who had crowned Justin originally? The answer is, Patriarch John II of Constantinople in 518AD. For years it had been customary for the Eastern emperors to be crowned by the patriarchs of New Rome, but yet no one would ever dare to think that the patriarchs had power over the emperors simply because of that ceremony; the patriarchs were habitually raised and deposed at the whim of the Imperial government.

The same was true of the pope’s recrowning of Justin; it was a remarkable display of pageantry and solidarity with the West after enduring several decades of schism, but the act did not in any way imbue the papacy with authority superior to that of the emperor. Less than a decade later, Pope Agapetus was sent to Constantinople on a mission similar to the one Pope John I embarked on in 525AD, and yet Agapetus did not recrown the new emperor, Justinian. To my knowledge, Pope John’s journey to Constantinople was the first and last time that a pope ever crowned an Eastern emperor.

Now you said Justin’s recrowning was “one example†of papal power over emperors and governments during the 5th-6th Centuries; what are the others?

It seems to me that you guys are putting all of your energy into playing the Devils advocate.

I’m not playing Devils advocate. I honestly don’t believe that the papacy uprooted the Heruli, Vandals, or Ostogoths. There is no historical evidence for that position.

Beginning with Constantine the Great until these days with little break, the Papacy has had political powers.

But not political powers over emperors and governments, as you have claimed. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, the bishops of Rome were usually subject to the kings, princes, and ruling houses around them; very rarely did the papacy actually have political power over other sovereigns. Now of course, numerous popes certainly went to great lengths claiming that their ecclesiastical authority was superior to the temporal powers, but it was all in theory. The facts on the ground were much different.

The Vatican is the smallest nation in the world. East, West, Vatican, or not; The Roman nation is the Roman nation.

If you say so.

And about the break! The beast received a deadly wound.

The papacy received many deadly wounds over the course of its history. Pope Vigilius was literally dragged out of Rome by imperial troops in 545AD and forced to spend the last half of his pontificate as a political prisoner of Emperor Justinian in Constantinople. Pope Martin I was arrested and shipped to Constantinople on the order of Emperor Constans in 653AD. He was convicted of treason, beaten, imprisoned, and then exiled until his death in 655AD. As a result, the Roman See was vacant for a year and 2 months. Pope Stephen VI was stripped of the papal office, thrown into prison, and died from strangulation in 897AD. Pope Leo V was deposed and murdered in 903AD. Pope John X was arrested, jailed, and suffocated to death in 928AD. Popes John XII and Benedict V were both deposed by Otto the Great in 964AD. Pope John XIII was imprisoned and exiled from Rome in 963AD for about a year. Pope Benedict VI was imprisoned and strangled to death in 974AD. Popes Lucius II, Eugenius III, and Hadrian IV were all driven from Rome by Commune forces between 1145-1154, during which time a Roman Republic was established. Pope Clement VII was pope during the sack of Rome in 1527 and was shut up in the Castle of Saint Angelo for 6 months.

In Christ,

Acts6:5