sugarhitman

"At its peak in the 12th century,the empire comprised most of the territory of modern day Germany, Austria, Switzerland, eastern France, Belgium, Netherlands, western Poland, the Czech Republic, and Italy."

"The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire...."


ENCARTA.MSN


Can any of you quote a source that seperates the Europeans from the Roman Empire? Because the above does not.

Sheshonq

So? Attempts fail. That one certainly did. Too bad you didn't read all of the Encarta article:

Thus it doesn't demonstrate what you claimed; that it was in fact the successor of the original Roman Empire.

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

sugarhitman

My point is that the Roman empire is a European power. And Daniel did say that the 4th kingdom would divide and unity would never be strong. The Roman empire was an attempt to unify the European nations....but as Daniel foretold it will not be suscessful.

I would still love to know if the Europeans are seperate from the Romans...Sheshong looks like your buddies have abandoned you on this one....and you have no source that says otherwise.

Sitamun

The Roman Empire WAS a European power. If you mean that Rome was in Italy and Italy is in Europe. The Roman Empire did not control all of Europe or all of the world at any time (the known or unknown) world. Either way, the Roman Empire still fails as your mystical empire.


Can you not name any other kingdom that this COULD mean? (PS. the answer is all of them)


Do you honestly believe that Rome was the only Kingdom to attempt this? What about Rome makes it so special? Is is just because YOU need it to be?


In what manner of separate are you referring to? Culturally? Politically? Genetically? Religiously? (Did you realize what a loaded question you actually asked?)


That is wishful thinking on your part. I think a lot of people have taken a break so their minds don't melt. It's very hard trying to talk to someone who only wants to talk and not listen. Maybe they're all just talking to their walls instead. As for no source, you really REALLY shouldn't be tossing that argument around my friend.

For Example:

You say: Daniel says this
We say: What proof is there that Daniel is right?
You respond: Well Daniel says so...

You then pigeon hole any and all info you can get and try to fit it into your theory. Just because you can trim the fat so it LOOKS like your right, doesn't make you right.

Sheshonq

No, that was not your point.

Your point (wishful thinking / fantasy claim / assertion - pick your favorite) was that the Holy Roman Empire was the successor to the original Roman Empire.

But the HRE wasn't any such successor - as your own citation proved. Which, of course, you would have known if you had actually BOTHERED TO READ THE ARTICLE.

Which, of course, you did not. How surprising.

1. Your premise is busted, so your conclusion is also.

2. We already know that the author(s) of Daniel made many historical mistakes, so using the book of Daniel to support your position is incredibly weak.

Nobody cares what you want to know. You still haven't backed up your claims about the HRE. Until you do that, you aren't in a position to ask others for proof.

Agenda07

Surely you've heard the historians' joke about the naming of the Holy Roman Empire? "It wasn't very holy, it wasn't much of an empire and it sure as hell wasn't Roman!"

A united France didn't even exist at the time of the Western Roman empire so even if they hadn't been invaded by the Romans they couldn't have allied with them. Have you never heard of Caesar's book 'The Gallic War'? Did you think that 'war' was intended to read 'champagne and nibbles at the Gaulish ambassador's place, followed by the signing of a treaty of alliance'?

Agenda07

Wait, so now the Chinese are Romans too?

You seem to have changed your definition of Roman yet again as it now includes "everyone who was ever invaded (even if only in part) by a country which I've previously classified as 'Romans'". 'Roman' is starting to sound like an STD...

So by this standard the whole world is Roman, and there's no sense in limiting it to the Europeans. :rolling: Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Japan (it was occupied by the US after WW2 remember, and the US was founded by the UK, and parts of the UK were once invaded by Real Romans), they're all Romans!.:rolling:

sugarhitman

No, I said that the Europeans are the forces behind the economic powers of China and Japan.....I never said anything about China and Japan being Romans.

sugarhitman

The indentity of the ten toes, and the ten horns can be easily indentified by comparing Daniel 7 to 9. In ch 9 they are called the "PEOPLE of the PRINCE who is to come" in other words they arise before this prince, the prince afterwards. Now compare this to the ten horns and the later arrival of the "little horn" in chapter 7: "And the ten horns OUT OF THIS KINGDOM (Roman Empire) are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall ARISE AFTER THEM; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings."---Gabriel.


Now to find out who these "people" are, we go back to chapter 9: "And after 62 weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the *people* of the prince *who shall come* SHALL DESTROY THE CITY AND THE TEMPLE."


Those people are clearly the Romans who themselves are Europeans. The ten horns are the Europeans the "kings of the north."


Critics are coming up very short in trying to seperate the Europeans from the Roman Empire. The Europeans considers the Roman Empire to be one of the greatest acheivements of Europe, and long to return to that former glory. The attempts by the Holy Roman Empire to "revive" the Roman empire, and the E.U. as well as other prominent historical European leaders in the same goal shows indeed that the Europeans considers the Roman empire to be apart of their heritage and legacy......They certainly do not seperate themselves from the Roman Empire. (or its objective, which was to unify Europe)


Daniel is a true prophet, who foretold not only the rise of the four kingdoms, but the coming of the Messiah and the second destruction of Israel. In his four kingdom vision the Europeans will be the last people to control the world right up to this:

"And in the days of *these kings* shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand FOREVER. For as you saw the stone cut out of a mountian without hands, and it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the Great God have made known to the king what shall come to pass HEARAFTER, AND THE DREAM IS CERTAIN, AND THE INTERPRETATION SURE."

The Roman-European power remains so until the arrival of the Messiah who returns during the "little horn."


The prophecy of the rise of Rome, the Messiah, and the second destruction of Israel proves that Daniel was written BEFORE the events rather after....which puts the final nail into the coffin of the critics' error that the book of Daniel is blah blah blah blah.


Sugarhitman.

-Jay-

Part of the problem here is that so-called prophecy can be interpreted as being fully literal to fully metaphorical (and anywhere in between) in order to distort it to make whatever point a given commentator wishes to make.

Daniel looks like an account written in the 2^nd century BCE that was constructed to appear to be much older, in order to appear prophetic to those in the time when it was written. This is the opinion of the best minds on the subject matter.

Sugarhitman, before you start asserting that it means something else, you've got to explain why we should disregard mainstream scholarship on the matter. You've not done that. Until you do, anything else you say on the subject doesn't carry much weight.

(Additionally, Daniel has been done to death here. Several times. You'd do well to review those threads and see if you really have anything new to add to the subject.)

regards,

NinJay