Armageddon was the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

  • Thread starter Thread starter theoprofessor74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHRISTENDOM !!! (which translates to Christ’s kingdom) Read “The Rise of Christendom”

Constantine began Christendom
CHRIST’S KINGDOM

For the love of…

:mad:
 
“Christendom” has referred to the notion of the Christian world as a sociopolitical polity. In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the church as an institution. This would tempt Church leaders and political leaders alike throughout the time in European history.

Depiction of Constantine and the Nicene Fathers holding the Nicene Creed.Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 proclaiming toleration for the Christian religion, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”. Christianity became the state religion of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I prohibited the practice of pagan religions. The Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire.

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church, generally considered the beginning of Christendom. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of the patron for the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian, and endowed the church with land and other wealth. Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople) – the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike “old” Rome), and had no pagan temples.

One of the greatest seismic events recorded in Church history occurred in the farthest west corners of Asia. It influenced Christianity—Orthodox Christianity in particular–everywhere for all the centuries to follow. The epicenter was Byzantium and begins with the Roman Emperor Constantine (285-337 A.D.) entering the scene and shaping the course of the development of Christianity.

According to the Church historian Eusebius, Constantine received a vision from heaven. Before the major battle at the Milvian Bridge outside of Rome in 312 against Maxentius (278-312), a rival for the throne, he looked into the sky heard a voice, and in the vision saw the symbol, “ΧΡ” (Chi-Rho), the first two Greek letters of the title of Christ. The word he heard with it said: “In this sign, conquer.”

Since the emperor did conquer, Constantine credited it as the sign of God’s favor for victory. Until then emperors persecuted or, at least tolerated Christianity. Now the tide changed with Constantine’s conversion. As the victory-bringing sign, the emblem of Christ the Savior became the ecumenical (worldwide) insignia of Christendom.
 
Let me go back to Megiddo. There were 3 battles at Megiddo over time (2 before Christ & 1 after John wrote Revelations in 1918 during WW1)

The Battle of Megiddo (less commonly known as the Battle of Armageddon and sometimes called Battle of the Nablus Plain by the Turks) of 19 September – 21 September 1918, and its subsequent exploitation, was the culminating victory in British General Edmund Allenby’s conquest of Palestine during World War I. British Empire forces made a massive push into the Jezreel Valley from the west, through the Carmel Ridge, then engulfed the Ottoman forces in the valley (mentioned as the site where the Beast’s armies gather prior to the Battle of Armageddon in the Book of Revelation) and on the River Jordan.

And folks WE ARE STILL HERE… Megiddo was a British washout of the Ottomans… Whoopie!
 
Copland, as I addressed with the Professor, in the Old Testament, a Harlot is always a city (or the Assembly of Israel) that had a covenant with God and broke the Covenant. The empires of materialism and atheism would not be harlots (IMO) unless they were first in some type of relationship (covenant might be stretching it…) with God. Rome hadn’t been. Nor do the empires that you are mentioning.
While I always respect your thoughts on this forum, I do have to respectively disagree here, since a harlot in the OT is not always a city that had a covenant with God and broke it, harlot was used in different senses, literally as a prostitute, and as spiritual immorality. Harlot is used in the context as you said above, but it was not always the rule as you appear to suggest. Words like harlot, city, Babylon, etc take on different senses throughout the Bible, especially in the book of Revelation.
 
While I always respect your thoughts on this forum, I do have to respectively disagree here, since a harlot in the OT is not always a city that had a covenant with God and broke it, harlot was used in different senses, literally as a prostitute, and as spiritual immorality. Harlot is used in the context as you said above, but it was not always the rule as you appear to suggest. Words like harlot, city, Babylon, etc take on different senses throughout the Bible, especially in the book of Revelation.
… as I always respect your (as well as others’) opinion.

With that said, should I reword my thoughts in order to better convey my message? Any time a harlot is used in conjunction with a city or state, it is referring to that city (or state) turning away from its covenant with God.

I understand that sometimes individuals were referred to as Harlots, as Rahab was. But in regards to a city (or state) it always Israel/Jerusalem/Judah, except for the two mentions of Tyre and Ninevah - both of which had a relationship/covenant with God. Where else is this analogy used for a group of people that doesn’t fit this mold? I don’t recall, which is why I disagree with the thought that Rome could be the Harlot. As an example of this, who was the prophet who married a prostitute - as a sign of Jerusalem’s harlotry with other gods.

Rome better fits the beast, with the 10 horns (Rome had 10 emperors) and 7 horns (Nero was the 7th emperor - depending on whose list you look at for one of them doesn’t include Julius Caesar).
 
Harlotry has a number of symbolic imageries, and one is the opposite of wisdom, which is worldly wisdom, which is seen in Proverbs 7, which has a relation to the character of the harlot in Revelation 17.

In Revelation 17, the harlot is identified also as Babylon 17:5,18. Babylon has a spiritual significance just like Jerusalem does as signifying the Church, Babylon being the counterpart, that is the world. You have the heavely city and the earthly city.
 
Harlotry has a number of symbolic imageries, and one is the opposite of wisdom, which is worldly wisdom, which is seen in Proverbs 7, which has a relation to the character of the harlot in Revelation 17.

In Revelation 17, the harlot is identified also as Babylon 17:5,18. Babylon has a spiritual significance just like Jerusalem does as signifying the Church, Babylon being the counterpart, that is the world. You have the heavely city and the earthly city.
And the earthly city has to be destroyed before the heavenly city can come. St. Paul (assumedly) signified this in his letter to the Hebrews
Hebrews 9:8 "By this, the Holy Spirit means us to see that as long as the old tent (or tabernacle, meaning the Temple in Jerusalem) stands, the way into the Holy Place(the heavenly Jerusalem) is not opened up*." *
It is the destruction of the old tent (Jerusalem) that harbors in the coming of the bride (the New Church). Its not Milvian Bridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top