Proof of God in Prophecy?

[tonyrey]

:clapping:

Some cannot be bothered to read the details…

 

[tonyrey]

Biblical prophecies certainly give sufficient reason to argue for the Judeo-Christian religion, but that’s an extremely low bar to clear. History is littered with prophets and prophecies, and there are people who will argue for the legitimacy of just about each and every one. So using prophecy to argue for the validity of one’s own particular ideology is fairly common. Even biblical prophecy can be used to support both Christian and non-Christian worldviews alike. People see what they want to see. What’s prophecy to you, is self-delusion to somebody else.

So you can certainly use biblical prophecy to argue for the Judeo-Christian religion, but you’ll ultimately be preaching to the choir.

When prophecy corresponds to the history of the foundation of modern civilisation throughout the world it cannot be dismissed so facilely as self-delusion. Where else did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate? In human imagination?

 

[tonyrey]

Personally, all that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I pointed out in my first post. You’re preaching to the choir. Any skeptic who wants to, will be able to pick your prophesies apart. People see what they want to see. So the only ones that you end up convincing are the ones who already agree with you, or who want to agree with you.

You want to MAKE people see what you see. You want to show them something that proves that you’re right. But you can’t do that. People see what they want to see.

So you have to ask yourself, what do they want to see?

If people see only what they want to see then you are seeing only that people see only what they want to see! In other words it is a self-destructive proposition!

 

[Partinobodycula]

When prophecy corresponds to the history of the foundation of modern civilisation throughout the world it cannot be dismissed so facilely as self-delusion. Where else did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate? In human imagination?

This is your opinion, and I can understand and respect that, but that doesn’t mean that others can’t reasonably disagree with you. Even to the point of thinking you a fool. People see what they want to see, or perhaps what they need to see, just as you do. I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s their way of coping with the cruelties and injustices of life. We must each persevere, and who am I to judge the beliefs by which others do so.

The truth is we’re probably all fools, and we would be much better off removing the planks from our own eyes, than pointing out the specks in our brother’s eyes. So don’t be too concerned if your arguments fall on deaf ears, for theirs are likely to do the same.

If people see only what they want to see then you are seeing only that people see only what they want to see! In other words it is a self-destructive proposition!

This is totallly true, but I try very hard to be objective. In the upper right hand corner of this post you’ll see that it says solipsist, what that ultimately means is, “I don’t know”. I don’t know if the atheists are right, and I don’t if the theists are right. I’m not even certain that anything outside of myself exists at all. And so I’m in no position to judge who’s right, and who’s wrong. But I can judge who’s humble and who’s self-righteous, who’s merciful and who’s vengeful, who’s patient and who’s intolerant. These things aren’t determined by who’s right and who’s wrong.

Yes, I may be blind to the truth, and I may see only what I choose to see, but I wonder, would you admit the same?

 

[inocente]

Huff and puff as you flee the scene without answering any questions you were asked!

And the stickies say:

• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

 

[inocente]

Huff and puff as you flee the scene without answering any questions you were asked!

Yet the stickies still say: Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

So to abide by forum rules you need to answer my question before I answer yours. As a reminder, my question is: Do I take it you can’t find the prediction by Newton himself?

If you can’t then we must conclude that it was falsely attributed to Newton.

But perhaps you could still find evidence that it was made before 1948. If not then the rational conclusion is that the “prediction” was invented after the 1948 event it supposedly predicts, and Newton’s name was attached to make it sound credibly old, in other words its a fraud.

 

[inocente]

Nothing on that page has explained why the prophecies of Christ’s Passion and Death correspond so precisely to the facts described in the Gospels which themselves correspond to known cultural and archaeological facts about Jewish and Roman customs.

But the argument would be that the events were made up or slanted so as to fit the prophecies.

Would all the Christians who were tortured and killed soon after the Crucifixion have chosen to suffer and die if they didn’t have convincing evidence that Jesus fulfilled the predictions made hundreds of years before He was born? Who invented His teaching which is the foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? And why did they invent it?

The OP is trying to find evidence that the Judeo-Christian religion is authentic, so we have to think of all the questions which might come up in court.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are in an age of suicide bombers and radicalization, where people choose to martyr themselves for beliefs for which they have no evidence whatsoever. Even if you ignore that, is there independent historical evidence of these Christian deaths? Is there evidence they actually were killed for their beliefs, i.e. would they not have been killed had they recanted? Is Christianity really the foundation of liberty, equality and fraternity? Did those principles never arise anywhere before?

The sceptics are expert in the art of destruction but what have they created? Do they live in accordance with the belief that life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless? If they don’t what is the basis of their morality? Arbitrary human conventions? Infidels have no rational foundation whatsoever for their infidelity! They would be the first to complain if they were treated in an unChristian manner in spite of all their denunciations of Christianity and rejection of its authenticity. By their fruits you shall know them…

Whoa, you’ll do yourself a mischief.

The OP wants to claim that the Judeo-Christian religion is authentic, so the skeptics include everyone of every other religion. Besides, skepticism is good, it stops us falling prey to con men and the Great Deceiver. I think you’re perhaps talking about cynicism, which isn’t the same.

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing on that page has explained why the prophecies of Christ’s Passion and Death correspond so precisely to the facts described in the Gospels which themselves correspond to known cultural and archaeological facts about Jewish and Roman customs.

You need to explain who made up the events, why they made them up and produce evidence that your hypothesis is credible. Is it likely that billions of people have been deceived on such an important issue for two thousand years?

Would all the Christians who were tortured and killed soon after the Crucifixion have chosen to suffer and die if they didn’t have convincing evidence that Jesus fulfilled the predictions made hundreds of years before He was born? Who invented His teaching which is the foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? And why did they invent it?

The OP is trying to find evidence that the Judeo-Christian religion is authentic, so we have to think of all the questions which might come up in court.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are in an age of suicide bombers and radicalization, where people choose to martyr themselves for beliefs for which they have no evidence whatsoever. Even if you ignore that, is there independent historical evidence of these Christian deaths? Is there evidence they actually were killed for their beliefs, i.e. would they not have been killed had they recanted?

There is abundant independent historical evidence of the Christian martyrs:

"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of “hating the human race.”

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

Annals - Tacitus

The sceptics are expert in the art of destruction but what have they created? Do they live in accordance with the belief that life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless? If they don’t what is the basis of their morality? Arbitrary human conventions? Infidels have no rational foundation whatsoever for their infidelity! They would be the first to complain if they were treated in an unChristian manner in spite of all their denunciations of Christianity and rejection of its authenticity. By their fruits you shall know them…

Whoa, you’ll do yourself a mischief.

You haven’t answered the questions… In particular, what is the rational foundation of infidelity? And would they complain if they were treated in an unChristian manner?

Is Christianity really the foundation of liberty, equality and fraternity? Did those principles never arise anywhere before?

The only rational basis of those principles is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven. Otherwise there is no reason why we should regard every single member of the human race as a brother or sister who has the same right to life and happiness. You need to provide evidence of an alternative explanation that had existed previously.

The OP wants to claim that the Judeo-Christian religion is authentic, so the skeptics include everyone of every other religion. Besides, skepticism is good, it stops us falling prey to con men and the Great Deceiver. I think you’re perhaps talking about cynicism, which isn’t the same.

A false dilemma. All religions have the same fundamental moral and spiritual beliefs and values:

Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy.

Online: archive.org/details/perennialphilosp035505mbp

 

[tonyrey]

When prophecy corresponds to the history of the foundation of modern civilisation throughout the world it cannot be dismissed so facilely as self-delusion. Where else did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate? In human imagination?

Obviously we are all fallible but we are entitled to ask questions to justify our beliefs. If there is no other reasonable answer regarding the origin of the belief in Human Rights we are justified in believing it is based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father.

If people see only

what they want to see then you are seeing only that people see only what they want to see! In other words it is a self-destructive proposition! This is totallly true, but I try very hard to be objective. In the upper right hand corner of this post you’ll see that it says solipsist, what that ultimately means is, “I don’t know”. I don’t know if the atheists are right, and I don’t if the theists are right. I’m not even certain that anything outside of myself exists at all. And so I’m in no position to judge who’s right, and who’s wrong. But I can judge who’s humble and who’s self-righteous, who’s merciful and who’s vengeful, who’s patient and who’s intolerant. These things aren’t determined by who’s right and who’s wrong.

Yes, I may be blind to the truth, and I may see only what I choose to see, but I wonder, would you admit the same? This is your opinion, and I can understand and respect that, but that doesn’t mean that others can’t reasonably disagree with you. Even to the point of thinking you a fool. People see what they want to see, or perhaps what they need to see, just as you do. I don’t know why. Perhaps it’s their way of coping with the cruelties and injustices of life. We must each persevere, and who am I to judge the beliefs by which others do so.

The truth is we’re probably all fools, and we would be much better off removing the planks from our own eyes, than pointing out the specks in our brother’s eyes. So don’t be too concerned if your arguments fall on deaf ears, for theirs are likely to do the same.

I certainly admit I make mistakes but the onus is on others to prove I am mistaken when I can’t find any flaw in my reasoning. Even if they can’t I may still be mistaken but it is less likely. We should get the benefit of the doubt if no one offers a better explanation…

 

[Partinobodycula]

If there is no other reasonable answer regarding the origin of the belief in Human Rights we are justified in believing it is based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father.

I certainly admit I make mistakes but the onus is on others to prove I am mistaken when I can’t find any flaw in my reasoning.

You’re certainly within your rights to hold to such a position, but you should understand that you have set up a standard of proof that no one will ever be able to reach. What evidence would you have me give to prove that you’re wrong? I would dare to say that there is none that you haven’t already rejected. That’s how it is with most people, it’s not that they lack the necessary level of evidence, it’s that there is no necessary level of evidence. To paraphrase the words of Christ, “even if a man should rise from the dead, they will not be convinced”. Christ was pointing out what I’ve been saying all along, people see what they want to see. And unfortunately, that goes for you and I as well. We may have the noblest of intentions, just as the Pharisees may have had, but noble intentions are just as likely to blind a man, as they are to enlighten him. All men can see what they want to see, the real test of wisdom comes in seeing what you don’t want to see…that you may be wrong. So you can put the onus on others to prove you wrong, but they’ll never be able to reach it. Clearing that hurdle, is up to you.

All of your arguments about the origins of human rights mean nothing to me if you can’t honestly see that you may be wrong. Only a fool would fail to see their own fallibility, and why should I follow a fool?

P.S. I’ve edited my profile entry for Religion, as you can see in the upper right hand corner. I’m a solipsist by reason. I’m a Christian by choice.

 

[inocente]

You need to explain who made up the events, why they made them up and produce evidence that your hypothesis is credible. Is it likely that billions of people have been deceived on such an important issue for two thousand years?

Stand back and look at this from the point of view of other religions. Is it likely that Hindus have been deceived for 3500 years? Is it likely that billions of Muslims have been deceived for fourteen hundred years?

*There is abundant independent historical evidence of the Christian martyrs:

Annals - Tacitus*

The problem with that quote is it seems the Christians would have met the same fate whether or not they recanted, and if they hadn’t been there any other convenient minority would have been used instead. Jews were used that way in Germany. Every religion can probably point to similar events.

You haven’t answered the questions… In particular, what is the rational foundation of infidelity? And would they complain if they were treated in an unChristian manner?

Again, just replace unChristian with unX, where X is the religion of whoever is speaking.

The only rational basis of those principles is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven. Otherwise there is no reason why we should regard every single member of the human race as a brother or sister who has the same right to life and happiness. You need to provide evidence of an alternative explanation that had existed previously.

I don’t know much about Hinduism, but without much trouble found lines from the Rigveda, composed c. 1500–1200 BCE, such as:

“Be to us easy of approach, even as a father to his son:” - 1, 9

“Agni, thou art our Providence, our Father thou - we are thy brethren and thou art our spring of life” - 31, 10

“Thou art called Father, caring even for the weak, and wisest, to the simple one thou teachest lore.” - 31, 14

hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/rigintro.asp

*A false dilemma. All religions have the same fundamental moral and spiritual beliefs and values:

Aldous Huxley - The Perennial Philosophy*.

Online: archive.org/details/perennialphilosp035505mbp

Did you intend to quote him there?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet the stickies still say: Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

So to abide by forum rules you need to answer my question before I answer yours. As a reminder, my question is: Do I take it you can’t find the prediction by Newton himself?

If you can’t then we must conclude that it was falsely attributed to Newton.

But perhaps you could still find evidence that it was made before 1948. If not then the rational conclusion is that the “prediction” was invented after the 1948 event it supposedly predicts, and Newton’s name was attached to make it sound credibly old, in other words its a fraud.

Cynicism personified in inocente.

The text you will have to examine is here.

preteristarchive.com/Books/1733_newton_observations.html

But since Newton’s Observations is so long is so long and complex, you will have to read it yourself to get the message. I’m not able to do your homework for you. And even if I did, you would reject my interpretation of Newton’s views as you have already done in earlier posts. That is why it is so much easier for us all if we look to those who have examined the text and interpreted it as Newton originally believed to be the right interpretation of biblical prophecy.

So that is my answer. I have answered your question, not with a question but by pointing to the source you need to consult, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Now you might do me the favor of answering a question or two.

1. Do you believe in biblical prophecy at all?
2. If so, can you give me just one example of a prophecy you believe to be fulfilled from either the Old or the New Testaments?

 

[inocente]

Cynicism personified in inocente.

The text you will have to examine is here.

preteristarchive.com/Books/1733_newton_observations.html

But since Newton’s Observations is so long is so long and complex, you will have to read it yourself to get the message. I’m not able to do your homework for you. And even if I did, you would reject my interpretation of Newton’s views as you have already done in earlier posts. That is why it is so much easier for us all if we look to those who have examined the text and interpreted it as Newton originally believed to be the right interpretation of biblical prophecy.

So that is my answer. I have answered your question, not with a question but by pointing to the source you need to consult, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Now you might do me the favor of answering a question or two.

1. Do you believe in biblical prophecy at all?
2. If so, can you give me just one example of a prophecy you believe to be fulfilled from either the Old or the New Testaments?

I found that the other day and gave you the link to the Newton Project, which includes that and all his other religious works, with both diplomatic and normalized texts.

So no, you’ve not answered my question at all. The Observations alone is 71000 words, then there’s another 150000 words of drafts on Daniel, it’s nonsensical to ask me to go through all that. You made the claim and so you need to substantiate it.

I don’t see how you can possibly claim Newton made the prediction when you can’t even say where he made it. I think you’ve been conned, someone somewhere has conned you, and they are not going to con me too.

As for your questions, I already said prophecy is where a prophet receives and passes on a message, as in Isaiah (say chapter 53). Whereas supposed predictions based on bible codes are fraudulent nonsense, which I think you’ve now proved to the satisfaction of all.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As for your questions, I already said prophecy is where a prophet receives and passes on a message, as in Isaiah. Whereas supposed predictions based on bible codes are fraudulent nonsense, which I think you’ve now proved to the satisfaction of all.

You haven’t given me a single prophecy from scripture that you believe was fulfilled, and where and when it was fulfilled. So I think you are doing the same thing you think I am doing. You are expecting me to read your mind as to which prophecy in Isaiah you are talking about, and where and when it was fulfilled.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw is that you are trying to con me into believing that you believe in scripture prophecy when you really don’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For those who are interested in reading about Newton’s prophetic views, rather than plowing through Newton’s Observations, this article by S. Snobelen will be helpful. Snobelen’s scholarship is self evident and well documented. He examines not only Newton’s views, but also the views held by Protestants regarding the Restoration of the Jews to Israel that were current in Newton’s day and ever since.

isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/isaac-newton-on-the-return-of-the-jews.pdf

We do have to keep in mind that Newton was rabidly anti-Catholic, and that he ties the interpretation of the biblical dates to historic events, including the rise of the papacy, which he believed heralded the inevitable end-of-times and gave him a point by which to calculate the dates he delivered both for the first call to Restoration in the late 1890s, and the final restoration in the late 1940s (which actually occurred). From one date (800 A.D., the year in which Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the pope) Newton calculate 1260 more years until the Second Coming of Christ, which would be about the year 2060.

Given the latest developments in international relations, especially the looming crisis between Christianity and Islam, any time between now and forty-six years from now may be the time for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to appear?

 

[inocente]

You haven’t given me a single prophecy from scripture that you believe was fulfilled, and where and when it was fulfilled. So I think you are doing the same thing you think I am doing. You are expecting me to read your mind as to which prophecy in Isaiah you are talking about, and where and when it was fulfilled.

The only conclusion I can reasonably draw is that you are trying to con me into believing that you believe in scripture prophecy when you really don’t.

You responded too soon, my bad. If you’d checked before posting you’d have seen that I realized I hadn’t quite answered your question and added a ref to a chapter which I believe is fulfilled.

Please don’t call other posters liars, we’re not in a playground or saloon bar. Be skeptical of the demon on your left shoulder with its dark fantasies about others’ beliefs, but also be skeptical of the angel on your right shoulder telling you that all internet sites are as honest as the driven snow, and not out to con you.

For those who are interested in reading about Newton’s prophetic views, rather than plowing through Newton’s Observations, this article by S. Snobelen will be helpful.

I can’t find any 1948 prediction in his commentary, in fact he seems to disprove it:

*“Here it is most important to stress that Newton links the return of the Jews with the sounding of the seventh trumpet of Revelation, which for him signals the return of Christ, the Resurrection, the Judgment, Armageddon and the beginning of the Millennium. It is difficult to determine, however, whether Newton ever settled on more precise associations. In one place, he simply links the time of the resurrection with the return of the Jews without being more specific. In his ``Of the Church,’’ he links the conversion and return of the Jews (events he appears to see as simultaneous, or near simultaneous) with the Second Coming, the end of the times of the Gentiles and the first Resurrection. In other places Newton moves beyond mere juxtaposition and appears to suggest ordered sequences.” - page 105

“These multiple prophetic chronologies suggest that Newton may have never settled on a definite date for the end of the Jewish captivity. This would, of course, be in keeping with his general reluctance to set dates.” - page 108*

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You responded too soon, my bad. If you’d checked before posting you’d have seen that I realized I hadn’t quite answered your question and added a ref to a chapter which I believe is fulfilled.

Please don’t call other posters liars, we’re not in a playground or saloon bar. Be skeptical of the demon on your left shoulder with its dark fantasies about others’ beliefs, but also be skeptical of the angel on your right shoulder telling you that all internet sites are as honest as the driven snow, and not out to con you.

I can’t find any 1948 prediction in his commentary, in fact he seems to disprove it:

*“Here it is most important to stress that Newton links the return of the Jews with the sounding of the seventh trumpet of Revelation, which for him signals the return of Christ, the Resurrection, the Judgment, Armageddon and the beginning of the Millennium. It is difficult to determine, however, whether Newton ever settled on more precise associations. In one place, he simply links the time of the resurrection with the return of the Jews without being more specific. In his ``Of the Church,’’ he links the conversion and return of the Jews (events he appears to see as simultaneous, or near simultaneous) with the Second Coming, the end of the times of the Gentiles and the first Resurrection. In other places Newton moves beyond mere juxtaposition and appears to suggest ordered sequences.” - page 105

“These multiple prophetic chronologies suggest that Newton may have never settled on a definite date for the end of the Jewish captivity. This would, of course, be in keeping with his general reluctance to set dates.” - page 108*

This again proves that you cannot or will not cite a specific verse in Isaiah that makes a prophecy, and then a specific fact of history that fulfills that prophecy. No one is calling you a liar. Show me the word “liar” used in my post. I just think you are not answering the question because you don’t know how to answer it or you think you are laying a trap for yourself if you do.

I cannot read your mind.

Snobelen’s article, if you read all of it, interpolates from Newton’s text the late 1890s for the planned return to Israel, which was the actual time of the start of the Zionist movement in Europe, and also 1944 as the date of the Restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Obviously we are all fallible but we are entitled to ask questions to justify our beliefs. If there is no other reasonable answer regarding the origin of the belief in Human Rights we are justified in believing it is based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father.

I certainly admit I make mistakes but the onus is on others to prove I am mistaken when I can’t find any flaw in my reasoning. Even if they can’t I may still be mistaken but it is less likely. We should get the benefit of the doubt if no one offers a better explanation…

I don’t care if you decide to be wrong, I am just trying to evaluate your claims to decide if I should believe them. So as I see it the competing claims are:

A. There are real prophecies in the bible.
B. The prophecies in the bible are not real prophecies.

Here I define “real prophecy” as “a prediction of future events that is supernaturally inspired.” In other words, if someone came up with a computer model to predict the stock market, that model would not be in the business of issuing prophecies.

The evidence for claim A. is:

1. There are certain passages which appear to reference other future events in the bible.
2. There are certain people (e.g. Newton) who did math to the bible and claimed the results of the math are prophecies about modern events.

The evidence for B. is:

1. The existence of real prophecies is unlikely (because there are a great many incorrect prophecies in the world)
2. It is possible to find lots of patterns in large bodies of text which look like prophecies

The arguments against A. are:

1. Prophetic passages could be invented after the fact and are therefore not real prophecies
2. The sources of people’s (e.g. Newton’s) predictions are not available, so they could simply be made up

The arguments against B. are:

1. No, they’re totally real, you can’t prove I’m wrong.

I have to say that B is looking significantly more likely to be the actual truth of the matter than A.

How about I propose to you this test: why don’t you apply your prophetic math to the bible and discern a prophecy about what will happen at some point in the future. We can then observe if your prediction is correct. If it is false, we can agree that you’re just making things up, and the fact that some people got lucky is not evidence to the contrary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How about I propose to you this test: why don’t you apply your prophetic math to the bible and discern a prophecy about what will happen at some point in the future. We can then observe if your prediction is correct. If it is false, we can agree that you’re just making things up, and the fact that some people got lucky is not evidence to the contrary.

It is doubtful that Newton was the kind of man who relied on luck.

The laws of thermodynamics are not just lucky insights. They are based on calculations.

I suppose you would argue that “Let there be light” in Genesis was just a lucky stab at reverse prophecy. Others, like Carl Sagan, would say the early universe was filled with light after the Big Bang.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Snobelen’s article, if you read all of it, interpolates from Newton’s text the late 1890s for the planned return to Israel, which was the actual time of the start of the Zionist movement in Europe, and also 1944 as the date of the Restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem.

The actual restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem was 1948 by fiat of the United Nations.

However, the plans for restoration were no doubt begun right after the absolute defeat of Hitler in 1944.