By stark contrast, each historical website excluded Julius Caesar from the list of emperors. Each one went in order as: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. That ended the early empire of Rome and emperors after this time would be nominated and elected with the help of the senate. Julius Caesar was born in Rome in 100 BC. He was the Governor of Gaul from 58-49 BC, was appointed dictator for 10 years in 47 BC, lost power, then was appointed dictator again in Feburary 14, 44 BC. He was assasssinated in 15th of March 44 BC and deified 2 years later. When he was a ruler, Rome was a republic of city-states and territories. There were many Dictators before him and one after him, Octavius. The capital of the republic wasn't allways Rome either, but it was during his lifetime. The dictators acted very much like Emperors, but they were more different than similar. The dictators were basically representations of political parties and most had great military influence. Their main foe was the senate who was like british parliment is today. They made the rules, the dictators just tried to persuade them either by force (intimidation, killing off members and replacing them with supporters) or by money. There was allways a struggle between the senate and the dictator. When Julius won his dictatorship for the second time (by force) he didnt kill off his opponents in the senate which was unheard of before him. He was just and honorable and the people loved him. What he did differently during his rule from the other dictators was to spread the replublic empire far greater than any before him. Instead of being a mediterranean thing, it encompassed most of Eroupe as well. There seem to be 3 reasons people place Julius as the first Emperor. First would be his name, Ceasar, his family name that was adopted by his successive rulers in Rome and later became synonymous with "emperor". The second reason would be his permanently establishing Rome as the capitol of the republic. Finally, he got the senate to continually declare him dictator until they got sick of it and killed him off. In the End Julius Caesar exapnded the empire the most and cleaned up the corruption and bloodshed..at least for a while.
After Julius it was back to business as usual. More civil war, infighting, corruption and all that. Out of the mess came Octavius the adopted heir to Julius. He began his main political career as dictator in a divided republic. He was in the west and Antony was in the east. One of the greatest wars in Roman history breaks out and Octavius comes out the victor. Some time into his rule he made vast and important changes in Rome's political structure. Octavius gave up his dictatorship and divided many of his roles among the senate and claimed no aliance to any political party, but to the whole republic. He declared that all territories and people living in the republic would become Romans by law, not just occupied lands. He stabilized and locked down expansion and the borders. He was given the surname Augustus by the senate and titles that gave him power over the frontiers and another of "protector of the people" he became known as the "first citizen" and "father of our country". I could go on and on with the changes he made and the titles he recieved, but what is important is that Augustus Ceasar (his title from the senate and adopted father's last name) was historically Rome's official first and true Emperor.
forumromanum.org...check them out
Lastly the explanation given to me about the Harlot came up dissapointing in my research and testing. The harlot being the city of Jerusalem in the 1st century was the theory. The points given were true and indeed fit well, but I have new problems. With the literal interpretaion of the 7 hills as Rome, if the harlot is a city sitting on top of the 7 hills, wouldn't she be the city of Rome? It says she is the great city that has a kingdom over all the kings of the earth. Did Jerusalem ever have reign outside the borders of isreal/palestine? I know After Christ returns, the bride/woman/Jerusalem will have an everlasting global kingdom, but that wont fit if the harlot is destroyed by God's will before that. It says the ten kings and the wild beast will hate her and destroy her making it sound like they all reign together in one time. If she is Jerusalem, she was last destroyed in AD 70 by Titus under the emperor Vespasian, so who were the ten kings? Vespasian is emperor 9 and Titus becomes 10, but they were only 2 living at the same time and only one was emperor. It also says the ten kings give their kingdom over to the beast after the city falls. So Vespasian gives his kingdom (Rome) over to the beast (Rome)????? what? If it's the Holy Roman empire and papal system, then they are way too late and again, only one reigning at a time and how do they give their kingdom to a kingdom they are already a part of? It says the kings of the earth that fornicated with her will grieve at her destruction as will the traveling merchants of the earth, every ship captain, voyager, sailor or any one making a living by the sea. How many kings were sad at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? One. Merchants and sailors sad about Jerusalem's fall, really?? not anymore than any other city that fell to Rome. Then the name, Babylon the Great and spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. These and Jerusalem were not the only idolaters and wicked cities of the world then or now. So was Athens, Rome, so is New Delhi, Shanghai, Tokyo, Las Vegas, New York....."Drunk on the Blood of the Holy ones and witnesses of Jesus" and again, many cities can fit this then and now. I'm just not satisfied with the Harlot being only old Jerusalem.
Katetblue wrote:Canuckster1127 wrote:Great. Economics, Politics and Religion all in one sentence. Methinks this line of conversation might not end well .....
I know right?
Great points made by everyone. I have to take all the information posted here on Islam and study it more in depth.
I don't belong to any certain denomination anymore because some of the other beliefs taught in the mainstream Church I don't agree with at all. Like some of the theories on Israel, the rapture, and current end times theories.
Does anyone have any other ideas on what is meant by, or who is suppose to be the man of sin, son of perdition mentioned in <A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Thessalonians%202.3" target=_blank lbsReference="Thessalonians 2.3|NASB">Thessalonians 2:3</A>? In this scripture it goes on to say that he will set himself up as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God. I take that to mean the Pope since that is what he did. In Islam they didn't do that and still don't unless I am missing something. I am just curious of others opinions.
Are you my long lost twin!???? I just read the 2 thessalonians verse and want to share what came to light. I read verses 6-12 in my NWT Bible. what I read is that, at the time of this writing, someone (one person or many people, or supernatural being) were acting as a restraint for the revealing of the man of lawlessness. Once the restraint is out of the way, then he will be revealed and Jesus will shortly do away with him by the spirit in his words and presence, doing nothing in physical manifestation (IE Jesus doesnt punch, stab or shoot him) I also got that some of the actions or characteristics of the lawless one are already at work during that time, but are hard to distinguish. I read that the "falling away" must occur before he is revealed. I believe this began during the time of Jesus and has continually gotten worse up to today. Think about it, what began with the OT, Jesus and the apostles now has more religions, denominations, divisions and branches than any other belief system in the world. I dont think the man of lawlessness has come yet since I can't think of anyone in history who has done what he is said to do in as big a scale as he is supposed to do. I also find great importance in one little word "the" in verse 11. "And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie". He is talking about the non-believers who denied Christ and are not saved, that they will all believe THE lie, as in One lie that all non-believers fall for. Lets think of all the non believers around the world. Is there any one singular lie that they all believe right now?