Where are we now in biblical prophecy?

[idea]

Where are we now in biblical prophecy?

Old Testament | Joel 2:30 ... blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

 

[Blackdog22]

Well Idea, there was blood and fire and pillars of smoke during the California fires. Also blood, fire and pillars of smoke during wars. Haiti left quite a bit of blood, fire and pillars of smoke. It seems your just grasping at straws. BTW did you pastor or christian friend send you that picture that you copy and pasted =)

Also, the full verse reads

" I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke."

That was a natural event. Not a wonderous miracle by God almighty. Maybe in 2000 more years though.

 

[idea]

Well Idea, there was blood and fire and pillars of smoke during the California fires. Also blood, fire and pillars of smoke during wars. Haiti left quite a bit of blood, fire and pillars of smoke. It seems your just grasping at straws. BTW did you pastor or christian friend send you that picture that you copy and pasted =)

I don't think everything that has happened is in the scriptures - 911 was a big deal tho, I mean we're still at war etc. etc. it was a random google image

911 was blood, fire, and pillars of smoke though.

Haiti etc. etc.

(New Testament | Matthew24:6 - 8)
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be bfamines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

earthquakes are in there too.

 

[Blackdog22]

Thats my point exactly anything and everything that is catastrophic is gonna be blood, fire and pillars of smoke. If there is any event where someone dies by fire, then of course there is gonna be smoke. The prophesy is basically there will be blood and fire in that case. Which yes... congradulations to Joel on most worthless prophesy ever.

I prophesy there will be clouds and water. I couldn't of done that without God.

 

[idea]

I think that "pillars" makes the prophecy a little more specific.

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 28:25)
25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered...

that one is pretty specific - that Israel is once more a nation, and they were scattered...

 

[Beaudreaux]

(Please refer to my latest post)

That is hilarious, but seriously -here is the sort of thing I am referring to......

When I have said that the highest branch of the cedar refers to the Assyrian, many are quick to point out that in Ezekiel 17 is written what is meant by those things -as it says.....

Eze 17:12 Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;

...but they fail to understand that, though the above is true, the chapter is BOTH a riddle and parable -and this example is merely a key to understanding the rest -AND the fact that the cedar is identified as the Assyrian in the same book!

Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Eze 17:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar:

Eze 17:4 He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.
Eze 17:5 He took also of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow tree.

Eze 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
Eze 31:4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
Eze 31:5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

So... rather than guessing what the prophecies mean -rather than relying on my own understanding -I seek the answers elsewhere in the bible... as it says...

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

As for this highest branch of the cedar, etc... the Assyrian -it says that great waters made him great! Yet ancient Assyria was not made great by the Mediterranean Sea. The warring and ruling classes of the ancient Assyrians -as you can read in history books and encyclopedias -migrated from Nineveh to Haran - and then on to Germany -as described in Ezekiel 17:3-5. Their (Aryans) relationship with the US and Britain (the two great eagles of Ezekiel 17) is well-documented. Ezekiel 17:9 describes Germany's defeats in WWI and II by primarily the British -and 17:10 describes their CURRENT RISE and eventual defeat by the "kings of the east"....

Eze 17:10 Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew.

This is their CURRENT RISE:
EU Army

...which includes their involvement in the US CORPORATE SECTOR -made legal again during the Clinton administration -look up Daimler/Chrysler, ThyssenKrupp, Siemens, DegeschAmerica, etc.. -all associated with the Nazi concentration camps....

This is not my interpretation -this is happening.

Whenever you say "This actually means this" you are interpreting. You cannot possibly honestly believe that you are not interpreting symbolic texts, can you?

 

[Beaudreaux]

These are not outlandish claims. These are facts. This is not paranoia, but recorded recent history -and I do not merely theorize, I have met them (not by choice) and seen them in action. (The fact that an American actor was used in the commercial means little. I'm not saying he's a Nazi himself -but they don't wear uniforms or [usually] give themselves away unneccesarily -only for a purpose.) If this were not the case, I would completely understand why someone might think me paranoid. I was in close proximity to them around 9-11, and they themselves suggested their own involvement (not-so-coincidentally, 9-11 to most of the world means Nov.9th -the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch).

Our own declassified intelligence documents outline Nazi plans to continue their activities through the industrial sector....
S E C R E T
SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2
7 November 1944
INTELLIGENCE REPORT NO. EW-Pa 128
SUBJECT: Plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity after Germany’s defeat; flow of capital to neutral countries.
SOURCE: Agent of French Deuxieme Bureau, recommended by Commandant Zindel. This agent is regarded as reliable and has worked for the French on German problems since 1916. He was in close contact with the Germans, particularly industrialists, during the occupation of France and he visited Germany as late as August, 1944.
1. A meeting of the principal German industrialists with interests in France was held on August 10, 1944, in the Hotel Rotes Haus in Strasbourg, France, and attended by the informant indicated above as the source. Among those present were the following:
Dr. Scheid, who presided, holding the rank of S.S. Obergruppen-fuhrer and Director of the Heche (Hermandorff & Schonburg) Company
Dr. Kaspar, representing Krupp
Dr. Tolle, representing Rochling
Dr. Sinderen, representing Messerschmitt
Drs. Kopp, Vier and Beerwanger, representing Rheinmetall
Captain Haberkorn and Dr. Ruhe, representing Bussing
Drs. Ellenmayer and Kardos, representing Volkswagenwerk
Engineers Drose, Yanchew and Koppshem, representing various factories in Posen, Poland (Drose, Yanchew and Co., Brown-Boveri, Herkuleswerke, Buschwerke, and Stadtwerke)
Captain Dornbuach, head of the Industrial Inspection Section at Posen
Dr. Meyer, an official of the German Naval Ministry in Paris
Dr. Strossner, of the Ministry of Armament, Paris.
2. Dr. Scheid stated that all industrial material in France was to be evacuated to Germany immediately. The battle of France was lost for Germany and now the defense of the Siegried Line was the main problem. From now on also German industry must realize that the war cannot be won and that it must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign. Each industrialist must make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion. Moreover, the ground would have to be laid on the financial level for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after the war. As examples of the kind of penetration which had been most useful in the past, Dr. Scheid cited the fact that patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc., New York, and the Krupp company of Germany jointly and that the U.S. Steel Corporation, Carnegie Illinois, American Steel and Wire, and national Tube, etc. were thereby under an obligation to work with the Krupp concern. He also cited the Zeiss Company, the Leisa Company and the Hamburg-American Line as firms which had been especially effective in protecting German interests abroad and gave their New York addresses to the industrialists at this meeting.
3. Following this meeting a smaller one was held presided over by Dr. Bosse of the German Armaments Ministry and attended only by representatives of Hecho, Krupp and Rochling. At this second meeting it was stated that the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was practically lost but that it would continue until a guarantee of the unity of Germany could be obtained. German industrialists must, it was said, through their exports increase the strength of Germany. They must also prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party which would be forced to go underground as Maquis (in Gebirgaverteidi-gungastellen gehen). From now on the government would allocate large sums to industrialists so that each could establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the Party so that a strong German Empire can be created after the defeat. It is also immediately required that the large factories in Germany create small technical offices or research bureaus which would be absolutely independent and have no known connection with the factory. These bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons as well as documents which they need to continue their research and which must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy. These offices are to be established in large cities where they can be most successfully hidden as well as in little villages near sources of hydro-electric power where they can pretend to be studying the development of water resources. The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party. Each office will have a liaison agent with the Party. As soon as the Party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany the industrialists will be paid for their effort and cooperation by concessions and orders.
4. These meetings seem to indicate that the prohibition against the export of capital which was rigorously enforced until now has been completely withdrawn and replaced by a new Nazi policy whereby industrialists with government assistance will export as much of their capital as possible. Previously exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence. Now the Nazi party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time to advance the Party’s plans for its post-war operation. This freedom given to the industrialists further coments their relations with the Party by giving them a measure of protection.
5. The German industrialists are not only buying agricultural property in Germany but are placing their funds abroad, particularly in neutral countries. Two main banks through which this export of capital operates are the Basler Handelsbank and the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt of Zurich. Also there are a number of agencies in Switzerland which for a five per cent commission buy property in Switzerland, using a Swiss cloak.
6. After the defeat of Germany and the Nazi Party recognizes that certain of its best known leaders will be condemned as war criminals. However, in cooperation with the industrialists it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important members in positions with various German factories as technical experts or members of its research and designing offices.
For the A.C. of S., G-2.
WALTER K. SCHWINN
G-2, Economic Section
Prepared by
MELVIN M. FAGEN
Distribution:
Same as EW-Pa 1,
U.S. Political Adviser, SHAEF
British Political Adviser, SHAEF

The very title DAIMLER CHRYSLER is concrete proof of at least the fact that a company known to be involved with Nazi concentration camps gained control of a US auto company. Degesch ( Degesch America Inc. ) brought us the Zyklon B gas -and now makes pest control products in the US. Volkswagen, Siemens, Krupp ( Home - ThyssenKrupp AG ), etc., etc.. were also involved with the concentration camps.

This could be as meaningless as our now driving Mitsubishi's -the Japanese company which brought us the WWII A6M "Zero" fighter plane -except that the Nazis' intent is obvious and well documented. EU Army
The very idea of the EU was conceived by SS officers near the end of WWII -as a means to keep Nazism alive -and give them even more power, resources and range than before -and the EU is fast becoming a greater superpower than the US. It now has its own intelligence arm, military, independent GPS system and currency -and Germany, which was once not even allowed to have a military -and which was not allowed to possess nuclear weapons -now has access to both -and is the strongest member of the EU.

Why should I doubt these things -I heard them before they happened -now they have happened -what's not to believe????
...to be continued

.....

 

[Beaudreaux]

Continued....

Very few in Europe, or even Germany, would welcome another Hitler type, but this will not stop it from happening. The last "king of the north" will not have Jewish ancestry as Hitler did -but will be very much Aryan -if not descended from the last Assyrian king (Ashur-Uballit II -who also reigned only 3 1/2 years before retreating to Haran) ...
Eze 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
(It goes on to say he will plant it in the height of the mountain of Israel, but it is not Israel. It is the Assyrian as stated in 31:3 -which God also calls the rod of his anger against Israel in Isaiah 10 -and will cause to flourish to accomplish his purpose).

He will not be welcomed as ruler when he begins to reign -but will reign nonetheless...
Dan 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. Dan 11:23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Dan 11:24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

He'll essentially be among the rich and powerful -and gain the kingdom by a silver tongue. He also won't be big on the dating scene (though he may appear to be)....

Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Why should I doubt what I hear before it happens -and then see happening???

Should these things not come to pass, I would be very happy. However, only turning to God can prevent them -at least how we are affected.
Ironically, the only biblically recorded example of mass repentance at the declaration of destruction from God happened in ancient Nineveh -the Assyrian capital city. It can be found in the book of Jonah.

Jonah was rather disappointed that the destruction did not take place -and probably felt foolish -especially after running away from the job -being swallowed then eventually puked up by a sea creature, etc...

I would be very glad, however, as a crippling attack on America and its other allies is generally simultaneous to the beginning of the attack on Jerusalem/Israel.

I don't want to see it happen, which is why I write of these things to as many as possible -as understanding that they are happening might motivate some to turn to God -which is the only way the following may be prevented.....

Isa 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; Isa 10:2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!
Isa 10:3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Isa 10:4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
Isa 10:6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
Isa 10:7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.

Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

I am hypocritcal -and seek to change that daily. It is not as if I am saying I am righteous and everyone else is not -but it is important that people hear these things. Many prevent these things from being heard, as they think it strategically necessary, but they do not understand the nature of what is happening. Just as it was in the days of Jeremiah -they want an exclusive report, and control of the information -they want the intel and ignore the wisdom -they just don't get the point. If people understood, they might turn and it might be prevented, but they keep them in ignorance, and even stir people up against it being heard -and against those who would tell it... just as it was then.......

Jer 20:8 For since I spake, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil; because the word of the LORD was made a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily.
Jer 20:9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.
Jer 20:10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him.

Wait....what was that middle part again?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I think you'll find that early commentaries on the B of R as translated and presented by Constaninou pretty much prove that your theory is wrong.

Eugénia Scarvelis Constantinou (Jeannie Constantinou): Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse In the Ancient Church of the East. Part 1: Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea. Part 2: Translation of the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea. Ph.D.-dissertation, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada, 2008. 271 + 242 pp. Available as an ebook in PDF-format.
I just learned about this Ph.D.-thesis, which is a very welcome work. It is very fortunate that Constantinou has made it available online. We should all be very grateful for that.
Part 1 “consists of an analysis of the commentary and an explanation of the Book of Révélation in the history of Eastern Christianity”, while part 2 “is an English translation of the commentary with extensive explanatory footnotes” (p. i and ii).
Andrew’s commentary, which according to Constantinou, was written in 611 A.D., is preserved in eighty-three complete manuscripts and “countless abbreviated versions” (iii). Andrew preserved the “totality of ancient Greek tradition for the interpretation of the Apocalypse”, which was independent of the Latin tradition (ibid.). Thus, Andrew’s commentary is extremely important. For this reason alone, it is very welcome that Constantinou has analysed and translated it. It was also very influential as regards the very text and the canonicity of Revelation.
Constantinou shows how important it is to have a complete translation of the entire commentary. Both Averky and Weinrich attributes the interpretation of Oecumenius on Revelation 1:4 to Andrew, but erroneously so. While Oecumenius interpreted Revelation 1:4 as a statement about the Trinity, Andrew attributes this formula to the Father (pp. iv-v). Constantinou also informs us that Andrew “was attempting to quell apocalyptic fears through his commentary, not inflame them” (p. v). I look forward to study this Ph.D.-thesis!
Constantinou’s translation is based on Josef Schmid\’s work. It will be published in the series The Fathers of the Church (according to this page, accessed October 1st, 2009).
Here is Constantinou’s own abstract:

Part 1, Studies on the Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, consists of an analysis of the commentary and an explanation of the Book of Révélation in the history of Eastern Christianity.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the commentary and to the historical context, audience, purpose and motivation for its composition.
Chapter 2 discusses the Book of Révélation in the canon of Eastern Christianity through an historical overview of the place of Révélation in the canon of the East from the second century through the présent day. The chapter considers which factors accounted for the early and immédiate appeal of Révélation, examines the attitudes toward it as revealed in primary sources, and demonstrates that the Apocalypse was consistently recognized as an apostolic document from the second century through the early fourth century. Révélation eventually came under attack due to its association with controversies such as Montanism and chiliasm. Doubts about its authorship were raised to discrédit it in order to undermine the controversial movements which relied upon it. It remained in an uncertain canonical status until relatively recently and is now presumed to be part of the New Testament by most Eastern Christians but the question of its status in the canon has never been “officially” resolved.
Chapter 3 explains the importance of the commentary from a text-critical perspective and for the purpose of studying the history of the Apocalypse text itself. A large percentage of Apocalypse manuscripts contain the Andréas commentary, which has preserved a text type of its own, and the study of the Andréas text type facilitâtes the analysis and évaluation of other text types by comparison. This chapter also discusses the dual textual transmission of the Book of Révélation, unique among the books of the New Testament, since manuscripts of Révélation are found both in scriptural collections as well as bound with a variety of spiritual and profane writings.
Chapter 4 discusses Andrew’s commentary in the context of the trajectory of other ancient Apocalypse commentaries, East and West, and how the interprétative history proceeded along a dual stream of tradition. The first commentators greatly influenced those who followed them, but only those who wrote in the same language. The Latin tradition did not influence Greek interpreters, nor vice-versa, and commonalities between Greek and Latin writers can be traced back to the earliest Fathers and to the perspectives, Scriptures, exegetical techniques and traditions common to both East and West from the first centuries of Christianity.
Chapter 5 commences an évaluation of the commentary itself, including Andrew’s purpose, motivation and orientation, as well as a discussion of the structure, style and characteristics of the commentary. This chapter also explains Andrew’s methodology, techniques and use of sources.
Chapter 6 explores Andrew’s theology, including his doctrine, view of prophecy, history, eschatology, angelology and salvation.
Chapter 7 reviews Andrew’s influence on subséquent Eastern commentators, the translation of his commentary into other ancient languages, its impact on the réception of the Book of Révélation into the Eastern canon and the commentary’s lasting prééminence and importance.
​

 

[idea]

In any event, out of all the prophecies - I think the most exciting is the coming forth of a new set of scriptures, not just a record of the Jewish ppl... of another ppl, other sheep who recorded their dealings with God, and burried their words in the ground to come forth during the latter days.


Truth shall spring out of the earth, Ps. 85:11
A voice shall speak out of the ground, Isa. 29:4
The vision of all has become as the words of a book that is sealed, Isa. 29:11 (Isa. 29:9–18).
The sticks of Joseph and of Judah shall be one in the Lord's hand, Ezek. 37:15–20.
Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, John 10:16

 

[Beaudreaux]

​

　Part 2

By far the most important ancient commentary on the Book of Révélation produced by the Greek East was composed by Andrew, Archbishop of Caesarea, Cappadocia. It not only became the standard patristic commentary in the Eastern Christian tradition and significantly influenced ail subséquent Eastern commentaries, but decisively influenced the réception of the Book of Révélation into the canon of the Orthodox Church. Long after the canon was fixed in the West, the East still wavered in its attitude toward the Apocalypse of John. Certain councils, bishops and patriarchs accepted it, while others rejected it.
This uncertain canonical status continued well into the second millennium and was probably only fully resolved after the invention of the printing press, which standardized the production of the Bible. By this time, Révélation had gained widespread acceptance in the Orthodox world. Moslem conquests and occupation of many traditionally Orthodox lands renewed Eastern interest in Révélation. The fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the Greek Orthodox expérience of more than four hundred years of subjugation, persécution and martyrdom under Islamic rulers, furthered interest in John's apocalyptic vision. Doubts raised commonly during the fourth and fifth centuries regarding the apostolic authorship of Révélation — due to its association with heresy, strange imagery and Semitic style of Greek — had nearly excluded the Apocalypse entirely from the canon. Eventually, thèse doubts faded away. This occurred in no small part because of the existence of a commentary on Révélation penned by Andrew, a respected ancient bishop and thoughtful orthodox interpréter of the Scriptures, who occupied the celebrated see of Caesarea, Cappadocia.
Andrew's commentary exists in its entirety in eighty-three manuscripts. In addition, thirteen abbreviated versions of the commentary survive, as well as fifteen manuscripts with scholia from Andrew. It was published in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, vol. 106 (Paris 1863) 215-457, however, the fîrst critical édition of the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Apocalypse Commentary of Andrew of
[/FONT][/FONT]　
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

-2-​

[/FONT][/FONT]Caesarea was published in 1955 by Josef Schmid. Before Andrew's commentary was ever printed in the Greek original text, the Jesuit scholar Théodore Peltanus, a professor at the University of Ingolstadt in the mid-sixteenth century, had created a free Latin translation which appeared in print in Ingolstadt in 1584 and is reprinted in the Patrologia Graeca volume. Several additional Latin éditions were also subsequently printed.2

​

​

 

[Beaudreaux]

Part 3

1.2 The Life and Work of Andrew of Caesarea​

The person and work of Andrew of Caesarea is veiled in mystery. Virtually nothing is known about his life. Of his exegetical work, little remains except for his [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Commentary on the Apocalypse [/FONT][/FONT]and a few small fragments consisting of questions and answers.3 While scholars hâve placed Andrew's episcopal tenure as early as the fifth century and as late as the ninth century, today most locate him in the mid to late sixth century or early seventh.
The ancient city of Caesarea was located in eastern central Asia Minor, in the geographical center of modern-day Turkey, approximately 150 miles almost due north of the extrême northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea.4 For centuries it was the civil and
1 Josef Schmid, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andréas von Kaisareia, [/FONT][/FONT]vol. 1 of [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, [/FONT][/FONT]3 parts (MUnchen: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955-56). The sections consist of the following: (1) [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Der Apokalypse-Kommentar des Andréas von Kaisareia. Text [/FONT][/FONT](1955), which I will refer to as [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]"Text," [/FONT][/FONT]is the Greek critical text of the commentary, (2) [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Die alten Stamme [/FONT][/FONT](1955), or [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]"Alten Stâmme," [/FONT][/FONT]is a study of the textual tradition of the Apocalypse itself and the relationship of the Andréas commentary to the textual transmission of the Apocalypse, and, (3) [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Historische Abteilung Ergànzungsband, Einleitung, [/FONT][/FONT](1956) or [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]"Einleitung, " [/FONT][/FONT]is a review of the manuscript tradition of the commentary and the subséquent history and réception of the Andréas commentary. For purposes of clarity, I will cite to each section, rather than giving citations to volumes, since the number and composition of the volumes can differ.
2 Schmid, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Einleitung, [/FONT][/FONT]122. An earlier Latin translation may hâve already existed, since the famous Armenian bishop, Nerses of Lampron, describes the discovery of a commentary on Révélation by Arethas, (who was heavily dépendent on Andrew), in a Latin monastery in the city of Antioch. It was in the "Lombard language," and Nerses was unable to find anyone who could translate it into Armenian. Nerses eventually found a copy of Andrew's commentary in the Greek language at the "Roman" (i.e., Greek Orthodox) monastery of St. Pathius. After earnestly begging for the manuscript, Nerses acquired it and then had it translated into Armenian. Nerses, the Archbishop of Tarsus (d. 1198), is considered responsible for the acceptance of the Apocalypse into the New Testament canon of the Armenians and his discovery of the Andrew commentary played no small rôle. Schmid, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Einleitung [/FONT][/FONT]107-108. Also see chapter 7.2.1 of this dissertation.
3 Thèse fragments were published by Friedrich Diekamp in [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Analecta Patristica [/FONT][/FONT](Rome, 1938) 161-72, and came from a work entitled ©epa7ie\micf|. Andrew produced at least one other commentary, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Commentary On Daniel, [/FONT][/FONT]which is attributed to him in a catalogue of the Patriarchal Library of Constantinople, printed at Strasbourg in 1578, but that commentary is otherwise entirely unknown as no manuscript of it has been found. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Bibtiotheca Sive Antiquitates Urbis Constantinopolitanae [/FONT][/FONT](Argentorati, 1578), 22. See [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Clavis Patrum Graecorum [/FONT][/FONT]7478.

4​

Présent day "Kaysari." ​

　
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

-3-​

[/FONT][/FONT]religious center of the Roman province, and later the Byzantine province, of Cappadocia. The episcopal see of Caesarea was among the most prominent of the Byzantine Empire. Indeed, the metropolis of Caesarea was second in importance only to Constantinople itself. The bishop of Caesarea held the titular rank of "Archbishop" and his see was designated as [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]protothronos, [/FONT][/FONT]giving the Archbishop of Caesarea a precedence which is consistently recorded as such in the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Notitiae episcopatuum.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]5
[/FONT][/FONT]Little can be said about Andrew with certainty except that he was the Archbishop of Caesarea in the late sixth and/or early seventh centuries. Apart from his ecclesiastical rank and see, and his authorship of a commentary on Révélation, we only know that Andrew wrote other commentaries, now lost, and responded to exegetical questions. Therefore, he must hâve been a well known and respected expert in Scripture interprétation. He confessed in the opening lines of his commentary that he was pressed by many people to undertake the job of writing a commentary on the Book of Révélation, which until then he had repeatedly declined.
It is not surprising that Andrew had previously denied requests to comment upon Révélation, despite his expertise in Scripture. Due to the very nature of the book itself, an interprétation of Révélation is challenging and difficult for anyone. In addition, almost no Greek exegetical tradition existed for the Apocalypse that Andrew could rely upon for assistance. But his statement that numerous persons appealed to him to assume this difficult task reveals that he was recognized as a proven exegete, technically and theologically well-qualified, and a respected hierarch.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Part 4

1.2.1 Dating Andrew's Episcopal Reign​

In récent years, scholarly opinion has finally reached a gênerai consensus that Andrew flourished in the late sixth and early seventh centuries.6 Andrew's episcopal reign
5 Daniel Stiernon, "Caesarea, Cappadocia," [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Encyclopedia ofthe Early Church, [/FONT][/FONT](2 vols.) vol. 1, éd. Angelo Di Berardino, trans. Adrian Walford, (Cambridge, Eng: James Clark & Co., 1992), citing Jean Darrouzes, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Notitiae epsicopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae [/FONT][/FONT](Paris, 1981).
However, arrivai at this consensus has been ridiculously slow. Even very recently scholars appear entirely unaware of the discoveries (now more than 100 years old) which hâve affïrmatively and unquestionably established the parameters for dating Oikoumenios, the author of the first Greek commentary on Révélation, and Andrew. For example, Manlio Simonetti, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Biblical Interprétation in the Early Church, [/FONT][/FONT]trans. John A. Hughes (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1994), 112, writes vaguely that Andrew and Oikoumenios "followed each
　
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

-4-​

[/FONT][/FONT]has been dated from 563-614.7 While this is a useful approximation, it is highly unlikely that Andrew reigned for fifty-one years as a bishop, although it is not entirely impossible. It is more plausible that another bishop or bishops held the see during an intervening period of time between the end of Theokritos' episcopacy in 563 and Andrew's ascent. Andrew could hâve occupied the see as early as the end of the sixth century, but internai évidence in the commentary suggests that he most definitely served as the bishop during the critical first years of the seventh century.
We know for certain that while Andrew was writing his own commentary he had before him the earliest Greek commentary on Révélation, which had been authored only a few years prior by Oikoumenios. Oikoumenios provided us with a rough date for his own commentary when he remarked that he was writing more than five hundred years after John experienced his révélation. This places Oikoumenios' work at the end of the sixth century and provides the first parameter for dating Andrew's commentary. Since Andrew's commentary followed that of Oikoumenios, Andrew could not hâve written prior to the very end of the sixth or early part of the seventh century.

1.2.2 Dating Andrew's Commentary on the Apocalypse​

Many scholars surmise that Andrew's commentary was composed not only prior to ​

other at an uncertain date in the sixth or seventh centuries." Georgios B. Mavromatis, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]H 'AnoicâXvynç rov Icoâvvov pe narepiKrj 'AvâXvarj, [/FONT][/FONT](Athens: Apostolike Dianoia,1994), places Andrew in the 5 century and, even more surprisingly, places Oikoumenios around 600, well [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]after [/FONT][/FONT]Andrew (Mavromatis, 21). Frederick W. Norris, likewise dates Andrew in the fifth century. "Andrew of Caesarea," [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, [/FONT][/FONT]éd. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 38.
7 The [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]terminus post quem [/FONT][/FONT]is that a previous Archbishop of Caesarea, Theokritos, died in 563 and Andrew followed him at some point thereafter. We know the names of the archbishops of Caesarea from the year 500 through 563. See Franz Diekamp, Analecta Patristica (Rome, 1938), 162, and Panagiotis K. Chrestou, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]'EXXnviKrj FlarpoXoyia, [/FONT][/FONT]5 vols. (Thessalonika: Kyromanos, 1992), 5:514, and also Chrestou in [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Flarépeç mi QeoXôyoi rov Xptariaviapov, [/FONT][/FONT]2 vols. (Thessalonika: Tehnika Studio, 1971), 1:338. Chrestou correctly states that Andrew lived in the ô"1 and 7"" centuries. The [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]terminus ante quem [/FONT][/FONT]is the date of the destruction of Jérusalem by the Persians, an extremely significant event about which Andrew gives no hint of any knowledge. Diekamp believes the last possible date of composition is 637, the date at which time Moslems took control of Jérusalem. But Andrew présents Jérusalem as still under the rule of "pious" kings, i.e., Christian Roman emperors. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Chp. [/FONT][/FONT]52, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Text [/FONT][/FONT]178, [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Commentary Translation, [/FONT][/FONT](hereinafter"Co/w/w."), 171.
"But what does he mean by adding [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]what must soon take place [/FONT][/FONT]since those things which were going to happen hâve not yet been fulfilled, although a very long time, more than five hundred years has elapsed since this was said?" (Oikoumenios 1.3.6) Oecumenius: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Commentary on the Apocalypse, [/FONT][/FONT]trans. John N. Suggit, Fathers of the Church Séries, vol. 112 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 22. Oikoumenios' identity and dating are discussed in greater détail below.
　

​

​

 

[Beaudreaux]

Parts 5 - 18 to come, because I'm all about citing sources instead of making my own arguments.

 

[Etritonakin]

Whenever you say "This actually means this" you are interpreting. You cannot possibly honestly believe that you are not interpreting symbolic texts, can you?

I am saying that the sybols in the bible are also interpreted by the bible. For instance...

Eze 17:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar:

Eze 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

So I am not interpreting myself, but merely reading the interpretation given.

As for the king of the south being Iran at this time...

Dan 11:2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
Dan 11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

History of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Etritonakin]

I think you'll find that early commentaries on the B of R as translated and presented by Constaninou pretty much prove that your theory is wrong.

No -it just proves that those educated by the world's standards have a theory.

Actually, God purposefully does not use the great men or minds of the world to do his work -nor does he reveal things to them...

1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?......

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Blackdog22]

Yeah because using crazy, unintelligent people obviously furthers the Kingdom.

Anyways, Einstein was a believer, and wrote quite a bit about his beliefs. So once again I just proved your book is full of lies and nonsense. How many times does this book have to be shown to be false before people stop believing?

 

[Etritonakin]

Wait....what was that middle part again?

Jer 20:10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him.

I'm assuming you referred to the above.... Report, say they, and we will report it...

This refers to the powers-that-be wanting exclusive access to information. What would become of Germany and Europe -how it would affect Israel, Britain and America, etc. -has been understood and officially declared to our goverment (and others) since the end of WWII -and mostly ignored (then). The Nazis, however, did not ignore it. They knew what they themselves were up to and took great interest in those openly declaring what they thought were their secret plans. This is why the Assyrian (Nazis) are so interested in "the daily" (God's church preaching the gospel of the kingdom and prophesying of future events) -enough to want to take it away!

Our own people are now taking note, but they still react as if it is a state secret -seeing the information as intelligence, which they seek to use to gain advantage -and seeking that advantage using means which are actually the cause of God's anger -and the reason he is giving us over to the Assyrian. Even more disheartening is the fact that most of the resources they use to do the above are already compromised by the Assyrian. We may have ignored them for 50-odd years, but they have been very busy here. Those who would keep these things secret are not only willing to harm their own countrymen, but are also often coordinated by the enemy. Our ways, tendencies, etc.. have been studied for years -and are being manipulated.
They are much more than one step ahead of us. They know our options, and are already prepared. We continue to trust in more and more desparate measures -when trusting in God is the only way to stop this -because they are the rod of HIS ANGER.

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
Isa 10:6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation
...Isa 10:7 Howbeit he meaneth not so.

As soon as we realized these things were true, we set out to take them down. They were prepared even for this -and manipulate it very effectively. We are not fighting men -WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO THWART THE WILL OF GOD WITH OUR OWN WAYS -and an enemy he himself has raised against us. The only way to stop them is the following........

Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.
Isa 30:16 But ye said, No; for we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and, We will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift.
Isa 30:17 One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill.

It is very much like monsters from the id.... they are not the issue. What is within us is the issue.
Forbidden Planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Etritonakin]

Yeah because using crazy, unintelligent people obviously furthers the Kingdom.

Anyways, Einstein was a believer, and wrote quite a bit about his beliefs. So once again I just proved your book is full of lies and nonsense. How many times does this book have to be shown to be false before people stop believing?

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." (Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 206. )

I did not say intelligent people could not be believers, but that those God actually calls and uses now won't often be seen to be so by the world -but, rather, "crazy and unintelligent" because they don't go along with popular thought. Keep reading. Nothing in the bible has been proven false. Some people's claims about the bible have been proven false.

Relating to the above Einstein quote... if we separate the ten commandments into those regarding our relationship to God, and those regarding our relationship to man, even universal adherence to the latter -which are undoubtedy the basic principles of morality -would create an infinitely more wonderful and peaceful world. Having a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles may not technically require a lawgiver (except that he created us in the first place).... but without the lawgiver there will never be universal adherance to any moral principles (in fact, as we see, they are increasingly abandoned) -and we'd all just die, never to live again.

 

[Blackdog22]

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." (Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 206. )

I did not say intelligent people could not be believers. Keep reading. Nothing in the bible has been proven false. Some peoples claims about the bible have been proven false.

\

He also said:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

He had a non traditional take on God. None the less he was a great mind that believed in God in some way. If God doesn't reveal himself to the, and I quote

Great minds of the world

Then you would have to say that God reveals himself to no one considered by the world to be great in the mind or great in intelligence. This is completely false, and Newton would also like to have a word with you.

So yes, that part of the Bible has been proven false as has the flood and countless other ramblings.