Islam: Conquer Rome After Constantinople

ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - A distinguished Italian historian is warning that radical Islam's goal is to conquer Rome now that it has reoccupied the ancient Byzantine basilica of Hagia Sophia.

"The goal of Islam is clear — after Saint Sophia, Saint Peter," Professor Roberto de Mattei told Church Militant, following Pope Francis' six word non-condemnation of Turkey's inflammatory decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

"Pope Francis said he was saddened by the transformation of the Hagia Sophia museum into a mosque, but what else should he have expected from Sultan Erdoğan?" asked de Mattei, author of Turkey in Europe: Benefit or Catastrophe?

For years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been insisting that Turkey enter Europe in order to Islamize it, the Catholic historian emphasized.

Erdoğan, a radical Muslim, was "developing a 'neo-Roman' political strategy throughout the geopolitical belt of the former Soviet Union's Islamic republics," de Mattei noted.

Rome is the 'Red Apple'

"The ultimate goal of the Turkish conquests, according to an ancient tradition, is called 'the Red Apple' (Kizil-Elma). This is the name used to denote the golden globe supported by the statue of the Emperor Constantine in Constantinople."

Pope Francis said he was saddened by the transformation of Hagia Sophia into a mosque, but what else should he have expected from Sultan Erdoğan?Tweet

"After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Rome became the 'Red Apple,' the ultimate objective of the Muslim Ottomans and the symbol of the triumph of Islam over Christianity. This demand has not weakened over time," he warned.

"Pope Francis visited Hagia Sophia in November 2014 on his trip to Turkey. Shortly before, he visited the Sultan Ahmet — also known as the Blue Mosque — in Istanbul with the Grand Mufti, to pray in silence and barefoot."

"Could it be that the pontiff hasn't learned anything from this trip?" asked de Mattei, director of the Lepanto Foundation.

Professor de Mattei cited world-renowned Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars and media celebrity, "who has been hugely influential on large swaths of contemporary Islam through his appearances in the media and on the internet.

'Occupied Europe' Underway

Sheikh al-Qaradawi recalled on Dec. 2, 2002 that when the prophet Muhammad was asked which city would be conquered first, Rome or Constantinople, he replied: 'The city of Hirquid (Constantinople) will be conquered first.'

Qaradawi explains: "The city of Hirquid was conquered in 1453 by the young Ottoman emperor of 23 years of age, Mohammed bin Murad, known to history as Mohammed the Conqueror. The other city, Rome, remains and we believe and hope [that she too will be conquered]."

He adds: "This means that Islam will return to Rome conquering and victorious after having been expelled twice, once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East when it knocked several times at the gates of Athens."

According to de Mattei, "The same al-Qaradawi, in a fatwa promulgated on Feb. 27, 2005, declared: 'Notwithstanding the pessimism among Muslims, in the end Islam will govern and will be the head of the whole world.'"

"One of the signs of the victory will be that Rome will be conquered, Europe will be occupied, the Christians will be defeated and the Muslims will grow in number and become a force which will control the whole of the European continent," al-Qaradawi announced.

Islam 'Coming for the West'

Meanwhile, historian of Islam Robert Spencer is also alerting the West to Erdoğan's plans for Islam's march on the West.

"Erdoğan is signaling his aspiration to restore the caliphate, the single unified Islamic government to which, in Sunni Islam, all Muslims owe allegiance," Spencer wrote in a column for PJ Media.

Erdoğan is signaling his aspiration to restore the caliphate, the single unified Islamic government to which, in Sunni Islam, all Muslims owe allegiance.Tweet

"The last caliphate was abolished by the secular Turkish government in 1924. Now that Erdoğan has just about completed his work of destroying Turkish secularism, he is moving more directly than ever to re-establish the caliphate that the secularists themselves destroyed," observed Spencer, author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West.

Following the Council of State verdict Friday to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque, Erdoğan vowed to "liberate al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel.

"The resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the footsteps of the will of Muslims across the world to come ... the resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the reignition of the fire of hope of Muslims and all oppressed, wrong, downtrodden and exploited," Turkey's president said in a victory speech.

Jesus, not Peter, is the Rock on which His church is built.Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

Everything one needs to know... about the “Rock”
A quick easy read....and St. Paul can’t help us on this either..
And having us believe, Christ speak in the third person Referring to himself as a Rock.....is a bridge too far....

From the beginning... in Aramaic.....Jesus knew who His rock was going to be.....it was not a spur of the moment choice....

John 1:42 , "... When Jesus looked at him, he said: “You are Simon, the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated “Peter”)." “Cephas” is a common noun meaning “stone,” or “rock.” Evidently, Jesus' words were prophetic...

Now reading more than just one verse.... you can understand the context of the Whole Gospel discourse.....And how special Peter was to Christ.....
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever Thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Now let’s loook at the Greek.....

From Catholic Answers....

Few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks” that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.

“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .” The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.
Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:
1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.
So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.
3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large” or “small” with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks” in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone” when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,” or “pebble.”
5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.
Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.
6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”). Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father” over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father” in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope” or “papa,” as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).
7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David” who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister” among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister” in ancient Israel:
Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”
No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

And btw.... it is a real place where Christ went to.....

More Catholic Answers

Steve Ray: He’s saying, “I’m going to give you the keys of the kingdom.” In other words, I’m the King and I’m delegating to you my authority, keys were a sign of authority. Sometimes it was a seal, the king’s seal on a wax or some other sign. Under Israel the sign of the kingdom, the sign of that authority was the keys of the kingdom.

Steve Ray: And Jesus is delegating those to Peter here being symbolic. And also in the Vatican today, they’re symbolic keys, but they represent the royal authority that has been delegated. I love the painting in the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo painted where Peter’s giving the keys back to Jesus at the end of time because Michelangelo understood that those keys were delegated to Peter and the successors. But at the end of time, when the King comes back, he gives the keys back to their rightful owner.

Trent Horn: Let’s go through this passage then a little bit more in depth, and I want you to break it down for us to explain to Protestants and even Catholics who may have just given the passage more of a surface reading. So this takes place in Matthew 16 let’s start at verse 13, we’ll go through 19 I’ll stop at different places. So this passage begins here. “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, who do men say that the son of man is?” Now, my understanding is to you is there’s an important reference here to understand where the disciples are when this conversation transpires.

Steve Ray: It does. It’s in the North of Israel today. It’s on the right on the Lebanese border. In fact, when I take my groups up there, my favorite place to talk about this passage is at the site and we are right on the Lebanese border. In fact, you can see the fence that goes into Lebanon and it’s a place where there was a pagan… It looks like a Holy site for the pagans. They came there to worship Pan, the God Pan, and they also had at the time of Christ, before the time of Christ, Herod the King. King Herod had built a huge white temple there, made out of white marble imported from Greece. And he made it to the divine Caesar Augustus because Caesar was considered divine.

Steve Ray: And so when you came to this place, there’s a huge rock. This rock is massive. It’s 500 feet long at least and 100 feet high or something, and on the left hand side there’s a big cave. And this huge rock was a place where people came to worship Pan and to worship the divine Caesar Augustus. And right behind the temple, if you’d walk through the temple, there’s this huge cave and people would come there and they would throw their living sacrifices into the cave because it was full of water and they believed that the gods were down there.

Steve Ray: So here you have a big rock, you have a church, a false temple here like it represents almost like a church and you have the gates of hell and they’re coming to worship the wrong Lord with the wrong sacrifices. This is so important to understand the geography when you’re reading this. See my way of understanding the Bible, Trent, is when I read it and it says, Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philip and then asked these questions and does this little dialogue. My first question is always, why did they mentioned that it was Caesarea Philippi. Is there something about Caesarea Philippi that makes this discussion important? So I went there and I studied it and my oh my that whole location explains the words that Jesus is saying. And without knowing that geographical location, you will not get everything out of this passage that we should.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Islam: Conquer Rome After Constantinople

Historian warns Islam will target St. Peter's after Hagia Sophia

Rome is the 'Red Apple'

'Occupied Europe' Underway

Islam 'Coming for the West'