Posted on 09/27/2020 12:15:02 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Can you count? there are 7 foederaci here in 500 AD, yet all of them, were foederaci in the Roman Empire - they acknowledged the Roman Emperor in Byzantium as their overlord.
Can't you get this into your head - Rome didn't fall in 476 AD, it didn't collapse them. All that happened was the the entire empire fell once more under ONE Augustus - Emperor Zeno who sat in Constantinople.
-------------------------------------------------------
You must have missed this when I linked to the article
The 1260 Years Begin with the Implementation of Emperor Justinian's Decree Arian Ostrogoths under Theodoric had controlled Italy since 493, and had even imprisoned Pope John I, who died in Ostrogoth custody in Ravenna in 526. Catholic Emperor Justinian, who began waging open war with the Arians in the 530s, declared the Bishop of Rome the head of all Christian churches in 533, and commissioned his General Belisarius to destroy the Arian Vandals and Ostrogoths. The Vandals were defeated in 534 in the battle of Tricamarum. Turning his attention to the Ostrogoths, General Belisarius took Rome in December of 536, and under the direction of Emperor Justinian, deposed and exiled Pope Silverius who had been installed by the last Ostrogoth King of Italy, Theodahad, who had terrorized the clergy into electing his pro-Gothic candidate. Silverius died a prisoner. Belisarius installed Vigilius, a confidant of Empress Theodora, as the Bishop of Rome in March of 537. In quick reply, the Ostrogoths rallied and laid siege to Rome. When the siege was finally broken by General Belisarius in March of 538, the Ostrogoths withdrew from Rome in defeat, leaving it in the Emperor's control, and Vigilius as the Bishop of Rome (who reigned until 555 A.D.). So it was in 538 A.D. that Emperor Justinian's Decree of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Church could actually be implemented, beginning the prophetic 1260 years of temporal rule by the papacy.
The 1260 Years End with a Head Wound to Papal Power
The "head wound" to papal power was inflicted in 1798 when General Berthier of France captured Pope Pius VI, who soon died in captivity in Valence, on August 29, 1799.
538-1798 = 1260 years of temporal power of the Catholic Church, wherein they tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people for Heresy, or for being Jews, witches, or what have you, whatever fit their fancy. Murder of the saints was a priority. Wholesale slaughter by the Mother Church. Give me a break. It doesn't surprise me at all that you are a member.
Can’t you get this into your head - Rome didn’t fall in 476 AD, it didn’t collapse them. All that happened was the the entire empire fell once more under ONE Augustus - Emperor Zeno who sat in Constantinople.
WESTERN ROME
there was no collapse - Gibbon's propaganda has been long disproved.
And there were just 7 of those foederati
Now go and learn something before bringing up non-historical statements
The Pope didn't have temporal power in 538 AD of any sort
What are you smoking?
The Papal states date to 754 with the donation of Pepin
And then you cite 1798 - Pope Pius VI was captured, but the papal states were restored after 1812 and Nappy's defeats. They were finally closed in 1871 with the unification of Italy
So neither of your dates make any sense. Neither does your Adventist non-Christian philosophy either, but that's another question, right?
Oh and just for your adventist person as I know that Adventists don’t read the Bible, nor can count, right? 1871-751 = 1120 years, nowhere near your biblically false 1260 YEARS. The Bible says it is 1260 DAYS and doubles down on that by replacing that with 3.5 years or 42 months.
Can’t you get this into your head - Rome didn’t fall in 476 AD, it didn’t collapse them.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/835/fall-of-the-western-roman-empire/
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-the-fall-of-rome-112688
https://www.history.com/news/8-reasons-why-rome-fell
https://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_rome/fall_of_rome.php
https://www.thoughtco.com/fall-of-rome-short-timeline-121196
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Roman_Empire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml
https://www.ushistory.org/civ/6f.asp
https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/
“In his masterwork, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, historian Edward Gibbon selected 476 CE, a date most often mentioned by historians.”
They all say 476 (Western Rome, if you can get that into your head). Guess who took over in 538?
Dude - Gibbon’s statements have been discredited as he wrote partial fiction.
This is apparent in his blame for the fall of Rome on Chistianity,
his ignorance of several primary sources that were not discovered or deciphered until later generations,
his downplaying and general dislike of the Byzantine empire, and
his belief in now discredited details such as the supposed origin of the Goths in Scandinavia.
Gibbon recognizes the East Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire and the Empire’s citizens as Byzantines, labels the East Romans never called themselves (nor did anyone else in their age). He does this to distance the East Romans from the aspects of the civilization he admired and seperate post 476 (or post 299) Romans from the West. Gibbon recognizes the Byzantines (East Romans) as the inheritors of the Romans but ones who imperfectly carried the legacy. They were failures compared to their predecessors.
Gibbon wanted to link the West with Rome, linking a progression from the gilded classical age, culminating in the Enlightenment, which was escaping the influence of Christianity and benefitted from the rediscovery of classical learning. He uses some of the best English prose put to paper to make his case. His bias though caused him to miss his goal by almost 977 years. To make his case, he had to paint the East Roman Empire as religiously backward and archaic. Such was the skill in his writing that his bias basically became the bias of the West.
Gibbon accepted the idea of the Dark Ages. In fact, most Enlightenment thinkers loved the idea of the Dark Ages at least as a point of comparison. It made them look better to compare themselves to the dark past. It’s in the name for the age. Enlightenment thinkers built themselves up on the idea that they were enlightened relative to the people of the Dark Ages.
The problem for Gibbon is, there were no Dark Ages in the East Roman Empire. The Romans moved from paganism, to Christian, and then synthesized classical learning with Christianity. Gibbon proposed a narrative where barbarism and Christianity mixed with corruption of various sorts, sucking the vitality and Roman vigor from a great culture, leaving a weakened inglorious civilization behind. To Gibbon this was not just less than ideal, but a corruption of better times and a better people.
Yet, while the West struggled to find an alternative to papyrus (the cheap means of writing the West used till it lost access to it), and failed to deal with Germanic overlords, the Byzantines in the East (still Romans) continued living under Roman law, under an unbroken line of emperors (at least through 1204 when the Crusaders sacked and took Constantinople, if not 1453), preserved classical thought, and defended the rest of Europe. They merged Christian theology and classical philosophy in ways that invigorated a flagging Roman culture, one in decline long before Christianity became the dominant religion.
That did not sit well with Gibbon’s narrative. It didn’t sit well with the notion that the West, Britian in particular, were true inheritors of Roman tradition; it didn’t sit well with Gibbon’s idea that Christianity was a weakening factor on Western culture that undermined natural law. The continued survival and thriving of the East under barbarian pressure when the West fell to German barbarians, did not set well either.
Many factors led to the loss of the West in 476. Gibbon gets many factors correct, like corruption and dependency on slave culture. But, he places improper emphasis on some other causes, and others he just gets wrong. He should have placed much greater emphasis on the population decline in the West and the Empire’s failure to develop more major population centers in the West—concerns Rome tried to contend with for centuries but never solved. Similarly, their inability to assimilate Germanic tribes in any meaningful way that could have alleviated population concerns and reduced external pressure, was also a major issue.
Gibbon’s bias is, unfortunately, a legacy of inaccuracy the West still lives with. It is routinely said the Roman Empire fell in 476. This is simply not true. It lasted till 1453. In doing so, Rome saved the West many times before it breathed its last, struggling against the Turks as little more than a city state. Western Civilization courses often shift focus from Rome around 476 and give scant attention to the East Romans although they were the major power and intellectual center in Europe for many centuries after 476. Much of that bias and indifference is rooted in Gibbon’s flawed work
Source: The Victories of Rome and the Temporal Monarchy of the Church, 5th edition, By Kenelm Digby Best, London, 1906, pg. xii.
1260 years
you probably would say Rome - but uh-uh, the capital was Ravenna.
9. ... In books of all sizes, and from the pulpit of every church, we have been taught from our infancy, that the "beast, the man of sin, and the scarlet whore," mentioned in the Revelations, were names which God himself had given to the Pope; and we have all been taught to believe of the Catholic Church, that her worship was "idolatrous," and that her doctrines were "damnable."
10. Now let us put a plain question or two to ourselves, and to these our readers; and we shall quickly be able to form a
[pg. 7]
just estimate of the modesty, sincerity, and consistency of these revilers of the Catholic religion: ―they will not, because they cannot, deny, that this religion was the ONLY CHRISTIAN religion in the world for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ. They may say, indeed, that for the first three hundred years there was no Pope seated at Rome. But, then, for twelve hundred years there had been; and, during that period, all the nations of Europe, and some part of America, had become Christian, and all acknowledged the Pope as their head in religious matters; and, in short, there was no other Christian Church known in the world, nor had any other ever been thought of. Can we believe, then, that Christ, who died to save sinners, who sent forth his gospel as the means of their salvation, would have suffered a false Christian religion, and no other than a false Christian religion, to be known amongst men all this while? Will these modest assailants of the faith of their and our ancestors assert to our faces, that, for twelve hundred years at least, there were no true Christians in the world? Will they tell us, that Christ, who promised to be with the teachers of his word to the end of the world, wholly left them, and gave up hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people to be led in darkness to their eternal perdition, by one whom his inspired followers had denominated the "man of sin, and the scarlet whore"? Will they, indeed, dare to tell us, that Christ gave up the world wholly to "Antichrist" for twelve hundred years?
Source: History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, Showing How That Event Has Impoverished and Degraded the Main Body of the People in Those Countries, by William Cobbett, published in 1832 in New York by John Doyle, 12 Liberty-street; and Thomas Doyle, Market-street, Providence R.I., pages 6 and 7. (Online at Google Books)
1260 years
There was no “sudden collapse” in 476 AD. All that happened was Odoacer ( a Romanized German chieftain who held the actual power) deposed the figurehead Emperor Romulus Augustulus in that year. Odoacer had already had the power before this deposition.
Again, you quote some dude quoting errors. Have you never read the Bible for yourself, Philly? I’m not talking about the Ellen G White edition of the Bible you Adventists read, but the real bible?
There was no “sudden collapse” in 476 AD.
Everyone except you says 476.
“Alex, I pick “Cronos is wrong” for $1000”
Did you know that in the 8th century, Catholicos Hnanisho II was the overseer (Bishop-Patriarch) over fully one third of all Christians in the world?
Furthermore, go and read for yourself:
Gibbon’s bias is, unfortunately, a legacy of inaccuracy the West still lives with. It is routinely said the Roman Empire fell in 476. This is simply not true. It lasted till 1453. In doing so, Rome saved the West many times before it breathed its last, struggling against the Turks as little more than a city state. Western Civilization courses often shift focus from Rome around 476 and give scant attention to the East Romans although they were the major power and intellectual center in Europe for many centuries after 476. Much of that bias and indifference is rooted in Gibbon’s flawed work
WESTERN ROME (You still are not getting that through your head)
Alex, the final Jeopardy answer to “When did WESTERN ROME end” is “What is 476”
“Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity.”
– Pope Innocent III
Your church, Cronos!
Torture, murder, rape, sodomy, (just the kind of church Christ would want, right?) No, it’s an apostate church.
Revelation 18:
3All the nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her immorality. The kings of the earth were immoral with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown wealthy from the extravagance of her luxury.” 4Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Come out of her, My people, so that you will not share in her sins or contract any of her plagues. 5For her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.…
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.