One World Empire?

[DaveW]

Yet no answer to the questions.

How about another. How are we in "the latter part of the 4th Roman Empire" when that empire had its latter part and ceased to exist many centuries ago?

Not saying I agree or otherwise with the general direction of the thread, but to address the quote.....

....Has the Roman empire ended, or has it just changed its style?
Civil Rome was waning when Constantine came to power, but he essentially changed things to combine religion into the civil rule.
Over the following many years the emphasis has swung to a greater religious influence and away from a direct civil influence. For many hundreds of years now the Roman religion has had a far wider influence in the world than civil Rome ever had, yet the line from civil Rome through to religious Rome is easily traceable and unbroken.

Whilst civil Roman rule is not a world power any more, religious Roman rule is still to this day widespread.

And note that I am not suggesting religious Rome is right.

[John81]

Not saying I agree or otherwise with the general direction of the thread, but to address the quote.....

....Has the Roman empire ended, or has it just changed its style?
Civil Rome was waning when Constantine came to power, but he essentially changed things to combine religion into the civil rule.
Over the following many years the emphasis has swung to a greater religious influence and away from a direct civil influence. For many hundreds of years now the Roman religion has had a far wider influence in the world than civil Rome ever had, yet the line from civil Rome through to religious Rome is easily traceable and unbroken.

Whilst civil Roman rule is not a world power any more, religious Roman rule is still to this day widespread.

And note that I am not suggesting religious Rome is right.

I'm not certain what you are saying, but if you are referring to the RCC, they have greatly diminished in power and authority. The "Holy Roman Empire" is also gone, as is the power the RCC once had over the nations of Europe and other nations. Today the pope and his rulings are openly ignored, argued against and mocked by world leaders, priests and Catholics, as well as others.

 

The fact that certain things Rome used have passed on to other countries hardly argues that Rome yet exists. Much of what Rome formed into their civil and other laws stemmed from Greece. One could argue the empire of Greece still exists, yet we know it doesn't.

 

The Roman Empire disintegrated from within and was overrun from without. The Roman Empire ceased to exist.

[Eric Stahl]

I'm not certain what you are saying, but if you are referring to the RCC, they have greatly diminished in power and authority. The "Holy Roman Empire" is also gone, as is the power the RCC once had over the nations of Europe and other nations. Today the pope and his rulings are openly ignored, argued against and mocked by world leaders, priests and Catholics, as well as others.

 

The fact that certain things Rome used have passed on to other countries hardly argues that Rome yet exists. Much of what Rome formed into their civil and other laws stemmed from Greece. One could argue the empire of Greece still exists, yet we know it doesn't.

 

The Roman Empire disintegrated from within and was overrun from without. The Roman Empire ceased to exist.

John ,

 

The forth kingdom changed but did not go out of existance.

 

Daniel 2:40-45

⁴⁰And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

⁴¹And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

⁴²And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

⁴³And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

⁴⁴And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

⁴⁵Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

[John81]

John ,

 

The forth kingdom changed but did not go out of existance.

 

Daniel 2:40-45

⁴⁰And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

⁴¹And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

⁴²And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

⁴³And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

⁴⁴And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

⁴⁵Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Yes, the Roman Empire did go out of existence. Prior to that it went through division and changes and then it ceased to exist. There is no Roman Empire today and has not been for many centuries.

[DaveW]

John, the only nations where Catholicism does not have influence today are hardcore muslim nations. And they have ALL got traces of catholic influence in their history.
Now without making any links to any prophecies, there has never been a time since Rome was a civil power when Rome has ceased to have a world influence by either civil or religious means.
several Asian nations, a good number of eastern european Nations have a strong catholic or eastern orthodox control of their governments, and the US and Australia both have heavy Catholic influence - although not direct control - of politics.
these things are historical and current fact.
How that relates to Bible and prophecy I will leave to others, but Rome has not ceased to have great worldwide influence since the emporers.

[John81]

John, the only nations where Catholicism does not have influence today are hardcore muslim nations. And they have ALL got traces of catholic influence in their history.
Now without making any links to any prophecies, there has never been a time since Rome was a civil power when Rome has ceased to have a world influence by either civil or religious means.
several Asian nations, a good number of eastern european Nations have a strong catholic or eastern orthodox control of their governments, and the US and Australia both have heavy Catholic influence - although not direct control - of politics.
these things are historical and current fact.
How that relates to Bible and prophecy I will leave to others, but Rome has not ceased to have great worldwide influence since the emporers.

Influence and power/control are very different things. As well, the influence of the RCC is nothing at all like it once was. The pope used to be able to command kings, move nations to war, bring about mass persecution of non-catholics, and wield real power. Today when the pope issues an edict it's just as likely that most will ignore it as some will follow it. How many American Catholic politicians pay heed to the pope? How many typical American Catholics?

 

The empire of Rome lost all power. The RCC tried to latch onto the remnants but couldn't hold on. The Eastern Orthodox reject the pope and are not a part of the RCC.

 

London still holds influence around the globe, but she no longer has the power and control she once had and often her influence gets her nowhere and it's clear that though London still stands, the British Empire is no more. Rome, even less so.

[beameup]

Yes, the Roman Empire did go out of existence. Prior to that it went through division and changes and then it ceased to exist. There is no Roman Empire today and has not been for many centuries.

"Babylon" is mentioned repeatedly in Revelation, and yet has not existed for hundreds of years.
Obviously, "Rome" stands for something during the Tribulation as does "Babylon".
Everywhere that the Spanish colonized, they brought the Roman Catholic Church with them and the Mission
became the central place where all records of birth, death, baptism, etc. were kept.
In that regard, the Spanish brought civilization and government to their colonies.
I just finished 6 years living in the Philippines, and I can guarantee you the Roman Catholic Church is very powerful.

[John81]

"Babylon" is mentioned repeatedly in Revelation, and yet has not existed for hundreds of years.
Obviously, "Rome" stands for something during the Tribulation as does "Babylon".
Everywhere that the Spanish colonized, they brought the Roman Catholic Church with them and the Mission
became the central place where all records of birth, death, baptism, etc. were kept.
In that regard, the Spanish brought civilization and government to their colonies.
I just finished 6 years living in the Philippines, and I can guarantee you the Roman Catholic Church is very powerful.

Obviously we are getting sidetracked.

 

How does any of this answer this:

 

When we look at Scripture we see that four empires are listed (Daniel, etc.) and all four are said to have ruled all the earth. However, did Babylon rule the whole earth? Did the Medo-Persians? Did the Greeks? Did the Romans?

 

Then there is talk of a future empire to rule the earth. Most teach this means a one world kingdom under one ruler. Why? If the first four empires are described as ruling all the earth, when they each obviously only ruled a portion, why do we assume the final empire will indeed encompass the entire earth?

 

I've heard countless prophecy preachers speak of how mighty the first four empires were and then declare that after Rome there has been no mighty empire. That's not even true. There have been several empires of various sizes. What's most striking is the total lack of acknowledging the British Empire, which at its height encompassed the earth and approximately 2/3 of the earth was under British rule. The British Empire had far more power and was much larger than any of the four empires mentioned in Scripture, yet the prophecy preachers totally ignore the British Empire and they state no mighty empire has existed since Rome but that a world empire is coming.

 

Is it possible Scripture is saying something different than what most prophecy preachers proclaim, and what many of us have been taught?

 

I keep in mind that the Jews, religious leaders and common folk alike, thought they understood the coming of the Christ but they turned out to be wrong.

[JerryNumbers]

Years ago when my daughter was in school she would come home asking can I go to the so & so event. Many times I said no. Anytime I said no she would say that everyone is going, & that if I did not let her go she would be the only one that would not be there. I did not believe her.

 

PS. After the events took place & sometimes I would ask her if she was the only one that did not go. Her answer was always no, there's were others that did not get to go either. Yet she never stopped using that tactic even though it never worked!

 

 

Years ago while I had a country store a young man stopped in who worked for a mechanic right down the road that I knew very well one afternoon. He bought some gas cashing the check his boss has just written out to him paying for the gas & a few other items. When I gave him his money back he said, "I'm headed to Texarkana & I'm going to by so & so brand beer, have you ever tried it?"

 

I replied, "No, I don't drink beer, nor hard liquor either."

 

He them said, "That's a lie, everybody drinks."

 

I asked him, "Do you really believe everyone drinks?"

 

He quickly replied, "Yes."

 

I them said, "Your looking at one right now that does not drink, I have drank, & I like the taste of it, but I hate the effects it has on people, I've even seen it break up families, & kill people."

 

He them stated, "I hate the taste of it but I love the effects of it & that's why I drink."

 

Sad to say he is now dead, & drinking is the main cause of his death & probably all the way up to his death he believed everyone drinks liquor of some type.

 

With those two examples stated, I still believe the Bible, who am I to question God? Yes, I know many do, but that does not mean I have to, even if I can explain it so that others can get a grasp on it. And yes I know its not political correct to believe the Bible, yet I'm going to anyway. When the Holy Scriptures says  all four are said to have ruled all the earth, that is exactly what it means.

[John81]

 

With those two examples stated, I still believe the Bible, who am I to question God? Yes, I know many do, but that does not mean I have to, even if I can explain it so that others can get a grasp on it. And yes I know its not political correct to believe the Bible, yet I'm going to anyway. When the Holy Scriptures says  all four are said to have ruled all the earth, that is exactly what it means.

No one is questioning God. The questions being asked are to better understand the Word.

 

Scripture clearly says the previous kingdoms ruled the earth in the eyes of God though they didn't literally rule the world. That being the case, why do we believe the next kingdom will literally rule the entire earth rather than being like the previous kingdoms which literally only ruled a small portion?

 

The very fact we don't have a ready answer to this question should cause us to want to dig more into Scripture and seek the Lord in prayer on the matter.

[wretched]

No one is questioning God. The questions being asked are to better understand the Word.

 

Scripture clearly says the previous kingdoms ruled the earth in the eyes of God though they didn't literally rule the world. That being the case, why do we believe the next kingdom will literally rule the entire earth rather than being like the previous kingdoms which literally only ruled a small portion?

 

The very fact we don't have a ready answer to this question should cause us to want to dig more into Scripture and seek the Lord in prayer on the matter.

 

It is reasonable to think that the world in Scripture past and present is regulated to the middle east and europe. But I do not believe the future prophetic world excludes this hemisphere if by no other reason than association. The western hemisphere is in essence colonies of europe and have little (standing alone) relevance to future events, hence no "clear" mention in Scripture but are most likely classified as part of europe in prophecy. I know most americans will be appauled at that but we are england, canada is france and mexico and everything south of it is spain and portugal.

 

I don't think it was chance that God Inspired both the KJB and the Jamestown settlement roughly at the same time by the same king and of course the pursuits of gold and riches by the rest of europe followed suit as an un Inspired catholic by product of greed from other european powers at the time.

 

I think that the final world power will be recognized as europe but will geographically include the west.

[Covenanter]

The only references to a one world empire in the Gospel's are:

Satan's claim in the temptations;

the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:¹⁴ Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

¹⁵ And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

Acts & the epistles are concerned with the spread of the Gospel through the word - the Kingdom of God, Jesus -

1 Tim. 6:¹³ I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

¹⁴ That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

¹⁵ Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

¹⁶ Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

There is no prophesied future world empire ruled by a human king - only rebellions & wars culminating in Armageddon & the Gog-Magog battle which ends with fiery  judgement from heaven. 

[JerryNumbers]

No one is questioning God. The questions being asked are to better understand the Word.

 

Scripture clearly says the previous kingdoms ruled the earth in the eyes of God though they didn't literally rule the world. That being the case, why do we believe the next kingdom will literally rule the entire earth rather than being like the previous kingdoms which literally only ruled a small portion?

 

The very fact we don't have a ready answer to this question should cause us to want to dig more into Scripture and seek the Lord in prayer on the matter.

 

In a previous post you seemed to say you doubt what the Bible says, that it says one thing & the opposite is true & how to explain it. I'm copying & pasting that post below this below them making one more comment about it.

 

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:42 PM

JerryNumbers, on 21 Jul 2013 - 8:18 PM, said:

I suppose next that will be coming is that the flood did not flood the whole earth. Just a portion of it.

 

I suppose much of that comes about because the public schools are teaching there is no God & that old 'black book' is nothing but lies & we came about because of the big bang.

Scripture is clear the whole earth flooded. Archeology even confirms this. The flood doesn't fit the topic at all.

 

How do we explain that Scripture says certain empires ruled the whole earth when we know they only ruled a very small portion? We know that Babylon ruled only a small area. The same is true for the other empires mentioned in the prophecies as well. Scripture refers to them as having ruled the whole earth, yet they only ruled a very small area.

 

Knowing this, why do we believe that a fifth empire, what most call a revived Roman Empire of some sort, will actually literally rule over the whole earth rather than a small portion just as the other four empires listed in the same prophecies? If the empires are consistent, it would seem the fifth empire would be of similar sort to the previous four, all of which ruled a small portion of earth, yet in God's view they are somehow said to have ruled the whole earth.

 

Discussing this is in no way saying the Scripture isn't correct, it's seeking understanding.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

About what I placed in bold letters above.

 

 

The flood fits the topic, if the Bible says it, its true. If the Bible says so & so rule the world, they ruled the world.

 

Your saying the Bible says so & so ruled the world yet you know they didn't, that means you are thinking you know better than God. Or at least that is how its coming off to me.

 

That is why I stated, read the Bible & believe.

[John81]

Since the previous kingdoms are said to have ruled the whole earth, but didn't literally do so, why do so many believe a future kingdom is going to literally rule the whole earth when the other instances of such did not?

 

The idea of a literal world kingdom (other than Christ's) hasn't always been what Christians have held to. Are some so busy looking for a literal world kingdom they are missing a coming smaller kingdom (like the previous kingdoms Scripture says ruled the earth)?

 

This is similar to the concept of those American preachers who declare Christians here will never suffer any really bad times because they will be raptured. These Christians are being sold a belief that doesn't agree with Scripture, yet they've heard it so long they expect to always have a good life because if bad times come, they will be raptured. These same people, when hit with bad times, often fall into great despair and sometimes completely fall away from the church.

 

The very fact no one is able to answer the question posed is clear indication this belief in a future one world kingdom isn't founded as solidly as the prophecy preachers proclaim.

[JerryNumbers]

The problem is not answers that's been given, its your not believing the Bible on this issue. That's why I brought up the flood, many claim the flood covered only a prat of the earth, although the Bible seems to have it covering the whole earth. And I asked about it for one that claims the Bible is wrong on one thing, they will make the claim its wrong one many things.