84) Age Of Empires

In 1453  Mehmet II “the Conqueror”, took Constantinople, the gateway to Europe, and Islam surged into Christendom.

042812_1108_38

Like conquerors before him, with the taking of the capitol city Mehmet II also claimed the European title Kayser-i Rûm, i.e. Caesar of Rome, and emperor. All subsequent Sultans of the Ottoman Empire kept Kayser-i Rum as one of their many titles.

The Ottoman Empire was an absolute monarchy during much of its existence. By the second half of the fifteenth century, the sultan sat at the apex of a hierarchical system and acted in political, military, judicial, social, and religious capacities under a variety of titles. He was theoretically responsible only to God and God’s law (the Islamic شریعت‎ şeriat, known in Arabic as شريعة sharia), of which he was the chief executor. His heavenly mandate was reflected in Islamic titles such as “shadow of God on Earth”.

The Islamic ruler was absolutely the equivalent of the Christian ruler.

ottomanempire1800

The title [“Caesar” of Rome (Kayser-i Rûm)] was…a showdown between Turks, Russians and Germans…

Keep in mind these three main claimants as we continue to wander through the maze of intervening history. Names and geographical boundaries constantly shift, but the root identities and destinies don’t change. When we perceive what we are seeing, we find historical validation of the biblical report of the continuous existence of all four empires in the fourth kingdom.

  1. The Moslem Turks, which today continue to aspire to reclaim the extent and power of the Ottoman Empire, as will be demonstrated as this study proceeds.
  2. The Western European Roman Catholic Germans who expanded into England then America.
  3. Russia, the Eastern Orthodox heir of Constantinople and most recognizable political entity of the three.

The continuation, succession and revival of the Roman Empire is a running theme of the history of Europe… Separately from claims of continuation, the view that the Empire had ended has led to various attempts to revive it or appropriate its legacy. In the respective contexts of Orthodox Russia since the 16th century and modern Italy between 1870 and 1945, such attempts have used the vocabulary of a “Third Rome” (the “First Rome” and “Second Rome” being, respectively, Rome in modern Italy and Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire) to convey their assertions of legitimate succession.

In 1547, acknowledging the long-term loss of Constantinople and surrounds to the Ottoman Turks, and in defiance of the European rulers’ claim, the Russian ruler assumed the title of Caesar / Tsar and, supported by the Orthodox Christian Church’s opposition to the Roman Catholic / Universal Church’s expanding power, transferred the seat of the eastern government of the Roman Empire from Constantinople to Moscow as the Third Rome.

“Moscow, Third Rome” is a theological and a political concept which was formulated in the 15th–16th centuries in the Tsardom of Rus. In theology as a political concept, three interrelated and interpenetrating fields of ideas can be found:

  1. Theology: necessity and inevitability of the unity of the Eastern Orthodox /True Church,
  2. Social policy: East Slavic territories being historically joined through Christian Eastern Orthodox faith and Slavic culture,
  3. State doctrine: the Moscow Prince is a supreme ruler and defender of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church which facilitates the execution of his divine right to rule as God’s representative as an autocrat.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Tsar’s competing heir to the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine throne, Andreas Palaiologos, found refuge in the West where his title and claim to be rightful Emperor of Rome was recognized of course by the Christian Western powers opposed to both the Russian and the Moslem claimants. Desperate for living expenses, like Esau he sold his inheritance, including his title and imperial rights, to the French kings, where they gathered dust, then bequeathed them at his death to their greatest rivals for power, the Spaniards.

This officially elevated iberian_union_empires.pngKing Ferdinand, married to Queen Isabella / Jezebel, into a legal Emperor of Rome.

These are the rulers who expanded the Empire’s dominions into the New World after funding Christopher Columbus’ voyages. (Map shows Spanish Empire in red and Portuguese in blue during union of their empires 1581-1640.)

Following the Spanish conquests in the Caribbean, Mexico and Peru, the crown established high courts…and viceroyalties…with the viceroy (vice-king) and the Audiencias the effective administrators of royal policy.

In the early 1700’s the Spanish monarchy passed by inheritance to the House of Habsburg under King Charles I – who just happened to be also the Holy Roman Emperor as Charles V, thereby uniting the eastern and western branches of the European Roman empire into a single Germanic Holy Roman Empire.

in 1806napoleoniceurope Napoleon Bonaparte conquered the Germanic Holy Roman Empire’s territories, shown in the map in blue with green allies. He also forced the Spanish king to abdicate, and placed his older brother Joseph Bonaparte on the throne of Spain. This consolidated both East and West branches of the European Roman Empire under Napoleon.

While modestly calling himself Emperor of France, Napoleon identified himself as Emperor of Rome by having himself crowned with both a replica of Charlemagne’s Roman Emperor crown and a Roman laurel wreath. He also conferred on his son the title King of Rome, which is, like the official designation of the heir to the throne of England ,”Prince of Wales,” the official designation of the heir to the Roman Empire.

After Napoleon was frozen out of his bid to incorporate the Russian sector of the Roman empire, then lost the western to the British at the Battle of Waterloo, the Germans reclaimed control of Europe. They bolstered their historical dynastic right by

  • retrospectively calling Charlemagne’s first German-centered empire “The First” Reich
  • and the renewed German Empire under Kaiser (you get that, right?) Wilhelm “The Second” Reich”.  When this was dissolved in World War I by the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm, it was replaced by
  • Hitler’s “Third” Reich which fully intended to take over Russia as well. Although Hitler did not call himself Kaiser, the identification of his empire with the two previous empires certainly identified him with the previous emperors / Kaisers. Just as Caesar left republican Rome’s Senate intact, just powerless, likewise Hitler left the Weimar Republic’s Reichstag intact, just gutted.

Meanwhile England overpowered Spain, becoming by far the largest empire in history and the foremost global power for over a century.

By World War I the British Empire controlled 23% of the world’s population and covered 24% of the Earth’s total land area.

ngbbs4d4bd6a0b26e1

Lenin’s Russian Revolution of 1917 put an end to the Roman-ov dynasty (yes, that means son or family of the Roman), the title of Caesar / Tzar in Russia, and the role of the Orthodox Church, but not to the role of an Imperator driven to conquer the world through the Comintern.

cw

The trail of history inexorably brings us face to face with England as the heir to the Western European Roman Empire at the start of World War I. Hitler’s Third Reich was simply a hopeful heir claiming the name without any of the power or territory.

But what if England had allied with Germany to form an unstoppable Western European force against Communist Russia’s Eastern European Roman Empire?

More than anything else [Hitler] dreamed of an alliance with Saxon England. A nation, he believed, that was made up of and run by people of “excellent Germanic stock”… Hitler proclaimed that, “the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world”. He added, “England was a natural ally for Germany and an enemy of France”, plus the latter’s communist friends in Russia, no doubt…he asserted that the English are, “our brothers, why fight our brothers?”. Then Lloyd George came out with a quite remarkable comment. Although everyone was aware of Hitler’s antisemitism from his autobiography and in the 1930’s the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews…the ex-British premier reminded his audience that, “we must not forget the pogroms in Russia and in other European countries”. It was as if he was saying that maltreatment of the Jews happens, and has happened in communist Russia, so why attack Germany for doing the same?

Tacit British support for Germany continued under the veil of appeasement. During the Spanish Civil War…Britain wanted Franco and his fascists to take control of Spain rather than see it fall into the hands of…communists who would be controlled by Moscow…

So after looking at how friendly the British and German governments were in the 1930’s, why was there no Anglo-Nazi Pact?…

Although Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists had strong support in many of the English towns and cities, especially in the north, the vast majority of the Britons…could recall the hatred they had felt for a foe that had massacred their countrymen on the fields of Flanders and elsewhere twenty years ago.

There was also one man who inadvertently undermined everything that Hitler wanted from an Anglo-German alliance…Joachim von Ribbentrop. The Fuhrer sent him as German Ambassador to Britain in August, 1936. He single-handedly destroyed any hope of a rapprochement between the two countries in a number of ways. He insisted on giving an outrageous fascist salute when meeting King George VI [the reigning monarch of the, albeit undercover, Roman Empire and superior to Germany’s hopeful] and seemed astonished that the king did not reply in the same manner. At most meetings with British ministers he argued that Germany must be given back the colonies she lost after the First World War. [Despite the massive losses suffered by England fighting against Germany in WWI.]

Even his personal secretary, Reinhard Spitzy observed that, “he behaved very stupidly and very pompously and the British don’t like pompous people”…the inter-war friendliness between Britain and Germany broke down to the extent that on 2nd January 1938 Ribbentrop reported back to Hitler that, “England is our most dangerous enemy”.

Adolf Hitler believed that there was a very good chance of such an alliance in the mid-1930’s. So much so that he…believed that Britain would not interfere, or in fact help him, when he untangled the bonds of the Treaty of Versailles that restricted the German military and territory. British appeasement, if that was what it was, just added to his belief. All this therefore led to the Second World War…

Josef Stalin…and the politburo in Moscow certainly believed that an alliance between the two powers was in the cards…as late as 1940 [when] Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested that Britain should defend Finland against the advancing Red Army. For his entire life Stalin never trusted the British and argued that a NATO containing the United Kingdom and the post-war West Germany was an alliance specifically set up as an aggressive pact against the Soviet Union. This is something that Russian premier Vladimir Putin, even in the twenty-first century still believes is happening and is one reason why he seeks to rebuild a buffer zone, starting with the Crimea and parts of the eastern Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

Russia’s current concerns should be taken as a major clue to what happened to the Western European branch of the Roman Empire. 

The collapse of British imperial power…can be traced directly to the impact of World War Two.

The catastrophic British defeats in Europe and Asia between 1940 and 1942 destroyed its financial and economic independence, the real foundation of the imperial system.

Britain had survived the war, but its wealth, prestige and authority had been severely reduced…

The British found themselves locked into an imperial endgame from which every exit was blocked except the trapdoor to oblivion…

When Britain finally entered the European Community in 1973, the line had been drawn under Britain’s imperial age.

Is NATO the heir to the British Empire?

Despite Russia’s concerns, NATO is just not big enough. The biblical Fourth Kingdom gobbles up world territory. 

Who took over England’s world power and territorial expanse?

One country that is ruled out as a contender by “Bible believing Christians” is the United States. They are fixated on the city of Rome and European geography. The above review of history refutes that fixed belief, but another even more popular belief still overrules any consideration of America being the bad guy.

America is not mentioned in the prophecies because the Rapture will have taken place…hundreds of millions of Christians will have vanished – causing enormous consternation among those who remain…

perhaps the United States may not be mentioned in Scripture because it might be devastated by a nuclear war…“The possibilities of it have never been greater,” says Laurie…

“I personally believe that the reason the U.S. is not mentioned in end time prophecy,” says Reagan, “is because we will suddenly cease to be a world power and will therefore play no significant role in end time events.”

“The destruction of American power is most likely to occur in two stages,” writes Reagan. “The first could be an economic catastrophe that will result from our out-of-control debt situation. Our god is the dollar and the Lord is going to destroy that god when the weight of our debt collapses our economy.” In such a scenario, writes Graff, “America will have suffered a financial collapse by the time of the last days, and would still exist, but not be a superpower. That is exactly what many political and financial analysts are saying about our current course. The United States will not be gone in the last days. We will just not be worth mentioning.”

The problem with the above consideration is that it is nothing but speculation. It discredits itself by

  • ignoring the intrinsic fluidity of an empire’s geography since expansion is definitive of empire,
  • ignoring that the other modern nations are not mentioned by name either,
  • contradictorily attributing modern European nations’ historical roots to their current identities while not attributing America’s European historical roots to her current identity.

Let’s continue reviewing history to see if America’s jives with biblical prophecy.

After the fall of the Constantinople the Roman cultural and imperial heritage was always subject to disputes.The race for prestige and legitimacy was forcing different eastern or European monarchies and dictatorships to declare themselves as the new Rome or 3-rd Rome…it is the US that came closest to the pedestal of the 3-rd Rome, with its cultural, political, historical, geopolitical aspects…

The comparison we are building can be divided into two historical cycles, the foundation of the US is compared to the Roman republic and the modern US…to Imperial Rome…

The Pax romana or the Roman peace was the eventual product of the international relations in antiquity, and one of the key factors for the followers to dream about. The role of Rome as the Global Dominant in the international relations forced all the political issues to be solved under the auspice of the Republic. This was transformed into what many scientists call Pax Americana or American peace

Founding Fathers and the Roman influence on them

All of them were well educated people and the classical education was almost fully based on the Roman and Greek studies.  Their heroes were the Roman republicans and defenders of liberty. All of the Founders’ Roman heroes lived at a time when the Roman republic was being threatened by power-hungry demagogues, bloodthirsty dictators and shadowy conspirators. The Founders’ principal Roman heroes were Roman statesmen: Cato the Younger, Brutus, Cassius and Cicero — all of whom sacrificed their lives in unsuccessful endeavors to save the republic․..

The political vocabulary they used — republic, virtue, president, capitol, constitution, Senate — had Latin etymology. The legislative processes they utilized — veto, sine die — were Latin…

The Founders’ and Framers’ noms de plume were Roman…They were consciously identified with Roman models of republican virtue. So:

  • George Washington: others were calling him American Cincinnatus. While he preferred to call himself Cato the Younger,
  • John Adams was called Cicero, the greatest attorney of the ancient world,
  • Besides their differences with Adams, Thomas Jefferson was called Cicero too,
  • James Madison was known as Publius (Valerius Publicola),
  • Alexander Hamilton was most surprisingly identified with Caesar.
  • John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, was identified with Publius (Cornelius Tacitus).

While Rome served as a primary example of republicanism for the Founders as a whole, no one took it to heart more than John Adams…Due to Cicero’s influence, Adams chose law as his profession…Adams dedicated his life to justice…Colleagues called Adams “the man to whom the country is most indebted for independency.” And later some added: “For the country that was born in Philadelphia that day, we have Adams — and Cicero — to thank…”

The Ciceronian school of political thought has been studied for two millennia and found its culmination in the American Constitution…Cicero gave Adams the idea of “a mixed constitution of three branches” each restrained by a delicate equilibrium of checks and balances…There can be no doubt that Cicero’s republican ideology found its way into the American Constitution and that the liberties people enjoy today have their roots not in an inspired gathering of the Founding Fathers, but in a more ancient time, in the Republic of Rome…

America’s advent of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches were directly derived from the Ancient Roman model.

  • Executive Branch

    In times of peace, the executive branch of the ancient Rome comprised two consuls, elected by Roman landowners for 1 year terms. At all times, the executive branch also contained various bureaucrats who were in charge of arranging festivals and conducting censuses. The same system was used in The USA, President, & Vice President similar to the two consuls and the government similar to bureaucrats.

  • Legislative

    The most influential members of the legislature in Rome were those in the Senate. This large body of elected land owners decided how state money was spent and what projects were viable for state funding. The Senate also took control of foreign policy in particular, the many wars Rome was engaged in as it expanded its territory. In this case similarities are more than obvious, the modern US Senate generally speaking has the same role and rights as the ancient Roman, even the name of this institution was not changed. By the way, today very often Senators are nominated and elected as presidents just like it was with the counsels in Rome.

  • Judicial

    The judicial branch of ancient Rome was very similar to the modern US courts…particularly the Supreme Court of modern-day America. Six judges were elected on an annual basis to administer the law of the land to those who broke it…the Roman judiciary could actively create sentences and punishments instead of merely following the past precedent or the sentencing law handed down from the legislative and executive branches, however the right of the constitutional court to interpret the constitution and the laws is somehow the transformed form of the creational jurisprudence of Rome.

    The citizenship and professional armies are another remarkable similarity. The Citizenship of Rome was the prototype for the “New” idea of equal and free citizens in the US. The citizens in both places have rights that are differentiating them from the rest of the world in the eyes of the state. And last but not least, the first model of the professional army much before it was created in the US was the Roman Legion.

Roman symbolism in USA

The architecture of the American founding also showed a predilection for the Roman aesthetic sense. It is not too much of a stretch to assert that the buildings and monuments lining the National Mall in Washington, D.C. with their stately, classical architecture might resemble a Roman colony.

Some perfect examples are listed below:

  • Perhaps the most obvious example of this lies in the Supreme Court building. Cas Gilbert’s design draws its inspiration from Roman temples. The staircase, raised podium and the columns would not be out of place in the Roman Republic. Similarly, the white marble on the Supreme Court and throughout Washington, D.C., was consciously selected to mimic the architectural splendor of ancient Rome.
  • The Capitol, White House, Thomas Jefferson’s memorial were loosely based on the Roman Architecture.

The same logic works not only in architecture but also in arts and symbols of the time of young American republic:

  • The Founders’ sculpture and painting were also inspired by Roman precedents. It is not unusual to see them adorned in a toga.
  • The Roman Eagle was transformed into the great seal of the USA.

The US Capital is identified even with Rome’s geography. In Washington, D.C., Capitol Hill (formerly called Jenkins Hill) alludes to one of the Seven Hills of Rome. Almost all political and law terminology was also copied from the Latin roots.

At the end another aspect should be mentioned – the Law. After the fall of Rome, the US became the first state to be fully led by laws. After the fall of the ancient world the idea of the rule of law was forgotten and the Term “right” was used only with some religious context. The US became the first modern state to be fully governed by elected authorities. The idea of a civilized society where no one is higher than law, where all interpersonal relations can be regulated by law where the state was not affiliated with certain people but rather with a system (together with above mentioned) was the renaissance of Romanism…

Therefore, the American Republic is hardly a new idea and is in fact a mere innovation of a far more ancient political system: The Roman Republic.

The Civil War left an enormous imprint on the American consciousness in much the same way as World War I did on the European mindset...

During the Civil War almost the entire population of those who were of military age in both the South and North [bore arms].

The scales of the armies were enormous…in a single battle there might be 100,000 men on each side, and casualty rates ran as high as 20 to 25 percent. Cities were razed. Thousands of prisoners of war starved to death. And many were simply shot and left to die on the roadside…

The Cause of All Nations: an International History of the American Civil War…takes us through the trajectory of the intellectual and diplomatic international debate that continually evolved as each stage of the Civil War progressed…into a grander narrative about universal human freedom —and progressive enlightenment values—in a global context during the 19th century.

the public debate that was happening in Europe by prominent intellectuals of the daysaw the Civil War as far more than just internal strife between the Confederacy and the Union. They viewed it instead as an epic showdown between democracy and aristocracy. [Exactly like the founding of the Roman Republic.] It was a matter of free versus slave labour, where the winners would decide how the capitalist world would progress in tandem with modernity.

Before 1860 the United States had offered aspiring republicans around the globe a template for how a free, self-governing nation might live in peace and prosperity. And America…thus automatically became, in many European minds, a model country to aspire to when thinking about progressive ideas such as liberty, equality, and self-rule. And with the Civil War, the U.S. seemed to offer to the rest of the world a literal battle between those values and rights.

There is a direct parallel between writing amendments to the Constitutions that strengthened, through centralization, the power of the existing Republican governments in both Washington and Rome during

  • the American Civil War resulting from the wealthy plantation owners claiming to right to own slaves
  • and the Roman Conflict of the Orders resulting from the wealthy Roman aristocratic landowners claiming the right to enslave indebted plebeians.

A central theme of all recorded history has been the use or abuse of power — how it lurks in the shadows behind the professed idealism of politicians and the compelling reasons they expound when they bring their nations to war. Such words often cloak those who wield political power and redistribute it among themselves as a consequence of success or failure on the battlefield.

It is important in this discussion to emphasize the contrast between “rights” and “powers.” Ironically, many strong reservations about “powers” came from the Northern states during the [Constitutional] ratification debates. The Massachusetts legislature expressed a fear that the Constitution might be interpreted so as to extend the powers of Congress, and Rhode Island proposed a remarkable statement of states’ rights similar in sentiment to that used by Southern secessionists two generations later. Even New England politicians resorted to their rights and threatened secession if their demands were not met. Among the Southern states, the people of Virginia required that the powers granted the national government under the Constitution “be resumed by the states, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that the states were “not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” but reserved “each State to itself, the . . . right to their own self-government…”

  • However, the Union victory virtually eviscerated the 10th Amendment [there’s that 10 again] leaving the Federal (national) government with perhaps too much power. The idea of limited federal power was much older than the slavery debates of the nineteenth century and was recognized as an unresolved issue at the time. Would the united states, melted down into one nation, be practicable or consistent with freedom? Is it consistent with freedom today?

The phrase public diplomacy may not have become an official term in the popular press until World War I. But it was during the Civil War that deliberate, state-sponsored programs began attempting to influence the public mind abroad about American foreign policy.

Could these state-sponsored programs to influence the public mind be duplicitous and deceptive? Stay with me as we consider how the Emancipation Proclamation was a whitewash, simply trading one form of slavery for a publicly acceptable form.

Although anti-slavery was a prominent reform movement of the period, other causes, such as temperance, women’s rights, religious revival, public education, concerns for the poor, and prison reform, were as zealously pursued by activists. Of these only slavery and disunion became politically charged issues in the antebellum period;

The growth of [Northern] factories forced factory workers to move from the countryside and cluster into housing constructed so rapidly that little consideration was given to public health. Outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and typhoid were common…factory laborers suffered under horrendous working conditions…Factories were damp, filthy, noisy, poorly ventilated and poorly lit. Men, women and children worked extremely long hours for very little pay… under slavery-like conditions…until the 20th century.

The American Civil War resulted in “the complete transformation of the United States into a capitalist power…opening the doors to European immigration by the millions…pushed the United States into first place among industrial powers by 1900 [in one generation] outstripping Great Britain.” The bloodshed and number of lives sacrificed – and I use that term intentionally – to make this happen is staggering. “Approximately 625,000 men died in the Civil War, more Americans than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined...Two percent of the population died, the equivalent of 6 million men today.

And the United States continued to outstrip Great Britain economically through public diplomacy, culminating in the Lend-Lease Act, a “milestone in the history of US foreign relations.” This was brought into play when the British Empire managed a desperate lonely stand-off against a Nazi takeover of the world while President Roosevelt kept America out of direct involvement. Instead, President Roosevelt arranged to trade to war-impoverished England and other allies, too war-impoverished to buy, desperately needed military and domestic supplies. What America got in exchange was:

  1. Access to Britain’s global network of military bases.
  2. Underwriting of America’s transformation into a military-industrial complex, with, as President Eisenhower warned, “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
  3. Defeat of the Nazi Third Reich with limited loss of American soldiers’ lives, thereby defeating the powerful isolationist politicians at home and winning the majority of Americans to his conviction that Americans can, and must, save the world for democracy.
  4. Entrance into the war, swooping in at the last minute to claim as spoils of war Germany’s top secret, highly advanced weapons technology.
  5. The creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world.”

map-of-wwii-allies-and-axis-4

This strategy resulted in America becoming a militarized nation enthusiastically supported by its citizens, taking over the the Western branch of the European Roman Empire apparent in assuming:

  1. Britain’s economic power
  2. Britain’s naval superiority
  3. Germany’s cutting edge scientific brainpower, in particular,
  4. Nazi rocket science to launch the Space Age

global-power-2016

While obviously highly successful, senate opposition to the Lend-Lease Act correctly foresaw that the bill would “...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world.”

Going beyond extensive territory, a nominally republican government, and a Roman legacy of culture – language, calendar, architecture – we must recognize the role of the ruler of the Roman Empire as the protector of the State religion.

The most powerful Roman religious leaders for a thousand years were the Pope at Rome, and the Sultan in Turkish Istanbul, with the heads of Protestant breakaway countries assuming this role, exemplified, but certainly not exclusively, by Henry VIII of England.

Defender of the Faith was a Roman Catholic title conferred on Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521, later withdrawn but restored by Parliament and used ever since by English sovereigns.

And don’t overlook the non-royal rulers, like Hitler’s Positive Christianity. “Christians in Germany — Protestants even more than Catholics — not only cooperated with the Third Reich, a large percentage even celebrated it.

What about in America where there is separation of Church and State? Compare the world map of American forces defending democracy with the world map of Christian missionaries. Hello? The American Commander in Chief is the Defender of the Christian Faith.

us-military-bases-worldwide-1-

christian_distribution.png

today the United States sends more Christian missionaries abroad than any other country, experts say.

The United State sent out 127,000 of the world’s estimated 400,000 missionaries abroad in 2010, according to Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts.

In distant second place is Brazil, which sent 34,000 missionaries abroad in 2010…

The role of missionaries has changed dramatically…and missionaries today tend to work independently or through organizations not affiliated with churches that traditionally ran missionary agencies. And their work may be focused on providing humanitarian aid rather than founding churches and winning converts…

After World War II, many newly independent countries declared moratoriums on western missionaries, and independent missionaries became more prevalent, said Dana Robert, author of “Christian Mission: How Christianity Became a World Religion.”

And frankly, separation of Church and State is applied when it’s in the State’s interest, and doesn’t when it isn’t.

The Fellowship, also known as The Family and the International Foundation, is a U.S.-based religious and political organizationfounded in 1935 by Abraham Vereide. The stated purpose of The Fellowship is to provide a fellowship forum for decision makers to share in Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship of God, and to experience spiritual affirmation and support.

The Fellowship has been described as one of the most politically well-connected and most secretly-funded ministries in the United States. They shun publicity and its members share a vow of secrecy. The Fellowship’s former leader, the late Douglas Coe, and others have explained the organization’s desire for secrecy by…insisting they would not be able to tackle diplomatically sensitive missions if they drew public attention…

Fellowship member and Watergate conspirator Charles Colson described the group as a “veritable underground of Christ’s men all through the U.S. government…” “The Fellowship’s reach into governments around the world is almost impossible to overstate or even grasp,” says David Kuo, a former special assistant in George W. Bush’s [administration].

As a contender for sole ruler in the Roman Empire, Western European-rooted American Roman Empire has competed with Eastern European Russian Roman Empire on the basis of a religious crusade against atheist Communism.

American propaganda cast the Cold War as one of history’s great religious wars, between the godless and the God-fearing, between good and evil. It was a simplistic depiction that was supported and promoted in the highest echelons of government and by the leaders of America’s key institutions. During the course of the presidencies of Harry S. Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, U.S.-Soviet rivalry was transformed from a traditional great power struggle into a morality play…Truman made religion America’s ideological justification for abandoning America’s wartime cooperation with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower used religion to persuade the world that America was a force for good in the international arena. The resulting anti-communist crusade was to have profound consequences for Christian America…Over time it caused irrevocable alterations to America’s religious landscape. The anti-communist dynamic unleashed…anti-liberalism and was a factor in the rise of the Christian Right and the decline in America’s mainstream churches. In addition, the image of a godless and evil enemy dictated an irreconcilable conflict that precluded the very modes of diplomacy and discourse that might have helped avoid the worst excesses, costs, and consequences of the Cold War.

And how do we miss the religious legacy of Roman culture in Christianity?

The Pantheon, which means “temple of every god”, has been in continuous use throughout its history. Built during the reign of Augustus Caesar, it was converted to a Christian church in the 7th century. To this day, English and American Christian church buildings around the world are modeled after classic Greco-Roman temples.

What is this telling us?

53302447-pantheonfromhotel

temple_baptist_church2c_ruston2c_la_img_3754

It is indisputable that the classic pagan religion of the Roman, empire that has moved over the two millennia from Rome, to Constantinople, to European capitals, is now settled in… Washington.

1200px-apotheosis_of_george_washington

The Apotheosis of Washington – literally, the deification (or god-making) of George Washington. The fresco depicts Washington as Zeus on a throne in heaven surrounded by various gods and goddesses from classical mythology. Painted on the ceiling of the dome of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. during the Civil War by Vatican artist Constantino Brumidi.

The similarities between pagan idols and monuments to our national leaders cannot be coincidental. Do you really think Satan is just sitting out history on the sidelines? Wouldn’t we expect him to be wherever the greatest power is concentrated?

washington-zeus-700x437

lincoln2band2bzeusBoth statues of Washington and Lincoln were deliberately modeled after Zeus, with Washington’s entitled “Enthroned Washington” and Lincoln’s placed in a monument expressly modeled after one of Zeus’ temples and defined as a temple on the plaque above Lincoln’s head. The timing and association of these images of Zeus is no accident of history.

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write…I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is...where Satan dwelleth. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.” (Revelation 2:12-14)

Asklepion is an ancient healing complex located at the base of the Pergamon acropolis in Turkey built in honour of Asklepios, god of healing…The site…was founded in the 4 th Century BC around a sacred spring that still flows…it became one of the best-known healing centres of the ancient world, second in importance only to Epidaurus in Greece and was also the world’s first psychiatric hospital…

According to ancient myth, the god Asklepios had the power to raise people from the dead and he himself was restored to life by Zeus: for this reason he was thought to also have a snake form.  Tame snakes were kept in his temples…

Treatments included psychotherapy, massage, herbal remedies, mud and bathing treatments, surgeries and the drinking of water, which were prescribed according to what dreams the patient had experienced – it was believed that dreams recounted a visit by the god Asklepios, who held the key to curing all illness.

Following the political transfer of power, the religious seat of Satan’s dynasty moved West from Babylon to Pergamon at the Roman Altar of Zeus.

The greatest example of Hellenistic Greek sculpture, the colossal Altar of Zeus at Pergamonis a monumental work built…about 166 to 156 BCE. The altar is adorned with a 370-foot long marble frieze which depicts the Gigantomachy from Greek mythology. Like the Parthenon in Athens – another icon of classical antiquity – the Zeus Altar was constructed on a terrace of the acropolis overlooking the ancient city of Pergamon…in Asia Minor. However, unlike the Parthenon, it was not a temple but merely an altar…achieving excitement, wild movement and strong feeling…9-foot high frieze is alive with huge figures of gods and giants locked in mortal combat…carved in such high relief that they were almost detached from the background…portray the mythical victory of Zeus and the Gods over the Giants…All that remains of this extraordinary work of art – arguably the greatest narrative relief in the history of sculpture – is part of the Berlin Collection of Classical Antiquities, and can be seen at the Pergamon Museum, Staatliche Museen, Berlin.

the-pergamon-altar-altar-of-zeus-2nd-century-bc-2335

hqdefault1

It provided the model for Hitler’s Zeppelin tribune, the megalithic grandstand for Nazi political rallies raising to power the man who took the reigns of power from the Kaiser.

03-4_3320zeppelintribune

I assume we don’t have a problem following a trail that leads from Zeus’ seat at Pergamon to Berlin and connects Satan to Hitler. Are we willing to keep following the trail even if it leads to an admired political leader…or a city in our own country? If “Bible believers” really believe that Daniel’s fourth world empire, the Roman, stays in power until the Rock returns and destroys it, we should be able to see it even when it is hiding in plain sight.

a6d74_1326834883_mile_high_stadium_crowd_denver_obama

Paul’s revelation that the elected official of an ostensibly Republican form of government was in reality an undercover tyrant who held the title of Commander-in-Chief, controlled the Senate and Assembly through alliances with elected representatives and veto power, controlled the decisions of the Judicial branch of the government, and allied with the most powerful religious faction of the nation should be a flashing red siren to current readers.

The federal government grew enormously in power and prestige, particularly the office of the President. Abraham Lincoln’s assertion of the “war powers” of the President has been used (abused) consistently by his successors to spread American “democracy”. And which red-blooded American can argue against that most noble of objectives

 

One thought on “84) Age Of Empires

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s