Stars of Heaven

[Sinthesis]

Of course there are both natural and spiritual stars. If we go outside at night, and the sky is clear, we can verify the natural ones existence. ;)

The spiritual stars of heaven began to fall almost immediately, in the days of the early Church. In 313 A.D., with the Edit of Milan by the Roman Emperor Constantine making the church the state religion the stars were quickly tumbling from heaven. In 533 A.D. the Emperor Justinian declared the pope head of all churches, and in 538 A.D., with the removal of the last arian horn from the city of Rome and the giving of Rome as the seat of the Holy Roman Empire ALL the stars of Heaven had fallen to the earth. This was the culmination of, "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." (Rev 6:13) It is also that which the Lord Jesus was speaking of when He said, "And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken." (Mar 13:25)

There is another "falling" referenced thus, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken." (Mat 24:29)

This falling is also set forth in Revelation 8:12, "And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise."

The word part is an added word and this verse reads literally, from the Greek, "[FONT=Georgia, serif]And the fourth angel sounded, and the thirds sun was smitten, [/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, serif]and the thirds moon, and the thirds stars; so that might be darkened them of the third, and the [/FONT] [FONT=Georgia, serif]thirds day not shine of it, and likewise the night."

Of course then we would need to understand what is meant by "the thirds."
[/FONT]

So you weren't really asking a question with the OP but were just a setting up a pretense to teach your own particular interpretation?

 

[sdktlk]

So you weren't really asking a question with the OP but were just a setting up a pretense to teach your own particular interpretation?

The question was real, and the desire was to provoke thought. Just because someone asks a question when already having the answer does not mean that the question was asked in pretense.

 

[Stormcrow]

Stormcrow, wow, excellent! We agree entirely. Nice to see some identify Mystery Babylon properly!
(Anyway, I am full Preterist. )

And welcome!

Thank you. I am neither a preterist nor a futurist. I'm simply trying to make sense of it all as best I can.

There is a far larger point to make about this passage as I was thinking about it today:

34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:34-36 (NASB)

This passage - once and for all - eliminates any justification for holding Jews after the fall of Jerusalem accountable for the blood of Christ. Had people for the past 2,000 years understood this passage as Christ fully intended it when He spoke it, there would have been no persecution of the Jewish people down through the centuries. As it is, there is no excuse for that which has happened to them, often at the hands of Roman Catholicism and the seething hatred exhibited by Luther.

All the innocent blood shed on the earth was held against THAT generation: the one that felt God's wrath in 70 AD.

I think churches - both Catholic and Protestant - owe our deepest apologies to the Jews for the way they have been treated these past 2,000 years. I, for one, am sorry for all they've had to suffer because of the ignorance of the church.

Only Christ had the authority to judge that generation. Judgment, then or now, was never in the commission He gave us.

I read a post recently where a self-avowed Christian called Jews "Christ-killers", and was deeply bothered by that. First, because it's not befitting any Christian to use such hateful language. But there was a deeper reason that I didn't understand until yesterday, when I re-read that passage from Matthew. Then I understood why such a term and its underlying spirit were so wrong. It's utterly unscriptural given the passage from Matthew, cited above.

Christ died to reconcile us to Himself and to each other. I think it's time we started taking that more seriously as it relates to our Jewish neighbors.

IMHO.

 

[Hitch]

Thank you. I am neither a preterist nor a futurist. I'm simply trying to make sense of it all as best I can.

There is a far larger point to make about this passage as I was thinking about it today:

34 "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:34-36 (NASB)

This passage - once and for all - eliminates any justification for holding Jews after the fall of Jerusalem accountable for the blood of Christ. Had people for the past 2,000 years understood this passage as Christ fully intended it when He spoke it, there would have been no persecution of the Jewish people down through the centuries. As it is, there is no excuse for that which has happened to them, often at the hands of Roman Catholicism and the seething hatred exhibited by Luther.

All the innocent blood shed on the earth was held against THAT generation: the one that felt God's wrath in 70 AD.

I think churches - both Catholic and Protestant - owe our deepest apologies to the Jews for the way they have been treated these past 2,000 years. I, for one, am sorry for all they've had to suffer because of the ignorance of the church.

Only Christ had the authority to judge that generation. Judgment, then or now, was never in the commission He gave us.

I read a post recently where a self-avowed Christian called Jews "Christ-killers", and was deeply bothered by that. First, because it's not befitting any Christian to use such hateful language. But there was a deeper reason that I didn't understand until yesterday, when I re-read that passage from Matthew. Then I understood why such a term and its underlying spirit were so wrong. It's utterly unscriptural given the passage from Matthew, cited above.

Christ died to reconcile us to Himself and to each other. I think it's time we started taking that more seriously as it relates to our Jewish neighbors.

IMHO.

Its funny how many times I've said this and been called anti-semitic for it.


Good work.

 

[Acts6:5]

In 313 A.D., with the Edit of Milan by the Roman Emperor Constantine making the church the state religion the stars were quickly tumbling from heaven.

The Edict of Milan declared toleration of all religions; it did not make Christianity the state religion. However, the Edict of Theodosius in 380AD did.

In 533 A.D. the Emperor Justinian declared the pope head of all churches….

Previous emperors, including Justinian’s predecessor, had already recognized papal primacy prior to 533AD. Justinian, himself, had declared the pope to be the “Supreme Pastor” in a letter to Pope Hormisdas in 520AD, so his recognition of papal primacy in 533AD was neither new nor extraordinary.

and in 538 A.D., with the removal of the last arian horn from the city of Rome and the giving of Rome as the seat of the Holy Roman Empire ALL the stars of Heaven had fallen to the earth.

First, 538AD is not the date when the Ostrogoths were “removed” from Rome (and they succeeded in taking the city as well as most of Italy almost a decade later), nor were they the “last Arian horn” to threaten Rome (the Arian Lombards migrated to Italy in 568AD and served as an even greater persecuting power than the Ostrogoths had ever been).

Second, the city of Rome was not the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, not in 538AD nor at any other point in time. You do realize that the HRE was formed out of the 9th-Century Carolingian monarchy, right? The HRE did not exist in 538AD.

Acts6:5

 

[Acts6:5]

*Bump* for sdktlk

 

[sdktlk]

The Edict of Milan declared toleration of all religions; it did not make Christianity the state religion. However, the Edict of Theodosius in 380AD did.


Previous emperors, including Justinian’s predecessor, had already recognized papal primacy prior to 533AD. Justinian, himself, had declared the pope to be the “Supreme Pastor” in a letter to Pope Hormisdas in 520AD, so his recognition of papal primacy in 533AD was neither new nor extraordinary.


First, 538AD is not the date when the Ostrogoths were “removed” from Rome (and they succeeded in taking the city as well as most of Italy almost a decade later), nor were they the “last Arian horn” to threaten Rome (the Arian Lombards migrated to Italy in 568AD and served as an even greater persecuting power than the Ostrogoths had ever been).

Second, the city of Rome was not the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, not in 538AD nor at any other point in time. You do realize that the HRE was formed out of the 9th-Century Carolingian monarchy, right? The HRE did not exist in 538AD.

Acts6:5

Thanks for the corrections on some dates, and with respect to the Edict of Theodosius in 380 A.D. Ancient history can certainly at times be convoluted.

With respect to the “last Arian horn” being removed I stand corrected. It would be better stated that the last Arian (heretic) Pope Silverius (The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father) was removed by Belisarius in 537 A.D. and replaced with Pope Pelagius. With the successful defense of Rome by Belisarius in 538 A.D. from the Ostrogoths the papal lineage was established, with the city of Rome being its "center", and Pelagius was recognized as Pope by all the Roman clergy.

And, as to it being called the Holy Roman Empire, again you are correct. That designation did not come about until, as you properly stated the 9th century.

 

[Prince]

Philologos | The Witness of the Stars | Table of Contents

Perhaps a little knowledge can be found here.

 

[sdktlk]

Philologos | The Witness of the Stars | Table of Contents

Perhaps a little knowledge can be found here.

The Lord God Almighty does everything in an overlay so as there can be no denying Him in the end.

However, to truly understand the stars as prophetic symbols in the NT we are remiss if we pursue any other course than the one laid out by the the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation when He stated, "The seven stars ARE the angels of the seven churches." From that point forward one has to have a clear understanding as to what the Greek word aggelos (interpreted angel) means, and its different usages, then we can clearly see what stars have fallen, or are fallen from heaven.

 

[Acts6:5]

Thanks for the corrections on some dates, and with respect to the Edict of Theodosius in 380 A.D.

No problem.

With respect to the “last Arian horn†being removed I stand corrected. It would be better stated that the last Arian (heretic) Pope Silverius (The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father) was removed by Belisarius in 537 A.D. and replaced with Pope Pelagius.

Pope Silverius was not an Arian; he was unapologetically Chalcedonic and orthodox in his theology, and this is testified to by his inclusion among the papal saints. None of the popes who reigned during the Ostrogothic occupation were ever Arian.

Silverius was replaced by Pope Vigilius (not Pelagius) due to the religio-political machinations of the Empress Theodora. Pelagius became pope almost two decades later.

With the successful defense of Rome by Belisarius in 538 A.D. from the Ostrogoths the papal lineage was established, with the city of Rome being its "center", and Pelagius was recognized as Pope by all the Roman clergy.

What do you mean by “papal lineage� I know of no such term that could be applicable to Vigilius’ pontificate. Catholics trace papal lineage back to Peter, not to the 6th Century. Vigilius was consecrated and enthroned on March 27, 537AD, and that is the start date of his pontificate.

And, as to it being called the Holy Roman Empire, again you are correct. That designation did not come about until, as you properly stated the 9th century.

I’m glad we agree.

Acts6:5

 

[sdktlk]

No problem.



Pope Silverius was not an Arian; he was unapologetically Chalcedonic and orthodox in his theology, and this is testified to by his inclusion among the papal saints. None of the popes who reigned during the Ostrogothic occupation were ever Arian.

Silverius was replaced by Pope Vigilius (not Pelagius) due to the religio-political machinations of the Empress Theodora. Pelagius became pope almost two decades later.


What do you mean by “papal lineage”? I know of no such term that could be applicable to Vigilius’ pontificate. Catholics trace papal lineage back to Peter, not to the 6th Century. Vigilius was consecrated and enthroned on March 27, 537AD, and that is the start date of his pontificate.


I’m glad we agree.

Acts6:5

Silverius was replaced by Pope Vigilius (not Pelagius) - Pope Pelagius' birth name was Vigilius. the other Pope Pelagius that your referencing is Pope Pelagius II.

But, we are far afield from the thread which is about the stars - However, to truly understand the stars as prophetic symbols in the NT we are remiss if we pursue any other course than the one laid out by the the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation when He stated, "The seven stars ARE the angels of the seven churches." From that point forward one has to have a clear understanding as to what the Greek word aggelos (interpreted angel) means, and its different usages, then we can clearly see what stars have fallen, or are fallen from heaven.

 

[Lehigh3]

Silverius was replaced by Pope Vigilius (not Pelagius) - Pope Pelagius' birth name was Vigilius. the other Pope Pelagius that your referencing is Pope Pelagius II.

But, we are far afield from the thread which is about the stars - However, to truly understand the stars as prophetic symbols in the NT we are remiss if we pursue any other course than the one laid out by the the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation when He stated, "The seven stars ARE the angels of the seven churches." From that point forward one has to have a clear understanding as to what the Greek word aggelos (interpreted angel) means, and its different usages, then we can clearly see what stars have fallen, or are fallen from heaven.

I totally disagree with you adding any "Pope" in scripture. The stars of heaven or any stars that fell from heaven or stars, meaning the elders of the churches in Asia in the 1st century - as depicted in the Bible- have nothing to do with anyone beyond what was written & fulfilled in that 1st century.
Those churches, one can see generalities- but that's it. Those churches had their unique history in Asia minor in the 1st century AD. That's who Jesus is referring to in Revelation- those churches- not any future Popes.
The stars that would not give their light - meant unfaithful Israel was losing her power.

Has nothing to do with the Popes post AD70!

 

[Acts6:5]

Pope Pelagius' birth name was Vigilius. the other Pope Pelagius that your referencing is Pope Pelagius II.

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Pope Pelagius’ birth name was not Vigilius, and Pelagius was not pope in 538AD. Feel free to look him up in the Catholic list of popes if you’d like: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Vigilius

There were only 2 popes in the 6th Century whose papal names differed from their birth names, and neither of them were Vigilius or Pelagius. Vigilius became pope in 537AD, while Pelagius I became pope in 556AD. You simply got the names mixed up.

But, we are far afield from the thread which is about the stars - However, to truly understand the stars as prophetic symbols in the NT we are remiss if we pursue any other course than the one laid out by the the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation when He stated, "The seven stars ARE the angels of the seven churches." From that point forward one has to have a clear understanding as to what the Greek word aggelos (interpreted angel) means, and its different usages, then we can clearly see what stars have fallen, or are fallen from heaven.

Since you recognize that the Ostrogoths were not the last Arian horn to stand in the way of the papacy, and since you now know that an Arian pope never occupied the papal chair, then doesn’t that alter your interpretation concerning the manner and date that the stars of heaven fell to earth?

Acts6:5

 

[sdktlk]

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. Pope Pelagius’ birth name was not Vigilius, and Pelagius was not pope in 538AD. Feel free to look him up in the Catholic list of popes if you’d like: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Vigilius

There were only 2 popes in the 6th Century whose papal names differed from their birth names, and neither of them were Vigilius or Pelagius. Vigilius became pope in 537AD, while Pelagius I became pope in 556AD. You simply got the names mixed up.



Since you recognize that the Ostrogoths were not the last Arian horn to stand in the way of the papacy, and since you now know that an Arian pope never occupied the papal chair, then doesn’t that alter your interpretation concerning the manner and date that the stars of heaven fell to earth?

Acts6:5

First, do you suppose we can trust the catholic encyclopedia to contain the facts? My point of reference is from secular historic records and encyclopedic information. For the sake of peace though I will concede a name mix up.

Second, it was from successful defense of Rome by Belisarius which led to all the clergy, in 538 A.D., to recognize the seat of Rome as the seat of ultimate authority for all the church.

Third, we know that church catholic "traces" its beginnings back to Peter, but that is just so much papal bull.

Fourth, the stars had been falling by degrees from the 1st century, but by this juncture in history all the stars had fallen from heaven unto the earth.

There is a second event concerning stars recorded in Revelation 8:12 "And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise."

In this we see that the thirds sun, the thirds moon, and the thirds stars was darkened. The word part is an added word in every instance, in order to understand this event one would need to know what the third is referring to, and the only way that can be understood is to come forward in the Book of Revelation, having understood what has been said before.

To arrive at that understanding I would encourage whosoever will to see: http://revelationunveiled.wordpress.com/ You have to read all the posts from the first to the last in order to understand what is said. If you skip around it will indeed be confusion. It covers all of the Book of Revelation line upon line from start to finish.

 

[Acts6:5]

First, do you suppose we can trust the catholic encyclopedia to contain the facts?

For information concerning the names of Catholic bishops, yes. I would find it just as reasonable to seek Protestant sources in order to study subjects concerning Protestantism. I can provide evidence from the contemporary, secular historian Procopius who was in Rome during the siege if that will satisfy you:

”But a suspicion arose against Silverius, the chief priest of the city, that he was engaged in treasonable negotiations with the Goths, and Belisarius sent him immediately to Greece, and a little later appointed another man, Vigilius by name, to the office of chief priest.”
(Gothic War, Procopius, Book 5, Ch. 25)

“Amongst them was Pelagius, archdeacon of Rome, who was commissioned by Pope Vigilius to act as his agent.”
(Secret History, Procopius, pg. 89)

So Vigilius became pope in 537AD and his pontifical name was “Vigilius”. Pelagius was the archdeacon of Rome during Vigilius’ reign and later succeeded him, thus becoming Pope Pelagius I in 556AD.

My point of reference is from secular historic records and encyclopedic information.

My point of reference comes from both secular and religious historical records, and I have never come across any sources claiming that Pope Pelagius' birth name was Vigilius, and that Pelagius' reign began in 537AD.

For the sake of peace though I will concede a name mix up.

Sounds good. But if you have come across some kind of record or encyclopedia stating that Pope Pelagius’ birth name was Vigilius I would be interested in seeing the reference.

Second, it was from successful defense of Rome by Belisarius which led to all the clergy, in 538 A.D., to recognize the seat of Rome as the seat of ultimate authority for all the church.

I know of no such declaration by the clergy. What secular historical record or encyclopedia do you have that speaks of this event?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[sdktlk]

For information concerning the names of Catholic bishops, yes. I would find it just as reasonable to seek Protestant sources in order to study subjects concerning Protestantism. I can provide evidence from the contemporary, secular historian Procopius who was in Rome during the siege if that will satisfy you:

â€But a suspicion arose against Silverius, the chief priest of the city, that he was engaged in treasonable negotiations with the Goths, and Belisarius sent him immediately to Greece, and a little later appointed another man, Vigilius by name, to the office of chief priest.â€
(Gothic War, Procopius, Book 5, Ch. 25)

“Amongst them was Pelagius, archdeacon of Rome, who was commissioned by Pope Vigilius to act as his agent.â€
(Secret History, Procopius, pg. 89)

So Vigilius became pope in 537AD and his pontifical name was “Vigiliusâ€. Pelagius was the archdeacon of Rome during Vigilius’ reign and later succeeded him, thus becoming Pope Pelagius I in 556AD.


My point of reference comes from both secular and religious historical records, and I have never come across any sources claiming that Pope Pelagius' birth name was Vigilius, and that Pelagius' reign began in 537AD.


Sounds good. But if you have come across some kind of record or encyclopedia stating that Pope Pelagius’ birth name was Vigilius I would be interested in seeing the reference.


I know of no such declaration by the clergy. What secular historical record or encyclopedia do you have that speaks of this event?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

I could say what's in a name but having again been in error I stand corrected. It was indeed Pope Vigilius that ascended in 537 A.D.

He was the first Pope placed by the Byzantine Empire (the fragmented Roman Empire) and it was after the death of his predecessor Silverius that he was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy. From that point forward the city of Rome became the seat of authority for the "church."

Yours in Christ

 

[Acts6:5]

I could say what's in a name but having again been in error I stand corrected. It was indeed Pope Vigilius that ascended in 537 A.D.

Glad we’re in agreement on that.

He was the first Pope placed by the Byzantine Empire (the fragmented Roman Empire) and it was after the death of his predecessor Silverius that he was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy.

It may be true that a number of clergy did not recognize Vigilius because of his irregular election, but that doesn’t really matter since popes were elected by a majority vote, not a unanimous vote.
The Liber Pontificalis lists the date of Vigilius’ Episcopacy in the year 537AD, and his entry was penned sometime in the 6th Century. Vigilius was consecrated and enthroned in 537AD, so even if a portion of the clergy or the population were forced to recognize Vigilius until Silverius’ death, Vigilius had enough votes to get elected and his reign is reckoned from the date of his consecration and enthronement. W.H. Hutton says that Vigilius was referred to as “beatissimus papa” in a June 537 inscription, something that would have been impossible unless Vigilius had been the Roman bishop at that time.

“It was at one time customary for papal historians to declare that Vigilius, till the death of Silverius, was but an antipope, and became legitimate only at the death of his predecessor. No such distinction was then recognized. The Roman clergy accepted him from his consecration. In June, 537, he appears on an inscription as "beatissimus papa."
(The Church of the Sixth Century, W.H. Hutton, pg 102-103)

From that point forward the city of Rome became the seat of authority for the "church."

I’d like to know how you are determining that. At times Rome had been considered the “seat of authority” in the Western Church for at least a century prior to 538AD. If anything, the reigns of Vigilius and Pelagius weakened that authority, leading churches in Italy, Africa, and Gaul to question Rome’s authority and break communion with the Roman See; in the case of Gaul, Pope Pelagius was required to submit a profession of faith to the Frankish king just to prove his orthodoxy, and even that wasn’t good enough.

“The papal authority reached its lowest point in the time of Vigilius…His subjection to Byzantium cost him the hard-won confidence of the Western Churches.”
(The Papacy, Gustav Kruger, pg. 38)

"The Papacy emerged from this long struggle cruelly humiliated. After Silverius, Vigilius had experienced in full measure the severity of the imperial absolutism. His successors, Pelagius (555) and John III (560), elected under pressure from Justinian’s officials, were nothing more than humble servants of the basileus, in spite of all their struggles. Their authority was discredited in the entire West by the affair of the Three Chapters, shaken in Italy by the schism, and still further lessened by the privileges that the imperial benevolence granted to the church of Ravenna, since that town was the capital of reconquered Italy."
(The Cambridge Medieval History, J.B. Bury pg. 48-49)

“In Gaul he (Pelagius) was received with suspicion, and he was obliged to write to King Childebert, submitting to him a profession of his faith. It is clear that the Gallican Church no more than the Lombard regarded the pope as ipso facto orthodox or the guardian of orthodoxy. Even this letter of Pelagius was not regarded as satisfactory. It was long before the Churches entered into communion with him; and even to the last, the northern sees of Italy refused.”
(The Church and the Barbarians, William Holden Hutton, pg.39-40)

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Quinoa]

This is my opinion....

The stars are literal as the sun and moon are literal. Jesus was telling them about what would occur after the tribulation. The sun would be darkened...a solar eclipse, the moon would turn to blood...a lunar eclipse....and stars would fall from heaven...I believe this will be meteors as well. When Jesus died, there were signs such as this from heaven which Peter testified about on Pentecost...

 

[Hitch]

This is my opinion....

The stars are literal as the sun and moon are literal. Jesus was telling them about what would occur after the tribulation. The sun would be darkened...a solar eclipse, the moon would turn to blood...a lunar eclipse....and stars would fall from heaven...I believe this will be meteors as well. When Jesus died, there were signs such as this from heaven which Peter testified about on Pentecost...

Actually Pete said that Joel's word was fulfilled.

But this is really cute. You claim to be a literalist in the same breath you say stars are not stars but meteors, and the sun ,,well the sun shines just as brightly during an eclipse.:biglol

 

[Sam21]

The context seems to imply that Jesus was describing meteorites,however I suppose that it is possible that the falling stars could be the angels being cast out of the demonic heaven(their residence)at the end of the age when the antichrist is in power. Jesus was speaking literally when He described the sun going dark and the moon being affected,so whether the stars or meteorites or angels it will be something that literally happens and will be seen and experienced by the whole world.