At the time of Daniel, Rome was not yet powerful and known, but at the time of St. John at Patmos. So why it is referred to as Babylon by many Christians.

I’m interested in the Christian viewpoint on Daniel 2? Which kingdom is the fourth kingdom represented by the iron legs of the image? Do Christians believe this is the Romans? I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, that Christians believe that the stone cut but not by hands which destroys the kingdom is the anointed king of Israel. Given that Rome has long been under the control of Christians does this mean that Christians believe that the Messiah will come to destroy Christianity in general or just Catholicism?

Did ancient Roman Christians celebrate any Roman national holidays? Or were all their national holidays festivities which honored pagan gods?

Historicism is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology that associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events (which may also be symbolic of repeated occurrences). This means that many things in Revelation have occurred while other things have not. Also that the symbols in the visions match major historical events in remarkable ways and in a chronology that actually occurs in the annals of history. Historical interpretation naturally takes much more work than pure symbolic or mere speculative interpretation because one actually has to be familiar with the history of the world as it pertains to the Christian church. To be expected, the outcome of such hard work also leads to large amounts of information to provide as there is so much evidence to weigh. For example, this old classic on Revelation (Horae Apocalypticae; or, A commentary on the Apocalypse, critical and historical; including also an examination of the chief prophecies of Daniel 1862 ) is around 3000 pages of detailed arguments wrapping history around Revelation in chronological order. ## My question: ### Under a Protestant historicist view what are typically the seven seals in Revelation referring to?

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

Did the early church fathers believe in the supremecy of rome and if so where is the evidance for this? Roman Catholics claim that the church of rome has supreme authority as it is the church of the Pope (ie St. Peter)

Why did Rome become the seat of the Pope and the central location for the Church? I would think that Jerusalem would be the first choice. There are also a number of other cities that I would personally pick over Rome because of location and centrality to the early Church. Maybe the issue is that Rome was more central to the early church than I think it was. I am looking for an answer that discusses the history mostly and the RCC opinion on this.

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

I was wondering if the Roman Catholic Church is subject to complete institutional corruption, or total destruction, according to Catholic thought. Now this would not necessarily be the fall of the Catholic faith, but instead that of its earthly headquarters and global authority. I want to know because it may play a role in personal view of the end times, and the view of Catholics as well of course.

**Unique "traditional" souvenirs people may obtain from the pope or other Catholic prelates?** Believe it or not, there’s a way to get the pope to surrender his zucchetto to you, while in the presence of a pope while at Rome (papal audiences) or when he is on an apostolic visitation outside of Rome or Italy. All you have to do is offer him another one in exchange and you obtain an unique souvenir that was really worn by a pope. It’s all part of an unique yet long-standing tradition among popes. And for the record, I am not talking about the large, ornate headwear called a mitre you see the pope donning at a Papal Mass. I am talking about the white zucchetto (skullcap). Just be warned: Few people have managed to pull off a successful trade with Francis so far. > The process works like this: First, you have to acquire a zucchetto to trade with the pope. To do that, swing by his tailor in Rome and purchase one for about $68. The tricky part here is trying to guess what size will fit Francis’ head best. > > Once you have your brand new zucchetto, the next challenge is actually finding the pope. Fortunately, Francis is known to give plenty of public appearances and has a history of mingling with the crowd in ways that make his security staff uncomfortable . This should give you the perfect chance to weave through the faithful and get nice and close. - Inside the wild and wacky tradition of the Papal hat trade Here are a few successful zucchetto swaps: - Swapping Zucchettos with Pope Francis - Zucchetto swap with Pope Francis **Question**: Do any similar, yet traditional ways of obtaining such unique souvenirs (non-zucchetto) from the pope or other high ranking Vatican officials exist while in their presence and while in Rome? I have never heard of any other tradition existing or have found on the web. I hope someone here has some information on other unique papal or Roman traditions on how to obtain some religious item from a pope or cardinal.

I'll be visiting Italy during holidays and will be in Rome with my partner between 20 to 28th December. I'd have already visited monuments, Vatican City and several popular cathedrals. Being a non-Christian, I want to take care that I don't offend any locals. As most of the places will be closed on December 25th, what would be your recommendation for me to have the best experience of Rome offers with a religious perspective in mind for this day? ***Post Script**: This question was asked on StackExchange Travel community and people suggested me to ask the question on this site instead.*

So, I am traveling abroad from my home country and will have the opportunity to visit some really cool, super old churches and cathedrals in Europe. I would like to bring a gift back home for a friend who is a Catholic, and I was thinking of bringing something related to the church like a rosary, etc. since I will be so close to so many important historical sites of this organization that's important to their life. I've read that when people get things like that ("sacramentals"?) they often have them blessed (?) and I think that would be something cool to have done in one of the medieval/Renaissance churches I'll visit, it would make it a more unique gift. I have access to translation tools/know enough Spanish and Italian to physically ask a priest to, but is there like a proper way to approach him or an appropriate time? Should I specify that it's not going to be mine, but a gift? Would he care that I am not religious? And for my friend, are there any steps I would need to take to avoid delegitimizing the blessing in their eyes (not touching item directly afterwards, not taking an active role in the blessing and asking a nearby Catholic to deal with it for me, etc.)? Thanks

While writing a paper for school, I looked back at this answer so I could use that passage as a reference. In doing so, I got a good look at the title of the book, which I never had before. It’s called *In Reply to a Letter by W. A. Anderson, Sometime Vicar of St. Margaret's, Leicester—Now **Priest of Rome*** . It was written by “a layman,” but it was published in London in mdccclii (1852 in Arabic numerals). I thought the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and that when there’s a bishop there isn’t a priest. Is this book talking about the priest of a normal parish somewhere in Rome as opposed to the Vatican? The man wasn’t the pope. I’d look in the book to see if I could find what it says, but Google Books won’t let me read any more than I have. Ideally I’m looking for an answer that provides possible explanations for what office this W. A. Anderson held. Even better would be a source mentioning Father Anderson by name*. When it comes down to it, though, I’ll take any sourced answer I can get. Thanks for your time. *Does the RCC keep a database of priests somewhere?

I've read in a Christian publication that one of the things that distinguished early Christian groups in the Roman empire was that they would rescue babies that had been abandoned by their parents. In Rome, it was considered acceptable to abandon a newborn to the elements if the family (specifically the father) decided not to raise it. Allegedly, Christians would collect these infants and raise them in their community. What are the sources for this claim, if any?

I was watching a documentary on the History Channel recently and they mentioned that when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, they chose Catholicism because of its similarities to the hierarchy of the Roman government of the time. I had never heard that before and am wondering if there is any documented evidence of this being the main reason in their decision.

Constantine was the emperor of the Roman Empire who legalized Christianity and called the Counsel of Nicaea, among other thing. Which church traditions regard Constantine the Great as a Saint?

I have trouble understanding how the Romans converted to Christianity. In the Bible, the Romans weren't portrayed very nicely. For example, Herod the Great did quite a lot of awful things. Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers. The Bible obviously seems to portray the Romans as the enemy of the Chosen People of God. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the Romans could still become Christians. [I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians. I have been studying the Bible on my own. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.]

I think its safe to say that Martin Luther, being one of the fathers of Protestantism, was primarily at odds with the *Roman* Church. He posted his 95 theses to confront what he thought to be corruption that centered around Roman Catholic indulgences. Later on he became convinced that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. > Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the > blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the > tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem > my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his > papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and > restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among > them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this > miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, > yes, the kingdom of the real **Antichrist**! For who is " **the man of sin**" > and "**the son of perdition**" but he that with his doctrines and his laws > increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits > in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has > fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has > extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. > (*Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Page 536, chapter 3* - emphasis added) From what I understand, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are basically the same doctrinally, with the exception of a few points, such as the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc. I also understand it to be true that it is an historical fact that, before the Great Schism, there was only *one* Church consisting of both the "Eastern lung" and the "Western lung." My question is this: Did Luther believe that the Church needed to be doctrinally reformed even before the Great Schism? **If not then why didn't he just embrace Eastern Orthodoxy, and in turn direct his "reforming" constituents toward the East?** I haven't read *all* of Luther's works to know whether or not he conscientiously protested Rome exclusively, or the sacramental lineage of the unified East/West Fathers and ecumenical councils of the early Church *altogether*.

What is the biblical evidence that the Apostle Paul actually went to Rome?

At Matthew 22:18-21(NIV) we read: "... But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then He said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” My question is : did the coins used by Jews at the time of Jesus bear two different types of images and inscriptions in order to indicate the usage meant of the coin ? To elaborate, were there distinct images and inscriptions on the coins meant for being offered at the Temple of God ? What were those like ?