The ghost of the empire is her church - I assume that's what we're talking about - and she has spawned several children and grandchildren, even as she has crossed over into the world of the Spirit: a blue force ghost which, like Obi Wan Kenobi, is perhaps more powerful dead than when alive, "from a certain perspective."
But back in the material world (with which I thought you were so concerned), not so many roads lead to Rome, and her legions have traded in the armor of the breastplate for the sign of the cross, and the formation of the phalanx for supplications on the kneelers. Meanwhile, it is Israel which has been returned to statehood, and one of the few nuclear powers, to boot.
As most do, you mistake superficial form versus function. If I had not had to deal with this same issue with people that I personally know then I might suspect that you are merely here to waste my time, which yet might still be the case. How much time you've spent engaging here and now how little you are a Postflavian. All roads lead to Virtual Rome.
If you are 'authentic' your "mission", sans divine intervention, is doomed to fail, as you are announcing to the virtual Sanhedrin your plan to unseat them.
But perhaps by a "Rome by any other name" you refer to that new city on a Capitol(ine) Hill, surrounded by its protective beltway. But isn't the inevitable rise of ungodly temporal authority part of the reason for the rise of a more individualist spirituality?
By "Rome by any other name" I mean Virtual Rome, and yes, Washington D.C. is definitely included in that appellation.
But isn't the inevitable rise of ungodly temporal authority part of the reason for the rise of a more individualist spirituality?
What is the relevance of this question to this discussion? In any case, it is to vague in definition for me to respond to. Perhaps you are asking whether the rise of the papacy (the ungodly temporal authority) was the cause, or what? Or is it Obama? And what does "individualist spirituality" have to do with this?
The Old testified to one king after another losing their way. Had there been a Prophet Trump, he might have called them Disobedient Saul, Cheating David, Disloyal Solomon. The New fulfills the law of the Old, testifying that the faithful ought to give it up to - and by insinuation, give up on - caesar, that which he claims as his own. "Here you go, emperor: a brand new corpus of scripture, based on your conquest. Hail Caesar!" But how many today could name a Flavian, and how many today will send out cards to celebrate the birth of a Jewish savior with a Gaulish name?
Again, mistaking form for function.
And your point is ridiculous here, because the central premise of the Romans 11 graft was to conceal the Flavians and the other emperors behind the Jewish robe of Jesus. The robe has been the same veil for ~2,000 years, and the descendants of the same old men are standing behind it.
Of course, you can ask exactly what sort of Christmas spirit people are embodying as they skulk through the malls. In that sense, maybe Caesar has been replaced by that which was rendered unto him - the place of an emperor held by the graven images of dead presidents. But scripture already warned us that this kind of love is the root of all sorts of evil
Same thing again.
You are a victim of all the years of framing your perspectives on a wide range of matters, many of which are irrelevant, and then drawing the Postmodern conclusion that we no longer have any connection to the time of Christ Titus. When you become as a child and start anew, with a blank slate, then it will become easier to see what is important. But you (and Joe) have convinced yourself(s) that your and Titus' church(s) are now your benefactors. You keep insisting that the NT provides all the answers, so then why are you trying to replace it?
As I have consistently stated at Postflaviana, the core subtext of the OT and the NT is about 'land', and the obtaining of all of the Earth's land for the Lord, aka the human lord(s). The management and control of access to land, as a separate issue from Capitalism vs. non-Capitalism, is central to the conflicts of Western history even prior to Christ. The conservative (original) Christian attitude today towards matters like 'land reform' is exactly the same as was during pre-Christian times, eg. the Gracchi brothers.
But you think that the purpose of the Church is to make you and your friends feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and that's the end of the story. As Christ Titus said: "The poor will always be with us, so fuck it." These are the messages that the NT is loaded with, so as to benefit the aristocrats (the landed elites) and make everyone else play patriot to the patrone. And when it came time to colonize the New World, the OT was yet there in all its Provident glory to Justify the stealth of the land of the barbarian squatters.
Naturally. We just aren't allowed to burn them here... yet. We have to go to a different state to get to a different state... of mind. DC is closer, sure, but as metaphors go, it seems louder, and I'm happy just to keep it on the reg
You went to Colorado so you could burn wood?