Do scars remain in Jesus' feet and hands?

[John317]

Interestingly on the top of page 130 Maxwell states:

Quote:

"time, two times, and half a time." Remember 538, the date for the crushing of the Ostrogoths...

You know just reading this stuff it is hard to believe I ever accepted it. Statements like "(538-1798) of rising and then declining influence of Roman Catholicism" exactly matching the "time, two times, and half a time" is an absurd statement. how can including the rise and fall of something make an exact match? The rise of nations or institutions could take hundreds of years just as the decline can last a long time. Of course the advantage is that anyone can speculate about a start and end point because they ignore the historical points, history looks at decisive things as their points of importance.

538 AD was the date for the crushing of the Ostrogoths. They left Rome with a fraction of the troops that they had when they began the siege. See below:

Wikipedia--

Europe

March 12 [538 AD] — Witiges, king of the Ostrogoths, ends his siege of Rome and retreats to Ravenna, leaving the city in the hands of the victorious Byzantine general, Belisarius. The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

Also this:

Please notice that in AD 538, Witigis' Ostrogoths laid siege to Rome with 150,000, but in AD 549, Totila's Ostrogoths had only 10,000 men under arms. It's hard to believe that under those circumstances anyone is going to seriously deny that AD 538 was a very significant year in terms of the lessening of Ostrogothic power.

[John317]

...Interestingly on the top of page 130 Maxwell states:

Quote:

"time, two times, and half a time." Remember 538, the date for the crushing of the Ostrogoths...

You know just reading this stuff it is hard to believe I ever accepted it. Statements like "(538-1798) of rising and then declining influence of Roman Catholicism" exactly matching the "time, two times, and half a time" is an absurd statement. how can including the rise and fall of something make an exact match? The rise of nations or institutions could take hundreds of years just as the decline can last a long time. Of course the advantage is that anyone can speculate about a start and end point because they ignore the historical points, history looks at decisive things as their points of importance.

Here's proof plain and simple that 538 AD was a critical date in the rise of the establishment of the papacy, and that 1798 was critical in its seeming demise:

First the date of 1798--

From the Wikipedia:

Papacy: -- Pope, Captivity of (1798), Thought a Death Blow to the Papacy

When, in 1797, Pope Pius VI. fell grievously ill, Napoleon gave orders that in the event of his death no successor should be elected to his office, and that the Papacy should be discontinued.But the Pope recovered; the peace was soon broken; Berthier entered Rome on 10th February 1798, and proclaimed a Republic. The aged Pontiff refused to violate his oath by recognizing it, and was hurried from prison to prison into France. Broken with fatigue and sorrows, he died ... [in] August 1799, in the French fortress of Valence, aged 82 years. No wonder that half Europe thought Napoleon's veto would be obeyed, and that with the Pope the Papacy was dead.

Now for 538 AD---

The following statement taken from the Wikipedia:

Europe

March 12 [538 AD] — Witiges, king of the Ostrogoths, ends his siege of Rome and retreats to Ravenna, leaving the city in the hands of the victorious Byzantine general, Belisarius. The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

The above are undisputed facts of history, not speculation, my friend.

[melvin mccarty]

I would be interested to know who contributed those items to wikipedia and when. Have they been edited? mel

[John317]

I would be interested to know who contributed those items to wikipedia and when. Have they been edited? mel

I have no idea. The same information can be found in any good history book regarding those events. They are facts of history. For instance, read H.G. Wells World History or the history volumes by Will Durant. You might do well to go to any university with a large library and do several hours of historical research on those events.

Is there a particular item here that you have a question about?

[John317]

Could we absolutely guarantee that the antichrist does not include communism which is far more against Christ than the Papacy ever was. mel

Have you studied the identifying marks of the antichrist power in prophecy? There are about 10 of these identifying marks. Who this power is is quite clear because God wants us to know its identity so as to avoid the false doctrines it teaches (in order not to get spiritually drunk or disoriented) and also to avoid the seven last plagues which fall on it and on all who follow it. The real problem is not that we cannot know who or what it is-- because God loves us and is therefore honest with us-- but rather it is that many people do not want to believe what the Bible says.

Here are 10 characteristics of the Antichrist power:

1) Arises out of the fourth beast power (i.e., pagan Rome)-- Daniel 7: 7,8.

2) Arose among the ten horns (Dan. 7: 8)

3) Arose after the ten horns (v. 24).

4) It will be different from the other horns (v. 24).

5) It will have a look more stout (greater) than his fellows (v. 20)

6) 3 horns are uprooted before it (8, 20, 24).

7) Spoke great words against the Most High (v. 25).

8) Wore out the saints of the Most High (v. 25).

9) Thought to change times and laws (v. 25).

10) Reigned for a time, times, and a dividing of times (v. 25). (For this same period of time, see Daniel 12: 9; Rev. 11: 2; 11: 3; 12:6; 12: 14; 13:5).

If you put these marks together with additional marks given in the Bible, such as those in Revelation and elsewhere, which describe the same power, it is unmistakable who this power is. There is only one in all of history that fits the description. Communism doesn't come close to fulfilling those marks of identification. Remember that the true Antichrist power will fulfill all 10 of these marks, not just one or two or even 8 or 9.

It is true, however, that anyone is a partaker of the spirit of the Antichrist (i.e., Satan) when he participates in the Antichrist's persecuting attitude or actions or when we become accusers of the brethren. The spirit of the Antichrist is completely opposite of the spirit of Christ.

One thing that is very important to say here is that it is not a condemnation of honest, sincere individuals who are a part of that organization or power. God has many of His people in it, but He is calling them to come out of it and take their stand with the truth as it is in Jesus. (This is the essence of the purpose of the Three Angels Messages and the primary reason for the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.) My wife was in association with that same power when I married her, and most of her extended family still are part of it to this day. So the Bible is not attacking individuals who are honest at heart and have never heard the truth. God loves those people just as much as He loves His own Son and as much as He loves any Seventh-day Adventist. The Bible, in those passages about the antichrist power, is describing a system of belief and showing how that system is opposed to and perverts the gospel of Christ so people may know the truth about what God is really like.

[John317]

I frankly don't know where you have been that you don't realize the SDA position was that the 1260 day (supposed years) was Roman Catholicism under their respective Popes. But that is what the belief is.

Quote:

C.Mervyn Maxwell in God Cares vol. 1 page 130 says:

The 1260 "days" or years (538-1798) of rising and then declining influence of Roman Catholicism over the minds of men exactly fulfill the "time' date=' two times, and half a time" of Daniel 7 and further confirm our understanding that the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the little horn."[/quote']

Having just reviewed about 20 Adventist publications on the Antichrist power, specifically dealing with their interpretation of the little horn power, I've found that they describe it as "papal Rome," "the Romish Church," "the Roman Church," "Ecclesiastical Rome," "the pope," "the papacy," "the Roman Catholic Church," "the Medieval church," "Catholicism," "the papal system," and the "bishop of Rome," etc.

Many publications use several of these terms interchangeably. See, for instance p. 399 of the Symposium on Daniel by the D &R Committee, Vol 2, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. That page speaks of the little horn as "papal or Ecclesiastic Rome."

Page 35 of Volume 1 of that series, published by the Biblical Research Institute under the auspices of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, refers to the little horn as the "Papacy."

Another instance is on pp. 155, 156 of Seventh-day Adventists Believe (1988), where it refers to the same power as "the bishop of Rome," "the papacy," "the man of sin," "the little horn," "the Roman Catholic Church," "the Roman religion," etc.

In the SDA Bible Commentary, on Daniel 7: 25, it says clearly that the little horn is to be identified with the "bishop of Rome," "the papacy," and "the Roman religion." There is no distinction made.

Ellen White, in the book Great Controversy (1884), pp. 50-56, refers to this same power as "the pope," "the visible head of the universal church," and "the Roman Church," among others.

Finally, C. Mervyn Maxwell says that "pagan Rome was succeeded by papal Rome," (The Amazing Prophecies of Daniel, 1998, page 73).

It is very important to understand that SDAs are not alone in this understanding of the identity of the little horn power. Here is a partial list of some of the great Christian scholars and leaders who agreed:

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminister and Baptist Confessions of Faith, Sir Isaac Newton, John Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle, and Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

It needs to be emphasized again that the purpose of pointing these truths out is not to attack any individuals in any particular denomination or group, but simply to show what the Bible teaches about a system of doctrines and practices so that we avoid false beliefs that would lead us away from the truth of the gospel of Christ.

[Ron Corson]

John317 wrote:

Quote:

538 AD was the date for the crushing of the Ostrogoths. They left Rome with a fraction of the troops that they had when they began the siege. See below:

A battle does not make a crushing. Most every battle leaves both sides with a fraction of the troops they had to begin with. If they would have been crushed then the war is over, it was not it continued and they took Rome twice again before they were truly defeated and that is why the later date is accepted by historians as the end of the Gothic war and of the ostrogoth nation.

It is also why we find no historical importance for 538, go to any book of historically important dates and see.

By the way nice deflection of the original comments about your having never seen Adventist talk about papal supremacy in the 1260 years. Another reason why 538 never worked.

Yes it was popular in the later middle ages and the protestant reformation. However as with most peoples methods of interpretation of eschatology it was biased by current events.

[Woody]

Thanks Ron. Some good points.

[John317]

John317 wrote:

Quote:

538 AD was the date for the crushing of the Ostrogoths. They left Rome with a fraction of the troops that they had when they began the siege. See below:

A battle does not make a crushing. Most every battle leaves both sides with a fraction of the troops they had to begin with.

In this case, the Goths had 150,000 before 538 AD, at which time their forces were reduced to 10,000. I do not know of any military leader who would not consider that a crushing defeat. Again, Will Durant and other historians who wrote of that event describe it as a great loss for the Goths and call them a "defeated people" at that point.

(I don't know if you have ever studied military history, but it is not true that "every battle leaves both sides with a fraction of the troops they had to begin with." It is obvious that going from 150,000 to 10,000 is a very dramatic, catastrophic defeat for any military.)

Quote:

If they would have been crushed then the war is over, it was not it continued and they took Rome twice again before they were truly defeated and that is why the later date is accepted by historians as the end of the Gothic war and of the ostrogoth nation.

1) Why were the Ostrogoths able to take Rome again? Was it because they were strong? No. They were able to take Rome for two very short periods because of the lack of Rome's defense. Remember that the historian calls the Goths a "defeated people" before they re-took Rome.

2) Follow the line of the historian's account:

a) After the crushing defeat of the Goths, Belisarius was recalled by Justinian because it appeared that the West was won.

The commanders appointed to replace Belisarius were terrible leaders and did not discipline their troops. The defense of Rome was practically non-existent at that point.

c) It had only taken 10,000 Goths to take Rome. That shows how weak the defense of Rome was. It does not speak of the great strength of the Goths. (Remember that the Goths had 150,000 in arms before the siege in 536 AD!!)

This is how the historian describes the capture of Rome:

"The Greek garrison [of Rome's defense] was demoralized; its officers were

incompetent cowards; traitors opened the gates, and Totila's [Gothic] army, ten thousand strong, entered the capital (546)."

e) Will Durant says at this point the Goths were able to dominate the peninsula because of the lack of any kind of organized defense. Justinian had earlier recalled Belisarius and there were only a few thousands troops to defend against the Goths.

f) A nearly bankrupt Justinian sent Belisarius to the rescue.

g) Belisarius retook the city of Rome while Totila and his Goths were besieging Ravenna.

h) Shortly after retaking the city, Belisarius was recalled by Justinian who believed that the West was secure and did not require the general's skills as a defender of Rome.

i) With Belisarius gone, Totila returned to Rome and re-captured the defenseless city.

j) " At last Justinian gave to his eunuch general Narses 'an

exceedingly large sum of money,' and ordered him to raise a new army

and drive the Goths from Italy. Narses accomplished his mission with

skill and dispatch; Totila was defeated and was killed in flight; the

surviving Goths were permitted to leave Italy safely, and after

eighteen years the 'Gothic War' came to an end (553).

Quote:

It is also why we find no historical importance for 538, go to any book of historically important dates and see.

Wikipedia--

Europe

March 12 [538 AD] — Witiges, king of the Ostrogoths, ends his siege of Rome and retreats to Ravenna, leaving the city in the hands of the victorious Byzantine general, Belisarius. The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

Quote:

By the way nice deflection of the original comments about your having never seen Adventist talk about papal supremacy in the 1260 years. Another reason why 538 never worked.

I did not say I never saw Adventist talk about papal supremacy in the 1260 years. I said that no Adventist writer claims that by 538 AD, the pope was already a great power or that the pope did not grow beyond that point. 538 AD was not the apex of the pope's power. The papacy would go on to increase in power. But the date 538 was important because at that point, the Arian powers who opposed the Pope's religious rule had been defeated. As the Wikipedia says about 538 AD, "The last Arian power in the West is thus defeated, leaving Western Christendom completely under the rule of the Pope."

Quote:

Yes it was popular in the later middle ages and the protestant reformation. However as with most peoples methods of interpretation of eschatology it was biased by current events.

I don't believe or accept your interpretation of that period of history. I believe that Luther and the other protestant scholars had very good Bible reason to believe as they did regarding the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8.

Do you believe in the Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy?

Here is the origin of that interpretation:

There has historically been general agreement that the first systematic Preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis De Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. Preterist Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's Preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants, and Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.

[melvin mccarty]

The 4th beast had 10 horns when it came up. Who were those ten horns? mel

[John317]

The 4th beast had 10 horns when it came up. Who were those ten horns? mel

The ten horns, like the ten toes on the feet of the statue in Daniel 2, simply represent the fact that the unified kingdom would become divided. The number of the kingdoms it is divided into isn't the point. The point is that the once unified kingdom is no longer united. In the case of Daniel 7 and 8, the prophet's attention is focussed on the little horn which arises out of the fourth kingdom and before whom 3 of the horns are uprooted.

The list of kingdoms varies but most historians would opt for the Franks, the Bergundians, the Allaman, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and the Heruli.

The Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals were Arian kingdoms in opposition to the Catholic church's doctrine of the Trinity and were defeated and ultimately disappeared from history. The Lombards were also originally Arian but changed and accepted the orthodox religion.

[jasd]

QR frame:

I perceive that expositions re the 'beasts' of Daniel 7 are predicated upon

a misappropriated verb tense (Daniel 7:17), which, of itself, disallows any application to events as they've historically unfolded.

Should I be right in my understanding of verb tenses as iterated by "one of them who stood by",

the Ten-horned Beast is yet to arise - if it is not already in its formative stages. The beasts - lion, bear, and leopard become incorporated into the Ten-horned Beast.

Should I err, the matter of distilling the numbers of 'people groups' dwelling in Europe ca the sixth century into 'ten kingdoms/horns' might be significant.

Disabuse me.

[John317]

QR frame:

I perceive that expositions re the 'beasts' of Daniel 7 are predicated upon

a misappropriated verb tense (Daniel 7:17), which, of itself, disallows any application to events as they've historically unfolded.

Please explain this. Are you talking about the future tense, "shall" or "will" arise?

Here is Young's Literal Translation: "17 These great beasts, that [are] four, [are] four kings, they rise up from the earth."

NASB-- "17 These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth."

Amplified Bible: "17 These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth."

Quote:

Should I be right in my understanding of verb tenses as iterated by "one of them who stood by",

the Ten-horned Beast is yet to arise - if it is not already in its formative stages.

Please say more about what you understand this verse to mean? This "one who stood by" is not identified here but it is identified as "he" in verses 16 and 23. He explains to Daniel the significance of what he has seen in verse 3 and elsewhere concerning the four beasts.

What specifically do you see here that tells you the Ten-horned Beast has not yet arisen?

Quote:

The beasts - lion, bear, and leopard become incorporated into the Ten-horned Beast.

Should I err, the matter of distilling the numbers of 'people groups' dwelling in Europe ca the sixth century into 'ten kingdoms/horns' might be significant.

The four beasts are the same kingdoms named in Daniel 2: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Verses 19, 20 further describe this iron kingdom. (Also compare Daniel 2: 40-42.) Rome was the kingdom in power at the time of Christ's crucifixion. Rome was divided into about 10 kingdoms. The little horn arises out of the Roman Empire. This is precisely what history tells us occurred in the papacy's rise out of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire fell in 476 AD. Historians give the following groups of people, or nations, that the Western Empire was divided into: the Franks, the Bergundians, the Allaman, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and the Heruli. The prophecy says that the little horn power would come up "among" these nations (7:8), yet it will also come up "after them" (v. 24). The same verse says this little horn power shall be "different" from the others and shall subdue 3 of the horns. Verse 8 says the 3 horns shall be "plucked out by the roots."

What else does the prophecy say about this "little horn"?

1) It has the eyes of a man (v. 8). (Compare Rev. 13: 18)

2) Speaks pompous (KJV), or boastful (NASB;NIV), words against God (vv. 8, 11, 25).

3) It is speaking these pompous words at the time of the judgement scene described in Daniel 7: 9, 10, 13,14, 25-26.

4) Its appearance is "greater," "larger," "more imposing," than the other horns (7:20).

5) It is active when the judgment scene begins and when the judgment is completed, its dominion is taken away and given to the people of God, and God's kingdom shall then be an everlasting kingdom (7:18). (Compare what is said in Daniel 2:44.)

6) Makes war against the saints and prevails against, or overpowers, them (7:21), until a judgement (v. 22). Verse 25 says he "persecutes the saints of the Most High."

7) This little horn power shall attempt to change times and law (v. 25).

8) The saints will be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time (v. 25). (Same period of time is found in the following verses: Daniel 12: 9; Rev. 11: 2; 11: 3; 12:6; 12: 14; 13:5. I believe the evidence is that this is a period of 1,260 literal years.

Based on what we have studied so far, what world power do these marks of identification point to? How many world powers fit ALL the marks up to this point?

Lest there be any doubt of its identity, the Bible offers additional characteristics and descriptions of this power in Daniel 8 and 11; Revelation and 2 Thess. 2.

Again, it needs to be emphasized that the purpose of pointing these truths out is not to attack any individuals in any particular denomination or group, but simply to show what the Bible teaches about a system of doctrines and practices so that we avoid false beliefs that would lead us away from the truth of the gospel of Christ.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I perceive that expositions re the 'beasts' of Daniel 7 are predicated upon

a misappropriated verb tense (Daniel 7:17), which, of itself, disallows any application to events as they've historically unfolded.

>>Please explain this. Are you talking about the future tense, "shall" or "will" arise?<<

Yes. To disallow the [inspired] tense and interpret the passage in the manner of its past expositions is to reinterpret the tense as past or present continuous. There is no justification for the expositor to insert [in place] either the past tense or the present continuous – where Writ provides the future tense.

>>Here is Young's Literal Translation: "17 These great beasts, that [are] four, [are] four kings, they rise up from the earth."

NASB-- "17 These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth."

Amplified Bible: "17 These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth."<<

Yes?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Should I be right in my understanding of verb tenses as iterated by "one of them who stood by",

the Ten-horned Beast is yet to arise - if it is not already in its formative stages.

>>Please say more about what you understand this verse to mean? This "one who stood by" is not identified here but it is identified as "he" in verses 16 and 23. He explains to Daniel the significance of what he has seen in verse 3 and elsewhere concerning the four beasts.<<

Exactly. And, he does so in a manner that does not confute the imperative by Gd in

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, (note that Gd instructs that the “book” - and not any preceding vision or visions, in part or parts thereof - be sealed)

[even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased (note that Gd instructs the “book” to be sealed – not until the 14th, 15th, 16th, or other century – but until such times as the two aforementioned parameters are met).

As I have, on several occasions before, noted: man, until this past century had very limited means to “run to and fro” – and therefor, did not. Man also, had very limited knowledge per se; moreover, what knowledge he did posses – its increase must have coincided with “running to and fro”. That did not occur until

this past century.

Again I note: that until this past century – man was, mostly, dependant upon mare’s shank to travel – and germ theory did not emerge until the latter half of the 19th century.

>>What specifically do you see here that tells you the Ten-horned Beast has not yet arisen?<<

“...not yet arisen” – by and large.

Gd’s imperative declaration in the 12th chapter of the book of Daniel, verse 4 prohibits the forced, or premature, exposition familiarly advanced.

Additionally:

(Babylonia had ‘arisen’ several times over and was, at the time of Daniel 7, in the very last expiration of empire – in the process of reverting to its original religion, that is, the worship of the Moon god)

Let me emphasize: in the vicissitudes which accompany the fall of Empires – Babylonia was in the very utmost of its expiration – when the words “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth” – were uttered. It can hardly be argued that

Babylonia was in its emergent, or ‘rising’, state. Ipso...,

the winged lion cannot have represented Babylonia (moreover, the signifier Lion, is used in Writ to represent the COI) – and therefor, the fourth representation illustrated in Daniel 7 – could not have, chronologically, been Rome – let alone, by extension, Papal R_O_M_E.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The beasts - lion, bear, and leopard become incorporated into the Ten-horned Beast.

Should I err, the matter of distilling the numbers of 'people groups' dwelling in Europe ca the sixth century into 'ten kingdoms/horns' might be significant.

>>The four beasts are the same kingdoms named in Daniel 2: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Verses 19, 20 further describe this iron kingdom. (Also compare Daniel 2: 40-42.)<<

Per the above, I disagree.

>>Rome was the kingdom in power at the time of Christ's crucifixion.<<

I fail to see a correlative significance.

>>Rome was divided into about 10 kingdoms.<<

As is evident by the dialogue in preceding pages – I believe the jury is still out re such a positive statement.

>>The little horn arises out of the Roman Empire.<<

I disagree. It may well be that the little horn of Daniel 7 correlates to that (Daniel 8:9) which arises from one of the four directions mentioned in

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

Dan 8:9 And out of one of them (that is, the nearest antecedent – the “winds of heaven”, or directions) came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land].

(note the directions: should, as some say, that the pleasant [land] is the former Palestine/present-day State of Israel, then the additional indicia “toward the south” and “toward the east” disallows Papal R_O_M_E as the base for the little horn)

Incidentally, I see the “pleasant land” lying elsewhere than ‘eastward’ of Papal R_O_M_E. [sotto voce]

I’ll finish responding when I am not so rushed. In the meantime, let me just say – that the following enumeration

begins with a false premise.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I perceive that expositions re the 'beasts' of Daniel 7 are predicated upon

a misappropriated verb tense (Daniel 7:17), which, of itself, disallows any application to events as they've historically unfolded.

>>Please explain this. Are you talking about the future tense, "shall" or "will" arise?<<

Yes. To disallow the [inspired] tense and interpret the passage in the manner of its past expositions is to reinterpret the tense as past or present continuous. There is no justification for the expositor to insert [in place] either the past tense or the present continuous – where Writ provides the future tense.

>>Here is Young's Literal Translation: "17 These great beasts, that [are] four, [are] four kings, they rise up from the earth."

NASB-- "17 These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth."

Amplified Bible: "17 These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth."<<

Yes?

From the point of view of Daniel, these kingdoms were future for the most part. See Daniel 2: 39-45 for similar tenses. Of course it is in the "past" to anyone living after Daniel's day. Daniel was told these various powers would arrive on the world's scene in the future, which is now our past.

[John317]

Quote:

>>Please say more about what you understand this verse to mean? This "one who stood by" is not identified here but it is identified as "he" in verses 16 and 23. He explains to Daniel the significance of what he has seen in verse 3 and elsewhere concerning the four beasts.<<

Exactly. And, he does so in a manner that does not confute the imperative by Gd in

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, (note that Gd instructs that the “book” - and not any preceding vision or visions, in part or parts thereof - be sealed)

[even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased (note that Gd instructs the “book” to be sealed – not until the 14th, 15th, 16th, or other century – but until such times as the two aforementioned parameters are met).

As I have, on several occasions before, noted: man, until this past century had very limited means to “run to and fro” – and therefor, did not. Man also, had very limited knowledge per se; moreover, what knowledge he did posses – its increase must have coincided with “running to and fro”. That did not occur until

this past century.

Again I note: that until this past century – man was, mostly, dependant upon mare’s shank to travel – and germ theory did not emerge until the latter half of the 19th century.

What do you believe is the meaning and significance Daniel 12:4, 9 in terms of the prophecies given in Daniel 2 through 11?

Did any of the things prophesied in those chapters occur before our time?

Was anything in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 fulfilled during the last 2000+ years? If you believe they have been, could you list some examples?

[fccool]

John,

How can you say that the number of the horns is not important, while it is that a horn represents a KINGDOM or a KING? I would have to say it has to be THE kingdoms and THE kings. The typical map painted inside the heads of the people attending the seminars is this:

Location (where beast arises): out of the 4th beast and among the ten horns (v.8) - The Papacy arose out of Rome among the ten tribal divisions of Rome.

But there were NOT 10 tribal divisions of Rome. It was much more than ten, and more than 3 were "uprooted". I think that you are saying that it is not important for that reason, because you simply can't make that connection. In order to make that connection... these factors would have to be in Place...

1) Rome arises among ten kingdoms/kings.

2) The Papal power (NOT SOMEONE ELSE) uproots the three and establishes the throne.

The map that is painted during the seminars is conveniently broken down into 10 countries with borders... and sometimes even modern names (like France). The fact is, there were no distinct 10 countries. Many tribes are dubbed as "insignificant" and the Eastern Roman Empire is not even counted into the equation.

[melvin mccarty]

Thanks Fccool I agree! How can we just ignore the fact of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire which included the previous 3 beasts? The vision does say that when the 4th beast arose it had 10 horns...not that it grew 10 horns 600 years later. It is possible that the number 10 is used here symbolically but that would not really make sense when the previous 3 beasts' horns numbers are actual. Is it right to re-write history to make it fit our theories? mel

[John317]

John,

How can you say that the number of the horns is not important, while it is that a horn represents a KINGDOM or a KING? I would have to say it has to be THE kingdoms and THE kings. The typical map painted inside the heads of the people attending the seminars is this:

Location (where beast arises): out of the 4th beast and among the ten horns (v.8) - The Papacy arose out of Rome among the ten tribal divisions of Rome.

The third kingdom in Daniel is Greece. The fourth kingdom described in Daniel 2, following Greece, is Rome. It is this same power described in Daniel 8:24 which, through the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, attempts to destroy Jesus Christ. Luke 2:1 and Luke 3: 1 actually name the fourth kingdom, Rome, which, of course, is a well-known fact of history. Any history book will tell us that Rome was the great empire that followed Greece. It also tells us that Rome was divided up into various nations or kingdoms after the collapse of the Roman empire about 476 AD.

I don't know of any history books that deny this. For instance, it's in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Will Durant's volume, The Age of Faith, and it is also in H.G. Well's World History, and in History of the World by J.M. Roberts, among others.

Do you know of a history books that denies these basic facts? Do you agree with the above?

One rather interesting thing that should be noted here is that the footnotes in the Catholic study Bible's all give a slightly different list of nations in Daniel 2. According to them, the image represents empires of Babylonia, Median, Persia, and Greece. There is no mention, then, of the Roman Empire. These notes do not deny that Rome was the next great kingdom after Greece; they are simply silent as regards Rome.

Do you agree with the view that those study notes in Catholic Bible's take of Daniel 2?

Quote:

But there were NOT 10 tribal divisions of Rome. It was much more than ten, and more than 3 were "uprooted".

No one is saying that these ten nations were the only peoples in the Romans Empire at that time.

However, the fact is that these ten which I've named were the main ones, and they are the ones which you will find most often named by historians: the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths, Suevi, and Alemanni.

If you know of more, please name them.

How many do you say were "uprooted," what were their names, and under what circumstances were they "uprooted"?

[John317]

Thanks Fccool I agree! How can we just ignore the fact of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire which included the previous 3 beasts? The vision does say that when the 4th beast arose it had 10 horns...not that it grew 10 horns 600 years later. It is possible that the number 10 is used here symbolically but that would not really make sense when the previous 3 beasts' horns numbers are actual. Is it right to re-write history to make it fit our theories? mel

It is not a matter of ignoring the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. The prophecies tell us that the Roman Empire would become a divided kingdom, and it is symbolized by the legs of in the statue. Then it says it will be divided into various kingdoms. The little horn arises out of that fourth kingdom.

It just happened that the emperor of Rome moved the capital out of the West and to Constantinople, leaving the bishop of Rome and the church over which he presided as the chief administrators. "The Church in the West was, except for municipal authority in the impoverished towns, often the sole institutional survivor of romanitas... In many areas they were the last embodiment of authority left when imperial armies went away...." (p. 299, History of the World, J.M. Roberts).

The fact that humans typically have 10 toes is no reason that we should think that the fourth kingdom will ONLY be divided into 10 nations or kingdoms. The 10 toes simply represent the division in the kingdom that we would see, not necessarily the exact number of the nations. One indicator of this is the fact that Daniel does not mention the number 10 in Daniel 2. The emphasis is simply on the idea that it will become divided. It doesn't matter how much it is divided beyond the 10. The point is that it will be divided.

It is of great interest, however, that history does record that the Western Roman Empire was divided into 10 general kingdoms and that 3 of these peoples-- the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, all 3 of which were Arian, and opposed the Catholic church's doctrine of the trinity-- were eventually destroyed and disappeared from history.

[fccool]

The fact that humans typically have 10 toes is no reason that we should think that the fourth kingdom will ONLY be divided into 10 nations or kingdoms. The 10 toes simply represent the division in the kingdom that we would see, not necessarily the exact number of the nations. One indicator of this is the fact that Daniel does not mention the number 10 in Daniel 2. The emphasis is simply on the idea that it will become divided. It doesn't matter how much it is divided beyond the 10. The point is that it will be divided.

First I'll list the tribes that were present in 4th century in the territory of the broken up Roman Empire....

Saxons, Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Gauls, Belgi, Helvetii (Swiss), Italians (i.e. Romans), Iberians, Visigoths, Basques, Libyans, Mauritanians (North Africa, next to where the Vandals were located), Dacians (Rumania, a Roman province), Assorted Slavic peoples, Alemanni, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Heruli, and if you 'd like to include them ... Teutonic Germani tribe (which technically was not a part but was on the outside and later formed it's own kingdoms).

Here's the list of the tribes that were invading the Empire:

Huns, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, Allemanni, Germani, Suevi, Quodi, Gauls, Celts, Moors....

Furthermore, for the Papacy to be one of the horns, it would have to PERSONALLY (not someone doing it for them) BY THEIR ORDER, uproot the three kingdoms. This was not the case. Or was it?

Secondly, the 10 toes correspond 10 horns, prophecies are specific... they are not general (somewhre somehow), because if these are taken as general... you can stretch these out and apply it to virtually anyone. Even the ten toes are insignificant, the 10 horns are and especially the three uprooted ones. I don't see many history books that name exactly 10 regions of the Roman Empire. You can't just pick and choose whatever fits your view.

Again, I'm not saying that Roman Empire is not the Antichrist..., it is placing itself in place of Christ. Yet it did not capture the whole know world to accept Sunday, which is one of the requirements. The homage that other leaders take is strictly political in nature. You have more than half of the world that has nothing to do with Sunday or Papacy. So I think it is stretching to put it as the spiritual dominating force. Mohammed is in place of Christ too, so is Buddha... and I while I understand that the prophesy does revolve around the area of the Europe, we need to be careful with out interpretation and the stretching of the facts mentioned saying there could be none other.

[John317]

The third kingdom in Daniel is Greece. The fourth kingdom described in Daniel 2, following Greece, is Rome. It is this same power described in Daniel 8:24 which, through the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, attempts to destroy Jesus Christ. Luke 2:1 and Luke 3: 1 actually name the fourth kingdom, Rome, which, of course, is a well-known fact of history. Any history book will tell us that Rome was the great empire that followed Greece. It also tells us that Rome was divided up into various nations or kingdoms after the collapse of the Roman empire about 476 AD.

I don't know of any history books that deny this. For instance, it's in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Will Durant's volume, The Age of Faith, and it is also in H.G. Well's World History, and in History of the World by J.M. Roberts, among others.

Do you know of a history books that denies these basic facts? Do you agree with the above?

One rather interesting thing that should be noted here is that the footnotes in the Catholic study Bible's all give a slightly different list of nations in Daniel 2. According to them, the image represents empires of Babylonia, Median, Persia, and Greece. There is no mention, then, of the Roman Empire. These notes do not deny that Rome was the next great kingdom after Greece; they are simply silent as regards Rome.

Do you agree with the view that those study notes in Catholic Bible's take of Daniel 2?

[fccool]

I disagree with that view, yet you have to understand that modern Europe is likewise the product of the broken up Roman Empire! No one can deny it. And with US taking a downturn, it becomes a prominent force of the world once again. Until the Sunday laws are proclaimed, I think it's only wise to keep your mind open...

If I'm wrong about your view, then I can accept it and move on... I believe that Sabbath is God's law and we should be moved to be considerate of it if we love Him. Yet, if you are wrong about yours... then the entire basis for your faith is shattering down... meaning that Ellen White is a false prophet and that you belonged to the false church (based on your take on it) I think you need to be very careful when dealing with prophetic symbolism, and base your faith on that.

Church is not a building. It's people who either love or reject God. Remnant will not be selected until the very last days of persecution... that's what makes the remnant ... remnant. Right now all of those "lover of God" are very sincere, but we'll see what happens when things really start happening and their families suffer. I'd like to know that most of the Adventist Church will pull through, but I know this will not be the case as some people don't come back because the air conditioning is broken .

[John317]

... for the Papacy to be one of the horns, it would have to PERSONALLY (not someone doing it for them) BY THEIR ORDER, uproot the three kingdoms. This was not the case. Or was it?

This is not the case at all. Why would it be? The prophecy does not require it. It does not state it that way. Daniel 7: 8 and 20 and 24 (NASB) describe the relationship between the little horn and the 3 uprooted kingdoms thus:

8 I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

20 and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates.

24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.

The language actually indicates exactly what history records happened: those 3 nations were uprooted by another power to make room for the rise of the little horn. In other words, the little horn was already in existence and these other 3 horns were removed in order "to make way for him."

The papacy had no military or armies of its own. It was always dependent on the forces of other nations such as Rome, Italy, France, etc. But in prophecy, a power may be singled out as the main actor even though it is using others to do the actual work. For instance, Satan is the real Antichrist, but he uses nations and individuals to accomplish his plans. There are times when prophecy does not make a clear distinction between them.

[John317]

I disagree with that view, yet you have to understand that modern Europe is likewise the product of the broken up Roman Empire! No one can deny it...

OK, but in what way do you disagree with the view that I've outlined, besides the fact that there were more than 10 nations that were part of the original Roman Empire?

Of course that is not something that is new or that contradicts what Bible students have been saying. Certainly Luther and Isaac Newton and all the other Protestant leaders were aware of this fact. It doesn't change the fulfillment of the prophecy.