Leaderboard

Persecution can happen through no fault of the believer. People can be persecuted for being witches or gay or crippled. Being persecuted for one's beliefs is still abuse.

I think part of the confusion on this thread is the conflation of abuse with persecution. To be persecuted for one's beliefs is not the same as someone being abused in a relationship between individuals who are not equal in power. The classic example of that is parent/child or husband/wife. I must agree with Gregory on this thread. Abuse is very harmful. It destroys lives in a way that nothing else can do. Persecution, on the other hand, is something that is recognized as a standing up for principle against a political power. To suffer persecution because of a willingness to stand up for what is right no matter what the cost is something that is not destructive to the soul or the psyche of the individual. In fact, I would say it is something positive. Abuse is never positive. It is always destructive to the individual who is on the receiving end.

That's a great example of what I'm talking about! It is indeed possible; but we don't "know". We just "believe" based on our current knowledge base and our history. I know you understand where I'm coming from. You have been a seeker on your own path (i.e., studying independently of denominational influence) for decades. Your views have evolved; just like mine; and - knowing you - will continue to evolve because of your inquisitiveness and analytical skill..

Hi Pickle, People have been discussing these issues (rather contentiously at times) for over 200 years by a myriad of theologians. There are strong arguments - both for and against any position - depending on how one interprets scripture and what verses have priority in the reader's mind. All of these guys think their "enlightened" views are the correct views. That's one of the reasons that there are over 50,000 Christian denominations in the world. I don't have the time or energy to re-study everything that I have come to believe and post supporting scripture for everything. It's not that I can't; it's just that it would simply generate more questions and challenges. I'm not sure I'm right; and I'm not sure you're wrong. My beliefs about many things have evolved over the years; and will continue to do so. I appreciate your recent responses (they feel more like a dialog than an argument); but a few facts (at least from my POV) remain: 1. Very few of the issues we are discussing are salvational issues. 2. None of us really knows how prophecy will unfold until it unfolds. 3. Until the "sign of the times" change, I'm sticking with my views; and you will probably stick with yours. My views are heavily influenced by what I see going on in the world at this time; and are NOT necessarily influenced by EGW's POV. I have been a "seeker" all of my life. I have been active (in order) as a Catholic, a hippie, a JW, a World-Wide Church of God guy, a Mormon, an SDA, and "no preferred denomination" (although I still prefer Adventism over other man-made denominations). I have also worshipped with traditional Jews, Messianic Jews, and charismatics. I have learned valuable things from every group; and I have rejected stuff from every group. My salvation lies in Jesus Christ - not a denomination. For example, if, when I have my one-on-one performance appraisal in heaven, if Jesus tells me "that thing you believe about the HS not being a member of the Godhead - I don't agree with you". I will suddenly see my mistake and become a Trinitarian. Concerning the rapture, there will definitely be a rapture (or in SDA lingo - "translation"). It's just a question of when. The dead in Christ will rise first and then we who remain and are alive will meet with them in the air - be it pre-trib (not likely),mid-trib (also not likely), pre-wrath (my view right now), or post-wrath (at 2nd Coming - my backup position). My job is to persevere in the faith until I die or am raptured/translated. If I am alive, I'm sure I'll know it has happened when it happens.

The idea that the 70th "seven" was "cut off" from the first 69 weeks, and brought forward to the last seven years of this age - that idea I'm not really comfortable with yet. Of course it's possible, but it is also possible that the ENTIRE 70 "sevens" may be fulfilled at the end of this age.

Is the question, God doesn't help us out all the time, so why should we help others??

The point is that God seems to have stood by while His children were abused to the nth degree. He stood by when His Son was abused to the fullest that Satan could inflict.

When you see Christians express and share love and affirm God's Great Love for the LGBTIQQAAP Communitty As they are and Where they stand It is a sure Sign that they Themselves Know God's Great Love As they Are and Where they stand also. You cannot share God's Great love and the GOSPEL with out it. a facebook post more or less and the running theme God's great love for sinners that changes your heart towards self and others and HIM!

Calmly calling bullying by its right name is not what *I* would call 'vitriolic', but perhaps it's a subjective judgement. I did leave the discussion with Kevin. I didn't mean I'd be leaving this forum I've been posting on for about 12 years... sorry to disappoint if that's how you read that.

If anyone can demonstrate any words of mine that in any way resemble 'hatred and vitriol' I'll be very happy to withdraw them and apologise. I kinda doubt they will be able to, though: I have worked very hard at posting calmly, reasonably and rationally.

All conflicts here in this topic thread are everso familiar. We veteran members remember well those hurtful postings going on in the not too far past. Then came the warning (threat?) from the Conference that Club will have to closed down if the content didn't get cleaned up and a more contolled atmosphere take place. To me it seems a better place from days gone by but still intolerance of other-thinkers does cause friction, I see

Perhaps you should start another topic? Rom 3:20... by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. 22 This righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all and upon all who believe, for there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present, continuous tense) of the glory of God (His goodness), 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...

Okay, you had your say. What was EGW's instructions for people believing they had new light? If it was rejected after doing the above? Did she say to keep pushing the agenda or to be quiet and keep to ones self? Tests of New Light. Ellen White recommended the following specific ways to determine the genuineness of new light: 1. Is it Christ-Centered? "Does this light and knowledge that I have found, and which places me at variance with my brethren, draw me more closely to Christ? Does it make my Saviour more precious to me and make my character more closely resemble His?" 47 2. Does it Harmonize with All of Scripture? God "has given directions by which we may test every doctrine,--'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' [Isa. 8:20]. If the light presented meets this test, we are not to refuse to accept it because it does not agree with our ideas."48 3. Does it Produce Fruits of Righteousness? "The most convincing testimony that we can bear to others that we have the truth is the spirit which attends our advocacy of that truth. If it sanctifies the heart of the receiver, if it makes him gentle, kind, forbearing, true and Christlike, then he will give some evidence of the fact that he has the genuine truth. But if he acts as did the Jews when their opinions and ideas were crossed, then we certainly cannot receive such testimony, for it does not produce the fruits of righteousness."49 47 Testimonies for the Church, 3:444. 48 Gospel Workers, p. 301. 49 1888 Materials, 2:632. Ellen White called for the church to be open to new light. She strongly opposed the attitude that we have all the truth for our time.38 New light is not a private affair, however, for no one should claim that he or she has all the light.39 "God has not passed His people by, and chosen one solitary man here and another there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body. . . . Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren." 40 38 Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 33. 39 Testimonies to Ministers, p. 107; The Great Controversy, p. 343. For biblical support she referred to Job 11:7; Isa 55:8, 9; 46:9, 10. 40 Testimonies for the Church, 5:291.

Here are a few texts to ponder over; Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Matthew 6:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. * In these verses the leaven represents doctrine, so Jesus is saying beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Why? because they had wrong/false ideas about certain doctrines Luke 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. * In this verse Luke calls leaven hypocrisy. In other words; Beware of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. 1 Corinthians 5 gives us some more detail also. 1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you. * There was sin amongst this group of believers/church 1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. * Leaven in dough raises and expands throughout the dough. Sin was in this church as was likened unto leaven. The leaven of sin if not kept in check, could have moved through the believers. *For that person to keep the feast (Passover/unleavened bread) who had sinned would have to 1/ Repent and could keep the feast with the believers or .... *2/ Follows the council in the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. * 2/ The believers were not to keep company with the sinning persons and were not to eat with that person, in other words they were not to partake of the feast of passover/unleavened bread if they would not repent. They were to put out/away from their company that sinning person. * As verse 12 says the believers judge persons that are within their church. **So leaven can mean, wrong/false doctrine, hypocrisy, all sin. 1 John 2:1,2 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."

Greg, Why not give Kevin another chance? Every time you break one of God's rules does He give you time-outs? Kevin, David has asked "have I specifically said that I condone and support homosexual activity?" It seems that he doesn't support homosexual sexual activity, but is supportive of homosexuals. Anyway, my thoughts....

not standing to be abused doesn't necessarily mean one resorts to violence...

God never referred to red hair as an abomination or included that or skin color in the list of those that would be excluded from eternal life. Trivialize much?

Hi Kevin, I’ll try to explain myself better because I’m suspecting you might not have understand what I said, since I can’t make out the crux of your case. I can’t really see any evidence that you’ve posited, but it seems you’ve cobbled together many different strands of thoughts on different topics, which is not coherent enough to make a firm conclusion for your position on the 7th empire. So let me just try and address things that I could gather from what you said (forgive me if this is a little pedantic but its only because there were many claims you brought forward that needed addressing). Speculation “It's strange that right after you talked about my so called "Speculation" you turn right to the same principle in the next paragraph. Since the discovery of archaeology we have learned that the Bible gave everything with a possible local fulfillment and if not or only partially fulfilled gets reapplied through analogy to later times. In college every semester we were required to read "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDA Bible Commentary and a writing from Mrs. White (I forgot the title) that says much the same as the Bible Commentary article. Then our Bible classes were looking at this principle. How they could have been fulfilled, whether it was or not and then the reapplications through out scripture and history and Mrs. White.” So the “speculation” that I was referring to was your statements claiming that Jesus would have returned if the Hebrews did this or that. And I said no one could possibly know when Jesus would’ve come except God Himself and if he wanted, to those he chose to reveal it, which is so far nobody (although many do claim this but cannot prove this). This is just straightforward logic. Take for example someone who was visiting your house. Could you know when exactly they decided they would arrive at your house unless they told you? Of course not. So how could we possibly read the mind of God of when he would return? Jesus himself said it when he said “no one knows the day nor the hour”. And if, as you pointed out, it is a common practice within Adventist colleges to confidently infer that Jesus would’ve come earlier if people would’ve just preached the gospel, it is unfortunate, because it would show that those Adventist institutions and leaders have not learnt from the lessons of predicting Jesus’ coming from the time of the Great Disappointment, or when Ellen White predicted his return in 1850s, or when she said that in 1888 he would’ve returned if the GC would’ve adhered to the teachings of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones. To prove that, as 1 Th. 5.21 tells us to do, you would have to provide evidence for this (2 Pet. 1.16). If you cannot, then that is why I call it speculation – it is simply unprovable, simply from a common sense perspective, to say that you knew that Jesus would’ve come on such and such a date. And to say that archaeology proves this is a little non-sensical. Archaeology cannot tell you when God would’ve come. It’s like the equivalent of studying the architecture of a house to tell you when the owner would come – the two simply don’t correlate. And that is why I suggested the 7 principles to you to avoid such mistakes. Ellen White “Critics of Mrs. White point out how many of her prophecies have local applications but did not work out. We saw these same things in the scriptures. Even the 2300 days were first of all given in the year that 2300 literal days later (since the text does not tell us which day of the year the vision was, although we could have a good speculation) we have Persia breathing down Babylon's neck, the night of Belshazzar's feast and the early days of Babylon. In Daniel 9 the 2300 days are reapplied to the 70 weeks of years. Ezekiel has a 2310 day prophecy and if you remember the 10 days from the New Year to Yom Kippur you have another application as to how the 2300 days could have been fulfilled as the last 2300 days of the 70 years.” This is digressing quite a bit from the question of this discussion and going onto the topic of Ellen White’s qualification as a prophet which is another topic altogether. And whilst I am tempted to write on it, I won’t since it belongs in a new discussion. If you would like we could do that if you open it up. Ezekiel “We do not study Ezekiel enough because we don't see how it fit with the long term fulfillments as the reapplications of Daniel and Revelation has. But if we would start to study that powerful article in the SDA BC and really take it seriously to the Bible we will be able to open up much more of the Bible and Mrs. White.” Ezekiel, particularly chapter 38, is very relevant and fascinating, and its interesting that you cite it since it actually supports the case for a Middle Eastern Last Days power. It speaks of an army at the “End Years” (v.8) or Acharit HaYamim, “End of Days,” (v.16) that comprise a coalition of Middle Eastern forces that will come against the nation of Israel (vv.8,14,16,18,19): Persia – Iran (v.5); Cush – North Sudan (v.5); Phut – Libya (v.5); Meshech, Tubal (vv.2-3), Gomer and Beth-Togarmah (v.6) – all four are regions located in Turkey and the Northern regions (v.15); and many others (vv.6,22). Note that there are no Western nations or Papacy alluded to. Naturally, this would instead support an Islamic Antichrist 7th/8th empire. My Point of the Difference of the Sequence of Empires in Revelation and Daniel “Here you are in agreement with me and my post.” Your original point was that the sequence of empires in Revelation 13 begins with Babylon like in Daniel. But my reply to that was that Revelation’s sequence is the entire scope of history and begins with Assyria, whilst Daniel’s wasn’t but begins from his time, in Babylon and in Persia. Since you now agree with my explanation, then am I right in believing that you’ve now gone against your original point, and now agree that Revelation 13’s seven heads begin with Assyria? Your Last Post This post had many things that were not necessarily related but strung together in a hope to make a case. But there lacked any coherent flow, clear reasoning, any evidence to support your case or lead to a natural final conclusion to the one you originally made. I want to highlight some of the statements you made, in the hope that you might be able to see that it would be better to rethink the issue from the beginning and start afresh with an open mind (Jam. 3.17), building on evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) piece by piece, ending with a natural conclusion that leads from that evidence. God Would Have Returned in the Time of Emperor Domitian “Had the church started to "Preach again" the Domitian persecution could have brought about the end.” Again, I hate to point this out but this is purely speculative – it should be obvious now that you could not possibly know when God decided the end would’ve come in the past, unless of course he actually told you, which I’m sure you would agree he didn’t. Ten Emperors in 68-69 AD “There were 10 emperors” According to a book I have by Nigel Rodgers and Dr Hazel Dodge, Roman Empire (London: Hermes House, 2006), p. 64, there are only a list of 4 emperors at this time (68-69 AD) – Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian – which is why at this time period it was called “Year of the Four Emperors” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 16). It can’t include previous emperors from the beginning of the empire because the angel tells us in Rev. 17.12 that they “receive authority as kings for one hour, with the beast,” in other words, they exist at the same time. But even if we did we’d still only have 9, starting with Augustus who is credited with being “the First Roman Emperor” (Rodgers, Roman Empire, p. 66), and not Julius Caesar (although he paved the way). Emperor Vespasian Uprooted Three Emperors “Three uprooted by the Flavians” This is just simply historically false. Galba was murdered by the Imperial Guard who favoured Otho: “Otho won over the praetorians with the promise of a donative, and they murdered Galba and Piso in the Roman Forum on January 15.” – E. Badian, “Galba: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Galba. Otho committed suicide after losing the battle against the German legions loyal to Vitellius: “Galba had been murdered, and Vitellius’s armies fought the forces of his successor, Otho, at Bedriacum (now Calvatone, between Verona and Cremona). Otho’s forces were defeated, and he committed suicide on April 16.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius; see also “Otho: Roman Emperor,” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Otho. It is only Vitellius that could be attributed to being “uprooted” by Vespasian: “When Vespasian was hailed as emperor on July 1, the troops in the Balkan provinces recognized him and invaded Italy under Marcus Antonius Primus. After Vitellius’s troops were defeated in a second battle of Bedriacum (October 69), Vespasian’s brother, the city prefect Flavius Sabinus, persuaded Vitellius to abdicate. The Roman mob joined with Vitellius’s troops to chase Sabinus to the Capitoline Hill. (The temple of Jupiter was burned to the ground during the rioting.) Vespasian’s army, under Primus’s leadership, attacked and entered Rome on December 20. Vitellius was murdered with great barbarity.” – E. Badian, “Aulus Vitellius: Roman Emperor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, retrieved on 18 February 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Aulus-Vitellius. So it is factually untrue that Vespasian uprooted 3 kings. At most he uprooted 1. The Mark of the Beast: Adjusting Shoes When Bowing Down “The people were to bow in worship. Jews wondered if they could adjust their shoe at the time of worship. This was historically the mark of the beast. In the forehead to those who actually bowed in worship and adjusting their shoes with their right hands.” This is the most oddest thing you’ve written so far. You’re saying the mark of the beast is whether one could adjust one’s shoe at the time when one had to bow down? You’re kidding right? Can you actually cite where you got this from? But in any case, if this were the Mark of the Beast as you say, then Emperor Domitian would be the Antichrist. But if that were so, the 8th empire and last empire of all time (in which reign the Mark of the Beast is actually given) would have occurred in the first century. Don’t you don’t find this interpretation a little odd? Paul Believed Only in Preaching Gospel to Jews (4) “Paul said that he took the gospel to the whole world, but he also said that he's like to take the gospel to Spain. This showed that he had too narrow a world. He thought it needed to be spread to the Jewish world.” I’m not sure if I got you right. Are you saying Paul thought the gospel only needed to be spread to the Jewish world? It has to be said, not only do you give the impression that you aren’t reading any historical sources, it doesn’t seem that you’re reading the New Testament either, if this is what you’re saying. Have you never heard Paul say he was “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom. 11.13)? Or that he believed the Gospel was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1.16)? It really is a strain for anyone to take the case you are making seriously if you simply make stuff up on the spot and present it as fact. Jesus Would Have Returned in the First Century “Jesus' Olivet discourse sounded like the temple would fall and Jesus return. Could have happened had the disciples had a larger view of the world.” Again, this is what I mean, you continually seem to be saying that you know when Jesus would’ve returned, as if you had supreme divine authority to know so. Do you have direct revelation from God to know when he would’ve returned, even though His Son didn’t know when he was on earth? Obviously not, so that statement is simply speculative and is unprovable. Contradictions “But the book of Hebrews explained that Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry, comparing Jesus' ministry to the sanctuary with the earthly ministry being the holy place and heavenly ministry the most holy place.” This statement demonstrates emphatically that there is a deep confusion on your part because you’ve just contradicted all the “Jesus would have come back” statements you’ve made by now saying “Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry.” You’ve simply dismantled your own case. And then, in the following sentences you say: “Again, the prophecies could have been fulfilled under the Flavians, if the church would preach again despite the Domitian persecution and martyrdom. But it was again conditional to the spreading of the gospel.” Do you not see the self-contradiction? Not to mention that this is one presumptuous and judgmental statement you just made there against those being persecuted. I say presumptuous because you are presuming they didn’t preach the Gospel. But by crikey, they are being persecuted and martyred for the sake of Christ – is that not enough? And who’s to say they didn’t? I mean, they are dying for their Lord. If they’re willing to die then naturally they would be willing to preach. It would simply odd to die for something that they chose not to speak about. Not to mention that you cite no source that proves this. I say it is also judgmental because you speak from a vantage point of comfort – obviously you aren’t being persecuted and threatened with death by the state, so how could you judge their actions of not doing enough, when you are in relative comfort compared to them. For instance, are you preaching the Gospel to everyone around you? I’m not judging you. I’m asking how you could judge them having not suffered like them. Interestingly I find another contradiction: “While I do not believe in replacement theology, the remnant theology did move on to the church and they lived in the west under the Holy Roman Empire then the deadly wound time of independent nations.” Replacement theology is the belief that the role of Israel passed onto the church and replaced Israel. So whilst you said you “do not believe in replacement theology,” which is the belief that the church replaced Israel as the chosen people, you then immediately restate your belief in the core Replacement Theology axiom – that “the remnant theology did move on to the church.” You must be able to see that this is a complete self-contradiction. Political Leaders Are Not Economic Powers “And that it is different than the others because the others were political leaders such as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Julius, but here it is a great economic, corporate and banking power who has power over everyone's ability to buy and sell. Does that sound more like the ottomans and Muslims or does it sound more like the United States Federal Reserve and the banks in other parts of the world, the trilateral commission the international business corporation cartels.” Permit me to explain something that may not have occurred to you. When a powerful king like Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, etc., become “political leaders” like you say, in reality they became sovereigns of a vast swathe of territory, and is why we call them empires. Because they come into possession of such territory, this makes them automatically monumental economic powers not to mention military powers by default, since they possess all the resources that that territory has to offer. In fact, at the time, they were the biggest powers of the civilised world. So it is just simply non-factual that you say political leaders are not economic powers. Buying and Selling But the “buying or selling” that you mentioned (Rev. 13.16-18) is referring to the last 8th empire, which is effectively beginning potentially in our period, not in the past. So it cannot rule out Islam since it hasn’t happened yet. However, it is interesting to find that in Islam lie all the potentials. It possess a vast amount of oil wealth run by one of the most powerful economic cartels in the world – OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Export Countries), led by Saudi Arabia – which once brought the western world to a complete and utter standstill in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War against Israel by imposing an oil embargo on the West. It literally brought these industrialised nations a hundreds back bringing the horse and cart back literally (this is powerfully documented in a BBC documentary, Planet Oil: The Treasure that Conquered the World, (BBC, Oct 2015)). It still has phenomenal influence today, determining the price of oil globally, and thus determining the prices of all the commodities that are created by or are affected by oil. This commodity has also protected Saudi Arabia in particular from all sorts of human rights criticisms, particularly the persecution of Christians and the funding of terrorism. A second aspect about Islam that is also relevant to “buying and selling” is a practice in Sharia Law whereby non-Muslims have to effectively pay protection money called the “Jizya” so that no harm come to them with many restrictions (Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide History of Islam, (London: Rough Guides Ltd, 2003), p.24). ISIS for example is imposing this in its territory (“in Mosul and other towns in the region, ISIS gave Christians an ultimatum—convert to Islam, pay a tax known as jizya or be killed.” – Janine di Giovanni and Conor Gaffey, “The New Exodus: Christians Flee ISIS in the Middle East,” Newsweek, Issue 3 April 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html), and it has been practiced in the past by other Islamic dynasties, like the Ottomans (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, Oct 2013)). Combine these two aspects together, along with the real threat of a Nuclear Iran (William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth, and Peter Vincent Pry, “Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting US,” Newsmax, (01 Feb 2015), http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-ready-missiles/2015/02/01/id/621982/), and the biggest global persecution of Christians in modern times (George Thomas, “Islam’s War on Christians: Worst Yet to Come?,” CBN News, (9 January 2015), http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/January/Sound-the-Alarm-Islam-Intensifies-War-on-Christians/) and a potential future situation of Rev. 13.16-18 is not unthinkable. But does the Vatican have such power over the world economy? Has it in the recent past exercised anything like the 1973 Yom Kippur War Oil Embargo Crisis as proof of this? Does it have access to nuclear weaponry? Does it even have the power and will to persecute Christians on a global scale (despite actually calling on the end to the global Christian persecution by Muslims)? I can’t say that it does. Final Words Despite all of this, and the notable sheer lack of evidence, the case I laid out originally in response to the actual topic remains untouched. I hope therefore you can see the sense of the facts I laid out and at least begin to reconsider them and start to come to a new understanding, not just of prophecy, but of a new way of looking at the world and assessing truth. I encourage you to use those 7 principles I introduced to you to prevent you falling on this detrimental path. God be with you.

Hello Kevin, I think you’re right to rule out the practice of speculating. This is something that I also believe is not good practice, and I call it ‘The Principle of Sensibility’ – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4). The problem that I found is immediately after you said that, I hope you don’t mind me nudging you so, but you did a whole lot of speculating also – the basic format was that (a) if the Hebrews were faithful, then (b) the Messiah would have come. A simple question I would have is ‘how could one possibly know the mind of God and be so certain he would have come?’ That could only be revealed by some special direct revelation since I haven’t seen such bold assertions that you’ve alleged mentioned in the Bible. If I’ve missed it I’d be happy to be corrected if you’d kindly point them out. I also want to clear up something that you might have misunderstood about the nature of Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13’s empires are revealing the entire scope of history relative to the Jewish people. Naturally this has to refer to the Jewish people since there are so many other empires in the world that aren’t referred to (the Mongols for instance who in actual were the biggest empire the world had ever seen, bigger than Rome, and bigger than even Islam which was even bigger than Rome, and yet are not alluded to in the Bible at all). The visions recorded in Daniel 2,7,8,9,11 on the other hand all begin from when each vision was given. For example, although Daniel 2 and 7 start from Babylon since it was that empire in existence at the time of its revealing to Daniel, Daniel 8, 9 and 11 start from Persia and not Babylon since Persia is the empire in existence at the time of those later revelations. I think this is already well recognised even within Adventism. Furthermore, we have the angel’s own anchor-point in Rev. 17.10, saying that the 6th empire “is” in existence and that “five have fallen” out of existence. If Babylon were the 1st as you suggest in this sequence in Rev. 13, then your 6th candidate of American and French Revolutions should have been in existence in John’s time. Obviously it doesn’t fit, so I hope now you can see why we can’t start at Babylon. We have to work from the current empire to John’s time – the Roman Empire – and work backwards to find the “five fallen” and work forwards from the Roman Empire to find the 7th empire. And I hope that you can see from the abundance of evidence and arguments from historical factual sources that I’ve presented that clearly the Islamic Empire under the Ottoman Dynasty represents the 7th empire. And there are several good reasons why the Holy Roman Empire fails to fulfil the 7th. The Holy Roman Empire begins with the crowning of Charlemagne or Charles the Great in 800AD, but at this point the Roman Empire is still in existence, and hence couldn’t succeed it at this time. More importantly, the pattern of the past 6 empires was that (1) they were based in the Near/Middle East, (2) that they were ruled by Kings not priests, and (3) for the most part they were truly monumental in territory. If you actually look at any map in Google Images of the Holy Roman Empire it does not match factors (1) and (3). For factor (2) the Holy Roman Empire was ruled by an Emperor and not by a Pope, but the only reason many have wanted the candidacy of the Holy Roman Empire is because of the Papacy and not the Emperor. This and other reasons question in the very least its candidacy for the 7th empire. If we compare the Islamic Ottoman Empire in its ‘Golden Age’ however, we find that Sultan Suleyman was, according to historian Eugene Rogan “the most powerful man in the world at that time” (Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013)). The glory, splendour, military prowess and artistic achievements were the wonder of Europe and unmatched by any other. It also boasted a vast swathe of territory, “larger than the Roman Empire” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)), including the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, even Spain, and finally banging on the doors of Vienna in the 17th century, closing in on Central Europe. It was truly the fear of Europe, and if it were not stopped “there is no reason why they wouldn’t have reached the North Sea” (Andrew Marr, Andrew Marr’s History of the World, (BBC, 2012)) – in other words, Europe most likely would’ve been Muslim if it hadn’t been stopped. This, on top of all the other reasons I mentioned already (as well as more that I’ve included in my attachment to JoeMo, “The Seventh Head of the Beast of Revelation,” which I hope you can read too), proves that the Ottoman Empire is simply too strong a candidate to be dismissed. I admire your zeal against fundamentalism. I agree as I used to be a fundamentalist and no longer am. I would encourage you to continue that zeal and just add onto that some principles that have helped me in my pursuit of truth. They are there to help you not rebuke you. And they are not just for you but for anyone else wanting to find out the truth. I also needed this help before, but none was available, so I found out myself, learnt from the scholars and the masters who had been before me from many disciplines and learnt some basic but fundamental principles. Here they are: Verification (1 Th. 5.21) – to verify and prove things rather than just accept immediately as true; Impartiality (1 Tim. 5.21) – to be open to new conclusions other than the ones we have bias towards; Evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) – to base conclusions on evidence, not have pre-determined conclusions that try to misrepresent evidence. Argument (1 Pet. 3.15; Act 17.2-4; Act 18.24-28) – to make a case based on strong arguments. Reason (Act 17.2-4) – to have good reasoning/logic behind the arguments. Sensibility – to not entertain speculations (1 Tim. 1.4), cleverly invented but baseless theories/myths (2 Pet. 1.16), or superstitions (1 Tim. 4.7) as facts, which lead to turning away from truth (2 Tim. 4.4). Source Credibility (Lk. 1.1-3) – ensure that your information comes from accurate, reliable, authoritative, credibly established sources. I hope you find them helpful as I do all the time. God be with you in your quest

There’s a lot of good stuff being said here, particularly from 8thDayPriest and JoeMo. I think its always important when trying to look at something as deep and mystifying as Revelation, particularly the 7-headed beast, that it is important to start with a clear indisputable anchor point in the text that serves as a firm foundation in which to build everything else that is discovered from the text on. JoeMo hit the nail on the head when noting how it was the Roman Empire that existed at the time when John received the Revelation. The angel says as much when interpreting it for John: “Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come” (Rev. 17.10). The key phrase is the “one is,” indicating the present existence of the 6th empire, which as everyone knows is the Roman Empire. There is the anchor point. The 7th head, the “one to come,” therefore is the one that follows the Roman Empire. Since the 7th head is unnamed, a look at historical reality is absolutely crucial in my mind, to find out exactly who that successor to the Roman Empire is. And the key to doing that is to find out exactly when the Roman Empire ended and who ended/conquered it. The New Division of the Empire: East and West (395 AD) I think its important to begin with some key shifting dynamics occurring within the Roman Empire before any collapse. In 395 AD a vital turning point had been reached in the empire which was that it had been divided into two partitions: the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire: “After the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 CE, the Empire was split into two, a western empire ruled from Rome, and an eastern empire ruled from Constantinople.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 33. “395 Roman Empire Permanently Divided: …After Eugenius was killed in battle in September, Theodosius became, briefly, the last emperor to rule both the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire. In January 395 Theodosius died of heart disease at Mediolanum and the empire was divided between his two young sons Honorius (r. 395-423), who became emperor of the west, and Arcadius (r. 395-408). This time, the division proved to be permanent but this did not mean that the empire ceased to be a single state because laws passed by one emperor were automatically valid in the other half of the empire. However, in the long run, this arrangement disadvantaged the western half of the empire because it could now no longer automatically draw upon the resources of the wealthier and more populated east.” - John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 312. The New Rome: Constantinople (330 AD) Prior to that, the Roman Emperor Constantine in 330 made the new capital of the Roman Empire Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), and so the centre of gravity of the Empire shifted from West to East: “Refounded as the “new Rome” by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. “Constantine the Great transferred the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium (330), renamed Constantinople and New Rome.” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople,’ ‘Istanbul,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178827/Ecumenical-Patriarchate-of-Constantinople, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296962/Istanbul. “Byzantium considered itself the centre of the world, and Constantinople as the replacement of Rome. Though Greek-speaking, it saw itself as the Roman Empire and its citizens as Romans.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xvii. “The New Rome: Constantine’s ambition was to be sole ruler of the Roman empire, and Licinius’ revocation of the edict of toleration for Christians provided Constantine with the ideal pretext to march east and overthrow him. Christians were far more numerous in the Greek-dominated east than in the still overwhelmingly pagan west and Constantine found plenty of support. Following Licinius’ defeat and execution in 324, Constantine decided to mark his break with Rome’s pagan past by founding a new eastern capital for the empire, named Constantinople after himself, on the site of the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium on the Bosphorus straits. Constantine’s choice of site was an inspired one. Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) was a natural stronghold. Situated on the peninsula it was surrounded by sea on three sides and the landward approaches were strongly fortified. The city was also at a crossroads of major sea and land routes, making it a natural commercial and communications centre. While Rome’s population was now in decline, settlers flooded into Constantinople, attracted by its commercial and administrative opportunities, official financial incentives and offers of free bread for the poor.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 307. The Roman Empire Lived On in the East After 476 AD Therefore, when the Western half of the Roman Empire fell in 476 it did not mean the end of the Roman Empire, contrary to what is popularly thought (among many Adventist leaders/evangelists at least). The Roman Empire in fact continued on in the East for another one thousand years, having already firmly established its new capital in Constantinople and rich resources from the Eastern provinces: “Within a comparatively short time, the western empire was submerged in a series of barbarian invasions, and in effect ceased to exist. The eastern empire survived these difficulties, and was able to maintain itself for another thousand years.” - Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 33-34. “When the Roman empire in the West fell in AD 476, the empire in the East, based at Constantinople, carried on business much as usual. And did so for another thousand years.” - Jon E. Lewis ed., Rome The Autobiography: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Those Who Saw It, “Epilogue: The Roman Empire in the East, AD 477-565,” (London: Constable & Robinson Ltd, 2010), p. 397. “The Roman empire of the West came to an end in the fifth century; but the Roman empire – as a continuous legal, cultural and political institution – persisted in the East for another millennium, and its capital, the ‘New Rome’ of Constantinople, was the seat of Roman emperors into the age of gunpowder and cannon; the last of them died only four decades before the discovery of the Americas.” - David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233. Romans Not Byzantines Although in modern times the Eastern Roman Empire is termed ‘Byantium’ this was not how they viewed themselves. They indeed saw themselves as Romans of the Roman Empire: “It is worth noting that the ‘Byzantines’ never used the term in this way themselves; right to the end they called themselves and their empire Roman.” – Colin McEvedy, The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1992), p. 30, fn. 1. “The name Byzantine, which is nowadays generally applied to the eastern empire, is a term of modern scholarship, and is derived from the name of the settlement which previously existed on the site of the city of Constantinople. The Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines. They called themselves Romans, and were ruled by a Roman emperor, purporting to enforce the Roman law.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 34. “This eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzantium. That name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West. Although they coined a term which has been used ever since, it is important to remember that the inhabitants of the empire called themselves Romans (in Greek, Romaioi), and saw themselves as such. Their claim on Roman qualities was not a vanity or snobbishness. From 330 to 619 Byzantium enjoyed imperial realities as well as ideology.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. 25. ‘The very name Byzantine illustrates the misconceptions to which the empire’s history has often been subject, for its inhabitants would hardly have considered the term appropriate to themselves or to their state. Theirs was, in their view, none other than the Roman Empire… they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans.” – Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. The Actual End of the Roman Empire: 1453 Why is any of this important? It’s important because whoever ends the Eastern Roman Empire – which as we have discovered is now resident in the East, with its capital in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul in Turkey) – is the clear winner for who the 7th Head/Empire is. So when in fact did the Roman Empire end? 1453: “Refounded as the ‘new Rome’ by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine. The derivation from Byzantium is suggestive in that it emphasizes a central aspect of Byzantine civilization: the degree to which the empire’s administrative and intellectual life found a focus at Constantinople from 330 to 1453, the year of the city’s last and unsuccessful defense under the 11th (or 12th) Constantine. The circumstances of the last defense are suggestive, too, for in 1453 the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds seemed briefly to meet. The last Constantine fell in defense of the new Rome built by the first Constantine.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87186/Byzantine-Empire. And who actually caused its end? The Islamic Empire of the Ottoman Dynasty: “The eastern half of the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, formerly Byzantium. The Eastern Roman Empire survived the collapse of the Western Empire by nearly a thousand years, only falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, when Constantinople was taken.” - Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Byzantine Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. * “The Empire (31 BC-AD 476 in the West, AD 1453 in the East)… In the 5th century, hordes of trans-riverine tribesmen (eg Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths) poured into the Western provinces carrying all before them. In 476 with their deposition of the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, they marked symbolically their destruction of the Western half of the Empire. The Eastern provinces, however, proved more resilient; here the barbarian challenge was contained for another thousand years, until the Eastern capital Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.” – David Crystal, ed., Penguin Encyclopedia 2nd Edition, ‘Roman history,’ (London: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 1315-1316. ‘Ottoman forces entered Europe in 1345, conquered Constantinople in 1453, and by 1520 controlled most of south-eastern Europe, including part of Hungary, the Middle East and North Africa.’ – Bruce P. Lenman, Trevor Anderson, eds., Chambers Dictionary of World History, ‘Ottoman Empire,’ (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd., 2000), p. * “After the fall of the west, the eastern Roman empire continued to flourish and under the emperor Justinian (r. 527-65) even won back control of Italy and North Africa… During the seventh century the newly Islamized Arabs conquered Egypt, Palestine and Syria, but their attempts to capture Constantinople failed. Confined to Anatolia and the Balkans, the empire survived, as much by diplomacy as military force, as a bulwark of Christendom in the east. However, a crushing defeat by the Seljuk Turks at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 sent the empire into decline, and the sack of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 ended the empire’s days as a great power. The final blow came when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. To the very end, Byzantine emperors continued to regard themselves as true Roman emperors.” – John Haywood, Chronicles of the Ancient World: 3500 BC – AD 476, (London: Quercus, 2012), p. 324. “On 29 May 1453, two years after the sultan’s accession and seven weeks after the siege began, the janissaries made the final assault on the crumbling walls of Constantinople. The last Constantine was killed fighting among his troops; the crescent was raised above the dome of Hagia Sophia, and the sultan took up residence in the imperial city. With the conquest of Constantinople, for so many centuries the coveted goal Muslim arms, the last piece had fallen into place. Sultan Mehmed II, henceforth known as Fatih, the Conqueror, had sealed the union of the two continents, Asia and Africa, that formed his inheritance, and of the two traditions, Islam and the frontier, that had moulded them. The principality of the frontier fighters had become an empire; its chief, an emperor. This victory established the Ottoman sultanate as the spearhead of Islam pointing to the West, and brought it immense prestige within the Islamic world.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 110-111. “Sultan Mehmet had promised his men the three traditional days of looting… By then there was little left to plunder, and his soldiers were fully occupied sharing out the loot and enjoying their captives. In the late afternoon, accompanied by his chief ministers, his imams and his bodyguard of Janissaries, he rode slowly to St Sophia. Dismounting outside the central doors… he entered the Great Church… At his command the senior imam mounted the pulpit and proclaimed the name of Allah, the All-Merciful and Compassionate: there was no God but God and Mohammed was his Prophet. The Sultan touched his turbaned head to the ground in prayer and thanksgiving. St Sophia was now a mosque. Leaving it, he crossed the square to the old, ruined Palace of the Emperors, founded by Constantine the Great eleven and a half centuries before; and as he wandered through its ancient halls, his slippers brushing the dust from the pebbled floor-mosaics… he is said to have murmured the lines of a Persian poet: ‘The spider weaves the curtains in the palace of the Caesars; The owl calls the watches in the towers of Afrasiab.’ He had achieved his ambition. Constantinople was his. He was just twenty-one years old. The news of the conquest was received with horror throughout Christendom. The refugees carried the epic story with them; and their story lost nothing in the telling… The Roman Empire of the east was founded by Constantine the Great on Monday, 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday, 29 May 1453.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Penguin Books, 1997), pp. 381-382. Islam’s Attempted Conquest of the West from the Beginning This fall did not simply occur out of the blue. The attempt at conquering Constantinople and the rest of the Western world had begun upon the inception of Islam in the 7th century (and continues on until this day): “Geography alone made its ultimate survival as a Christian capital impossible. It was surrounded by too many enemies – Arabs, Slavs, Turks, Bulgars, Mongols, among others – and from the seventh century onwards was engaged in an almost continuous struggle with the immense power of Islam. With the rise of the Ottoman empire, the Byzantines were confronted with an enemy that could not be defeated, and that could not be resisted indefinitely. – David Bentley Hart, The Story of Christianity: A History of 2,000 Years of the Christian Faith, (London: Quercus, 2009), p. 233. In fact, one of the primary existential features of the Eastern Roman Empire is that it had been protecting the Western world from the designs of conquest by Islam: “Perhaps for us today, the most significant feature of Byzantium lies in its historic role in protecting the Christian West in the early Middle Ages. Until the seventh century, Byzantium was indeed the Roman Empire. It ruled North Africa and Egypt, the granaries that fed both Rome and Constantinople, southern Italy, the Holy Land, Asia Minor as far east as Mount Ararat, all of today’s Greece and much of the Balkans. Then the tribes of Arabia inspired by the new religion of Islam conquered most of the eastern Mediterranean. They fought in the name of a revelation that presented itself as the successor to the Jewish and Christian faiths. Byzantium checked their expansion into Asia Minor and prevented them from crossing the Dardanelles and gaining access to the Balkans. Constantinople held out against numerous sieges… Had Byzantium not halted their expansion in 678, Muslim forces charged by the additional resources of the capital city would have spread Islam throughout the Balkans, into Italy and the West during the seventh century, at a time when political fragmentation reduced the possibility of organized defence. By preventing this potential conquest, Byzantium made Europe possible. It allowed western Christian forces, which were divided into small units, time to develop their own strengths.” – Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. xviii. The Ottoman Islamic Empire: The Legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire Finally, what I found absolutely striking was that according to a recent BBC documentary titled The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, the Ottomans, in particular their leader Mehmed II who had just led the enormously successful and unprecedented conquest of Constantinople in 1453, viewed their nascent empire as the natural successor to the Roman Empire! – Mehmet II paralleling himself with Augustus Caesar who changed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire: “[Presenter BBC News Correspondent Rageh Ommar:] Mehmet saw himself as heir to the Romans, ready to model his new Ottoman Empire as their natural successor. [Professor Karen Barkey:] For the Ottoman Empire Mehmet II is Augustus. He plays the same role, because Augustus changes the Republic into an Empire, and Mehmet II changes the small Ottoman state through the conquest of Constantinople.” – Karen Barkey, Professor of Columbia University, in Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode One,’ (Salford: BBC, 6 Oct 2013). I find this later confirmed by other historical sources: “Nothing could stop Turkish expansionism… On May 29, 1453, Mehmed II rode his white horse into Constantinople, making this proud city his new imperial capital and winning the honorific title of “The Conqueror.” For the West this was a dark moment. For Islam it was a cause for celebration. For nearly a millennium Constantinople had been the foremost barrier – both physically and ideologically – to Islam’s sustained drive for world conquest and the object of desire of numerous Muslim rulers… He was no longer a ghazi “blazing forth the way of Islam,” or even the foremost sultan in the House of Islam. He was the head of a great empire stretching from the Black Sea to the very heart of Europe and the legitimate heir to the universal Byzantine Empire. Manifested by Mehmed’s adoption of the title Sultan-I Rum – “Ruler of Rome” (or rather Byzantium) – and his determination to turn his new capital of Constantinople, or Istanbul as it would henceforth be called, into the leading world metropolis, this alleged continuity was to become a central component of the Ottoman claim to universal empire.” – Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History, (North Yorkshire: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 89. “Among the titles Sultan Mehmed claimed for himself was that of ‘Roman Caesar’, signifying his aspiration to succeed to the mantle of the Byzantine Empire at the height of its greatness under Constantine and Justinian… He saw himself as the legitimate heir to Byzantium and as having realized Islamic traditions that the peerless city of Constantinople would one day be Muslim; and also as the epigone of the heroes of the Classical world. He knew some Greek, and his interest in the ancients must have been widely known in contemporary political circles. It was alluded to in his own time by the Venetian Niccolo Sagundino, a native of Euboea, in his account of the Ottomans. Mehmed, wrote Sagundino, was fascinated by the Spartans, the Athenians, the Romans and the Carthaginians but identified above all with Alexander of Macedonia and Julius Caesar. The Byzantine Critoboulos of Imbros (Gokceada) wrote in the preface to his eulogistic biography that Mehmed’s exploits equalled Alexander’s… Mehmed fostered this identification of himself with great warriors of the past… He had the Iliad and the standard life of Alexander, Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander the Great, copied for his library. The historical tradition Sultan Mehmed tried to keep alive and of which he felt himself to be part reached far back into the past, but his eyes were set on a brilliant future for his empire.” – Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, (London: John Murray Publishers, 2006), pp. 70, 80. “The capture of Constantinople bestowed on Mehmed incomparable glory and prestige and immense authority in his own country, so that he began to look upon himself as the heir of the Roman Caesars and the champion of Islam in holy war. It is not true that he had preconceived plans for his conquests, but it is certain that he was intent upon resurrecting the Eastern Roman Empire and upon extending it to its widest historic limits… Mehmed had assumed the title of Kayser-i Rum (Roman Caesar) and, at the same time, described himself as “the lord of the two lands and the two seas” (i.e., Anatolia and the Balkans, the Aegean and the Black seas), a designation that reflected his idea of the empire. During the quarter-century after the fall of Constantinople, he undertook a series of campaigns or expeditions in the Balkans, Hungary, Walachia, Moldavia, Anatolia, the island of Rhodes, and even as far as the Crimean Peninsula and Otranto in southern Italy. This last enterprise (1480) indicated that he intended to invade Italy in a new attempt at founding a world empire.” – Halil Inalcik, ‘Mehmed II: Ottoman sultan,’ Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 14 Feb 2016, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Mehmed-II-Ottoman-sultan. Conclusion It should clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roman Empire did not end in 476 as many Adventist evangelists, speakers, leaders and pastors have continuously promulgated to this day, unabated and unopposed. To say so is to actually ignore the historical reality of (1) the transfer of the centre of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, (2) the subsequent splitting of the empire into two halves, East and West, in 395, and (3) a thousand years of existence of the eastern half of the Roman Empire up until 1453 with the Conquest of Constantinople by the Muslim Sultan Mehmed II of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. All three are powerful and irrefutable arguments against the notion that the Roman Empire ended in 476, and in favour of the successor to the Roman Empire being the Islamic Empire (of the Ottoman Dynasty). It is also fascinating that that Islamic empire only ended less than one hundred years ago in 1924! (as part of World War I). In fact, it was because of its collapse that terrorist groups and states sprang up soon after, like the Muslim Brotherhood, in an attempt to restore the Islamic Empire, and which ISIS has successfully begun to do in our time! Unreal! This speaks to the identity of the 8th Empire/the Beast, which is an extension of this topic but one which I won’t comment on now since I’ve said enough already. Also, to focus on the eastern half of the Roman Empire is very natural from a Biblical standpoint since virtually all the empires are centred around, or focussed from that vantage point: Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and even Greece are all empires that are based in the Middle/Near East – even Alexander the Great ironically did not base his empire in Greece but in Babylon, and his empire stretched eastward all the way up to the borders of India. Even when Jesus arrives on the scene under the rule of Romans he focuses his ministry on Jerusalem and Israel, the Middle East. And even in Revelation 13 when we view the Beast, who is effectively the “eighth” empire succeeding the sequence of “seven” (Rev. 17.11), he is represented in the form of a Lion, Bear and Leopard – this harks back to the Lion, Leopard, Bear empires in Daniel 7, namely Babylon, Persia and Greece respectively, which are all historically Middle Eastern empires. Therefore an Eastern Roman Empire focus is fitting to the entire viewpoint of the Bible. To view the 7th or 8th empires as the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy is completely incongruous to the sequence, and ignores the actual historical reality of what happened to the Roman Empire as I’ve described above. Lastly a personal note. I read and hear many believers when approaching something as serious as the Book of Revelation and Endtime prophecy in general (or any other Bible topic for that matter), where any taking away or adding to Revelation (and that includes removing or adding interpretations of things that are and are not there respectively) has serious eternal consequences, just say things on a whim, or make stuff up in their head, as if just thinking something up makes it true. But truth deserves more serious efforts than mere whim. It deserves hard evidence and tough investigation of actual historical realities. Personally, I find it offensive that many pastors/leaders/evangelists who have a huge influence on the ordinary person, have not even bothered to pick up something as simple and straight-forward as an encyclopedia to verify their so-called historical facts, and are ever-so willing to say things with absolute certainty but which they haven’t even bothered to check out or support with a quote from any historical source. With such a sacred responsibility, I would make sure I checked first. So that’s what I did. And it contradicted everything I was taught as an Adventist. Don’t be fooled. Check out the facts for yourself. You owe to yourself, others and to God Himself who died for you. “Prove all things.” 1 Thessalonians 5.21 “Wisdom from above is… open to reason…and impartial.” James 3.17