The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[Lysimachus]

The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

by Marcos S.

PART 1

It has been stated by Protestant evangelical Christians that the 1260 year prophecy, and its starting and ending dates of 538-1798, was invented by Ellen White and later pioneers. The following research will thoroughly dismantle such notion. The concept of the 1260 days ending in the late 18th century (1780s to late 1790s) was developed before William Miller, and before Adventists even came into existence, and also after, but independently by several Protestants.

Let me give you some examples:

• "The seventy weeks of Daniel, or 490 days to the Messiah were fulfilled as 490 years, that is, they were fulfilled on the year-day scale. On this scale the forty-two months, or 1,260 days, are 1,260 years. We ask then, Has the Papacy endured this period? An examination of the facts of history will show that it has." (H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, 84 -- about 1887)

Henry Grattan Guinness was not a Seventh-Day Adventist, nor was he influenced by William Miller.

In 1701, Robert Fleming published his book, The Rise and Fall of the Papal Rome. Fleming showed, as others had done for many centuries, that the 1,260 days of prophecy represent 1,260 years. (Ibid, 156) [in other words, H. Grattan Guinness is establishing his position from Robert Fleming’s book in 1701)

E.B. Elliot, in his 1862 classic, Horae Apocalypticae, often referred to:

• "...the great prophetic period of the 1260 years." (E.B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. 1, Fifth Edition (1862), xxii.

David Benedict’s “A General History of the Baptist Denomination also commented on:

• "...the rise of Antichrist...his reign...[for] 1260 years." (David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination, 16, n.d.)

Are we ready for more?

In the very year of 1798, when the Pope was taken prisoner and Vatican 1 abolished by Napoleon, Protestant scholars all over Europe and America recognized the fulfillment of the prophecy.

• "The downfall of the papal government....many saw in these events the accomplishment of prophecies, and the exhibition of signs promised in the most mystical parts of the Holy Scriptures" (John Adolphus, History of France from 1790-1801, Vol. 2, (London, England, George Kearsley, 1803) 397)

  "Is not the Papal power, at Rome, which was once so terrible, and so domineering, at an end? But let us pause a little. Was not this End, in other parts of the Holy Prophecies, foretold by Daniel, to be at the END of 1260 years? --and was it not foretold by Daniel, to be at the END of a time, times, and half a time? Which computation amounts to this same period. And now let us see; hear; and understand. THIS IS THE YEAR 1798.--And just 1260 years ago, in the very beginning of the year 538, Belisarious put an end to the Empire, and Dominion of the Goths, at Rome. He had entered the City on the 10th of the preceding December in triumph, in the name of Justinian, Emperor of the East: and had soon after made it tributary to him: leaving thenceforward from A.D. 538, No Power in Rome, that could be said to rule over the earth,---excepting the ECCLESIASTICAL PONTIFICAL POWER." (Edward King, Remarks on the Signs of the Times in the year 1798, p. [3]--Facsimile reproduction on page 768) [He published this work in the year 1798. Edward King (1735-1807) also concluded that the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 were 2300 years]

The scholar, Richard Valpy (1754-1836), noticed the importance of the year 538 as the beginning of unhindered Papal power:

• “In the year 538, the Goths were driven from Rome, and at that time the aspiring Vigilius, by his secret intrigues with the artful Theodora, was promoted to the Pontifical dignity, which he purchased with 200 pounds of gold: an unequivocal proof of the character of a man of sin. During the Pontificate of Vigilius, the pretentions of the successors of St. Peter to a general superiority began to be openly asserted; and shortly after, their supremacy was publicly acknowledged. It was at this time that the Pope assumed the title of Vicegerent of Jesus Christ . . . . Now too celibacy was more generally enjoined. The use of Holy Water was first publically recommended by Vigilius in 538” (Sermons Preached on Public Occasions. With Notes, and an Appendix, Vol. 1, 258).

I ask myself the question: what do dispensationalists and their kin do with these historical records that fit the 1260 year prophecy with such precision and exactness? How is that they ignore any application of the day-for-year principle for the 42 months/1260 days of Daniel and Revelation? How is it even POSSIBLE to ignore these fulfillments? Why is it that Dispensationalists and other Protestants will continue to stubbornly apply the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 as 490 years, but then when it comes to say, a prophecy of the 42 months in Revelation 13, the day-for-year principle has no application?

Let us continue:

• "Is it not extremely remarkable, and a powerful confirmation of the truth of Scripture prophecy, that just 1260 years ago, from the present 1798, in the very beginning of the year 538, Belisarious put an end to the empire of the Goths at Rome, leaving no power therein but the Bishop of the Metropolis? Read theses things in the prophetic Scriptures; compare them coolly with the present state of Europe, and then, I say again, deny the truth of Devine Revelation, if you can. Open your eyes, and behold these things accomplished in the face of the whole world. This thing is not done in a corner." (David Simpson [1745-1799], A Plea for Religion and the Sacred Writings, 166, as quoted by Froom, Vol 2., 776-777.)

There are actual several more Bible expositors that allude to the wounding of the Papacy in 1798 (others around 1798) before any Adventist existed, but I’ll give just one more example by Thube:

Christian Gottlob Thube was pastor at Baumgarten Mecklenburg-Schewerein, in Germany. In 1789 Thube looked forward to a great day of vengeance for the Papacy in 1836—influenced by Bengel’s curious mode of calculation. In the year 1799, in his book Anletiung zum richtigen Verstande der Offenbarung Johannis (Guidance to the Right Understanding of the Revelation of John), pp.37,38, he writes:

• "The Beast has received a deadly wound, Rev 13:12. It received the wound by the sword, verse 14. This was fulfilled by the French who with sword in hand banished the pope and his cardinals from Rome, dissolving the Papal States and erecting a so-called Roman Republic. The present condition of the Papacy is the following: it received a wound by the sword and yet it is alive. How long this condition will continue and under which form this still continuing life will exist, is not yet to be decided with certainty. The deadly wound will be healed, but whether it will take a short or long time to do we do not know; nor do we understand in which manner and by which process it will come to pass."

Thomas Newton (1704-1782), predicted several years prior to 1798 that the Papacy would fall as a result of the French Revolution:

• “Rome therefore will finally be destroyed by some of the princes, who are reformed, or shall be reformed from popery: and as the kings of France have contributed greatly to her advancement, it is not impossible, nor improbable, that some time or other they may also be the principle authors of her destruction. France hath already shown some tendency towards a reformation, and therefore may appear more likely to effect such a revolution” (Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. 3, 308).

In 1796, 2 YEARS BEFORE 1798, George Bell, author of the London Evangelical Magazine, wrote that the Papacy was soon to fall. Amazingly, he calculated the fall of the Papal Power just ONE YEAR in 1797 before the event actually happened! On the basis of his knowledge of the Arian Ostrogoths, which suppressed Papal power, Bell argued:

• “If this be a right application of events in the prophecy, then Antichrist arose about the year 537, or at farthest about the year 553. He continues 42 months, or 1260 prophetic days, that is, 1260 years, Rev. xiii.5.; consequently we must expect his fall about the year 1797, or 1813.” (George Bell, “Downfall of Antichrist,” The Evangelical Magazine, vol. 4, 56).

There is no question that George Bell’s prediction is very impressive, for the Papacy lost its Temporal and full Ecclesiastical Power in 1798.

Froom states that so clear was Bible prophecy, that the fall of the Papacy was anticipated by George Bell two years before it occurred, and he very nearly pinpointed the exact year based on his studies. But as impressive as that may be, he was NOT the first to arrive at that conclusion. Just over a century before, Drue Cressner, D.D., who became vicar of the Church of England, wrote:

• "The first appearance of the Beast was at Justinians recovery of the Western Empire, from which time to about the year 1800 will be about 1260 years…. "For if the first time of the Beast was at Justinians recovery of the City of Rome, then must not it end till a little before the year 1800." (From "The Judgments of God upon the Roman Catholick Church", by Drue Cressner, D.D., published in London in 1689, pp. 309, 312).

Here was the first apparent linking of the 1260 years to the time of Justinian.

Cressner also published the following challenge in another of his books:

• "Where-ever was there an Empire since the writing of the Prophecy, but that of the Roman Church, that was so Universal for 1260 years together, as to have all that dwell upon the Earth, Peoples, and Multitudes, and Nations, and Tongues, to worship it? What Ruling Power, but that, so Ancient, as to have the Blood of the Prophets, and Saints, and of all that were slain upon Earth, of that kind for that space of time, to be found in it? What Rule but that, had ever so long a duration in the World, as to continue set upon an Hill, much less upon seven Hills, for so great a space of time... ?” (From A Demonstration of the First Principles of the Protestant Applications of the Apocalypse, by Drue Cressner, D.D., published in London in 1690, Preface, pp. viii, ix.—cited in Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume II, pp. 591-596)

So one hundred and nine years in advance, the deadly wound to the papacy was forecast with remarkable accuracy.

H.W. Crocker tells us:

• “The occupying French declared Rome a Republic in 1798, and the aged Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner. He died in 1799 in Revolutionary France, where the constitutional clerics treated him as an unimportant old man, a heretic from the Enlightenment’s new religion of Reason, Nature, and the State.” (TRIUMPH: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church—A 2,000-year History, 531)

Concerning the event of 1798, the historian George Trevor states:

• “The territorial possession of the clergy and monks were declared national property, and their former owners cast into prison. The papacy was extinct: not a vestige of its existence remained; and among all the Roman Catholic powers not a finger was stirred in its defence. The Eternal City had no longer prince or pontiff; its bishop was a dying captive in foreign lands; and the decree was already announced that no successor would be allowed in his place.” (George Trevor, Rome: From the fall of the Western Empire, 440)

We therefore see how great prophetic authors and historians such as Thomas Goodwin, Jacques Philipot, Thomas Newton, Isaac Newton, George Bell, Drue Cressner, D.D., Christian Gottlob Thube, David Simpson, Richard Valpy, Edward King, Robert Fleming, John Adolphus, George Kearsley, David Benedict, E.B. Elliot, Henry Grattan Guinness, George Trever, and not to mention ALL the Reformers prior to 1798 were direct witnesses to the application of the 1260 years to the Papacy, and the fulfillment of prophecy when it received the deadly wound in 1798. This is an event for which the Church Fathers were unable to foresee; therefore Dispensationalists and all other Futurist or Preterist proponents become accountable before God when they reject God’s direct witnesses of prophetic fulfillment. Dispensationalists and their kin would rather rely on the limited vision of the Church Fathers than to recognize the very men who experienced the sword of the Papacy and witnessed its demise in 1798.

To be continued...

[Lysimachus]

PART 2

There are those who argue against the 538 starting date, stating such things as “the Ostrogoths were not defeated in 538, their end came in 553”. People who make such an argument miss the whole point! The code of Justinian issued in 533 which recognized for the first time the Pope and the Holy See as “head of ALL the churches”, and did not go into effect until the Gothic impediment in 538 during the siege of Rome had been removed.

Froom describes the incredible impact Justinian’s Code had on the Roman Church:

• “LEGAL TRANSACTION COMPLETE AND AUTHORITATIVE – The title of the pope to supremacy over the church was later questioned in the East by the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the death of Justinian, and was in turn reaffirmed by Phocus in 606, as will be noted in chapter 22. But the establishing edict of Justinian was never rescinded. The importance attached to Justinian’s Code in this study does not rest so much upon the great body of civil legislation contained therein as upon the incorporation of purely ecclesiastical edicts and regulations, and as a result the latter was given imperial and political sanction. And as the influence of Justinian’s Code can be traced in the legislation of many European nations, this intertwining of religions and political power by law remained constant practically till the time of the French Revolution, when it was dethroned in Europe and when the Code of Napoleon a few years thereafter made a distinct separation between the ecclesiastical and the secular spheres.

  The time of Justinian is therefore incontrovertibly the time of the beginning of this era of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Papacy. The placing of the letter to the pope in civil law, thereby embodying his primacy in that law, was remarkable—yes, an incontrovertible—way of accrediting the pope, and of making prominent his new power an dignity.

  It should be stressed that the Justinian transaction has ALL the requirements of completeness, authority, and publicity. Ecclesiastical dominion was conferred not only over the Western church but also over the Eastern---these two grand divisions theoretically embracing the territory of the Roman Empire—and it was enforceable as far as Justinian’s authority extended, for it had all the sanction that could be given by the imperial will, all the formality which belonged to the imperial law, and all the authority comprehended under imperial supremacy. (Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol 1, pp. 513, 514)

While the beginning of this era of headship of the Roman bishop over all the churches was not marked by some overmastering event in papal advancement, or by an assumption of supreme ecclesiastical control, there is no doubt that upon the removal of the impediment of the Ostrogothic control and their besieging forces cleared away from Rome that the Roman Pontiff was then free to exercise his jurisdiction now legally provided through the imperial Code of Justinian. While the Ostrogoths did not collapse entirely in 538, the grave of the Ostrogothic monarchy in Italy was dug by the defeat of this siege (See Hodgkin, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 251, 252; Gibbon, op. cit., chap. 41, vol. 4, pp. 323, 324.).

In 537, Pope Silverius was banished by Belisarius; and the deacon Vigilius, favorite of Theodora, was then elected pope (See Hussey, op. cit., p. 146; Schaff, History, vol. 3, p. 327; Charles Diehl, “Justinian’s Government in the East,” The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, p. 46.) Froom points out the following:

• The imperial acceptance of the Roman pontiff’s assertions of primacy—already largely conceded in the West---had denied the claims of all rivals, and given him official status. Now Vigilius, owing his pontificate to imperial influence, and bolstered by this new legal recognition of the pope’s ecclesiastical supremacy, marked the beginning of a long climb toward political power which culminated in the reigns of such popes as Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII. The temporary nature of Justinian’s union of East and West, and the subsequent decrease in the concern of the Byzantine emperors of Western church affairs, only left the pope with a freer hand to develop that power. The change in the character of the Papacy from Vigilius on, and the final result of that change, have been well described: ‘From this time on the popes, more and more involved in worldly events, no longer belong solely to the church; they are men of the state, and then rulers of the state.’” (Dielhl, “Justinian’s Government,” The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, chap.2, pp. 46, 47.)

  This transaction engendered new energy in Rome. As the Papacy began to assume more of a political character, and entered the path which led on toward temporal dominion, the voice of the Roman bishop took on a new authority throughout all Christiandom. The growth of that irresistible tyranny before which Europe would often bow during the subsequent thousand years, was now begun. But enshrining in the imperial law the long-claimed primacy of the pope, Justinian placed the cornerstone of that towering ecclesiastical structure that was to cast its shadow through succeeding centuries over the whole of Europe, and that was to intercept the guiding light of the Scriptures by its elaborate ceremonies in all their ancient heathen splendor---its ecclesiastical calendar crowded with thinly concealed pagan festivals, its pilgrimages, saint worship and adoration of the virgin—and by its insistence on obedience to Rome, as the supreme duties of life. (Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 1, chap. 21 “Gradual Emergence of the Papal Power”, pp. 492-517 [pages 516-517 quoted])

We therefore can say with safety, based on the historical record, that the year 538 is the most inviting date to mark the beginning of Papal Rome’s steady climb of Ecclesiastical and Temporal supremacy over all the kings of Europe.

Aside from these great men, we have much reason to be consistent in our Day-For-Year Principle.

Ezekiel had already set the stage for this prophetic understanding, and coincidentally, Daniel was well aware with Ezekiel's works when writing the 70 weeks prophecy (they both lived about the same time, about 70 miles apart from one another). As I have already proven before, the Hebrew word "shabuwa" for weeks (in the tense that it is placed) means "week", not "sevens" as Dispensationalist authors would have us suppose. Enough scholarly and exegetical work has gone into this Hebrew word to demolish all Dispensational hopes to make this word generically mean "seven". Although they continue to offer their "scholarly" opinion and try to prove it means "sevens", they have yet not exceeded our scholarly works that have proven this theory completely false.

Ezekiel writes:

• "But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, EVEN FORTY DAYS, EACH DAY FOR A YEAR, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:32-34)

• "For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah FORTY DAYS: I HAVE APPOINTED EACH DAY FOR A YEAR." Ezekiel 4:6

Traditional Adventist preachers like to refer to just these 2 verses to prove their point. Well, I say that this is very elementary. There are FAR more reasons to apply the day-for-year principle.

Take notice to the following article by Stephen Bohr:

Twenty Reason to Apply the Year/Day Principle:

http://www.secretsunsealed.org/downloads/yeardayprinciple.pdf

Eighty Year-Day Parallels by Frank. W. Hardy, Ph.D.

http://www.historicism.org/Documents/YearDay80.pdf

It is wishful thinking on the part of Anti-SDA parties that this principle was made up by William Miller and Ellen White. As far as we have seen, this philosophy can be flushed down the toilet.

It is now my prayer that anti-SDA proponents reconsider their position that Adventists made up all of this. FAR from it! These great Protestant expositors of the past laid the foundation for Adventism, and the teachings of the early Adventist pioneers were rooted in these works. I have only shown a fraction of them, but there is a VAST AMOUNT OF MORE DATA that would make your hairs stand on end.

--------------------------------------

To be continued to Part 3...

[John317]

Great post, Lysimachus. Definitely worth studying.

I think the biblical and historical evidence for the 1260 year prophecy is about as well attested as anything can be.

[Lysimachus]

PART 3

My sincere desire is not to purposely engage in controversy for the sake of trying to win. We know there will be many who, although may have their views correct, can still be lost. I don't derive any pleasure in lopping people's heads off in their interpretations of scripture, but I do find joy and passion in sharing what I believe to be Biblical truth from the Word of God.

By all means, these interpretations are far from new. Instead, I believe them to be old truths lost, but new in the sense that they are being rediscovered. My views are based on years and years of exegetical research. In some instances when Jesus said "a new commandment I write unto you" (1 John 2:8), he was not implying the light was never known in times past, but rather light that was forgotten by the children of Israel (2 John 1:5; Lev 19:18,34). It is in this sense that I believe it to be "new".

I want to be clear, however, that it would be impossible for me to subscribe to the idea that just because the majority of Biblical scholars have "cracked" certain views in the last 175 years, that this somehow necessitates it to be "true". I've never felt comfortable with the idea that just because a view is popular, that this automatically renders it as truth. In Noah's day, out of billions of inhabitants, only 8 people were right. In Jesus' day, the majority of teachers and scholars rejected Him, and the apostles were a great minority. Matthew 7:14 says "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it." I think I have good reason to believe that a similar repeat will take place in the last days of this earth's history, "as in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26). Nonetheless, I also am careful not to fall in the pit that just because something is popular that it mustn't be true. No doubt, there are a great many things the populous can be right about. It takes a careful balance.

The rule I lay down for careful scriptural exegesis is found in Isaiah 28:9 and 10 which states: "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." I sincerely believe that if we apply this principle to scripture, we will increase our chances of coming to a proper and balanced understanding of Bible prophecy.

I also assure the reader that I never present points unless I firmly believe they can be proven. I do not believe in assumption, as scripture commends us, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" 1 Thess 5:21.

In order to get your feet wet of which Biblical approach I am coming from, I will begin by stating that I am a Historicist to the bare bone. I'm neither Preterist, nor Futurist. Rather, Historicist--a nearly dead and forgotten breed among the modern evangelical world. This hermeneutic of prophetic interpretation is founded on the principles of Revelation 1:4, 8, 19; 22:16 which state....

• "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne." (1:4)

• "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, AND WHICH WAS, AND WHICH IS TO COME, the Almighty." (1:8)

• "Write the things which thou HAST SEEN, and the THINGS WHICH ARE, and the THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER." (1:19)

In essence, I fully believe that the Historicist hermeneutic is congruous with the nature of God. The application takes serious note to the "Past", "Present", and "Future" applications of Bible prophecy, by avoiding the pitfall of stuffing too much to the future, or too much to the past--but rather gives careful attention to the "continuous" fulfillment of Bible prophecy throughout human history. I believe that Historicism is not only well-backed by scripture, but is also supported by volumes of exegetical Historicist works from some of the greatest Bible minds of the past which have been largely forgotten by the popular evangelical world of today, especially beginning around 1850 and on.

I must concur with the fact regarding the grotesque spiritualization manifested concerning prophetic interpretation among a great number of Christians today. We must see the immense importance of not neglecting the literal application of Bible prophecy. However, as before, I believe we must endeavor to find careful balance. We can also be in danger of landing in the pitfall of literalism as well. No one doubts there are spiritual and symbolic applications in Bible prophecy. If everything was to be taken literalistically, then by this reason we would be forced to conclude the 4 beasts of Daniel 7 are literal, the 7 headed beast of Revelation 13 are literal, the horns are literal, the woman riding the beast is literal, Jezebel of Revelation 2:20 is literal, the 4 horsemen of Revelation 6 as literal, and the city of fallen Babylon in Revelation 14:8 as literal. I'm sure you ascertain my point. There are a great number of Godly scholarly minds today that would agree with the principle of carefully balancing the spiritual and the literal, and placing both where they belong.

To be Continued to Part 4...

[Lysimachus]

PART 4

538 A.D. NOT Dependent on the Uprooting of the Third Horn

The following information will prove that starting date of 538 for the 1260 years is not dependent on the uprooting of the third horn, the Ostrogoths. Instead, it has been proven that the commencement the 1260 years at 538 is dependent on a decree compelling the consciences of men after Justinian’s Code gave Church law full jurisdiction, in France, at the Third Synod of Orleans in 538 A.D.. Evidence by Heidi Heiks in his book "508 538 1798 1843 Source Book (Preliminary)" proves that it was not merely a provincial synod, meaning a local one, narrow or limited in scope. The bishops assembled on that date for the purpose of reestablishing the old laws and the passing of new ones. They produced thirty-three canons at this synod in 538 A.D..

Here is the original wording of the twenty-eighth canon, as it is translated from the original Latin document into fluent English, and reads as follows:

• “28. Whereas the people are persuaded that they ought not to travel on the Lord’s day with the horses, or oxen and carriages, or to prepare anything for food, or to do anything conducive to the cleanliness of houses or men, things which belong to the Jewish rather than Christian observances; we have ordained that on the Lord’s day what was before lawful to be done may still be done. But from rural work, i. e., plowing, cultivating vines, reaping, mowing, thrashing, clearing away thorns or hedges, we judge it better to abstain, that the people may the more readily come to the churches and have leisure for prayers. If any one be found doing the works forbidden above let him be punished, not as the civil authorities may direct, but as the ecclesiastical powers may determine.”

  Source: Jaonnes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collection. (A facsimile reproduction of the Florence edition of 1759; reprinted, rearranged Catholic Church Councils, n.p.: 1901-1927), 9:19 (canon 28) (1902). Translated by A. H. Lewis, A Critical History of Sunday Legislation (New York: Appleton, 1888), 64. See also Severinus Binius, Concilia Generalia (Cologne: 1606), 2:504-8)

In the year A.D. 530, Codex I.3.44 of Justinian’s law codes was implemented on October 18, thereby giving TOTAL authority to the canons of the synods:

• “Whatever the holy canons prohibit, these also we by our own laws forbid.”

  (Source: Paul Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, I.3.44 (decreed Oct. 18, A.D. 530 (Berolini Apud Weidmannos, 1888), 2:230. the Greek translation contains a little more text than the Latin by S. P. Scott. See also Asterios Gerostergios, Justinian The Great The Emperor And Saint (Belmont, MA: Institute for the Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies), 163-4.)

This codex alone was sufficient to elevate the laws of the church to equality with the laws of the state. Hvinb been accorded this political backing, church canons had to be obeyed by all.

After the church of synod of 536 deposed Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople Anthimos and his followers, Emperor Justinian declared in the same year:

• “Without doing anything unusual in the basileia, we now come to the present law. Whenever a sentence by priests has removed from their sacred sees unworthy occupants, like Nestorious, Eutyches, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, and others no less guilty, the basileia always supported the decisions and the authority of the priests, in order that the human and divine should concur in harmonizing the pronouncements of right decisions.”

  (Source: Rodulf Schoell and Wilhelm Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Novelae XLLII (decreed Aug. 8, A.D. 536) (Berolini Apud Weidmannos, 1928), 3:196, Gr. Text. For the Latin version see S. P. Scott, preface to “Novella XLII,” The Civil Law [of Justinian], 16:199. See also Asterios Gerostergios, Justinian The Great The Emperor and Saint (Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies), 164.)

This illustrates more fully the fact that Justinian was the first to give the church TOTAL jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters. For the FIRST time the decisions of the synods were not dependent upon the emperor. From October 18, A.D. 530, onward, whenever the church passed any canon law in one of its synods, it was IMMEDIATELY supported and enforced by the civil authorities, according to the edicts of Justinian’s law codes in the Corpus Juris Civilis.

With the information presented thus far, I would invite the reader to carefully and prayerfully consider abandoning their faulty notion that the ideological principles behind Adventism were invented by Ellen White and William Miller. I have dispelled such notions, and hope they will be abandoned at once. And yes, I do expect to see action. As I will continue to demonstrate in forthcoming material, we will begin to see the ideological prophetic principles that made Adventism are a conglomerate and compilation of orthodox reformation theology. It is the compilation of all the solid truths discovered by our reformers of old. It is the very BEST of Protestant Goodness. In a nutshell, Adventism is the embodiment of the historic, rooted, and Biblical principles of Protestantism, and helps to provide the finishing touches for which the reformation failed to complete.

To all those who would like to imagine that Adventism is an “off-shoot” branch of Christianity, I wholeheartedly believe that such individuals have fallen victim to truckloads of misinformation out there, and have been duped by Jesuit inspired ideologies. It is my prayer that those of you who attack Adventism will one day wake up to reality, and will take hold of Mr. Help's hand (the great Lawgiver) who, if you ask, will pull you out of the quagmire for which you have inadvertently (or willfully) fallen.

In all truth and understanding that flows like sap from the living vine,

Marcos S.

[jasd]

Oy,ya-ya!

Wherefore art ClubV12?

[John317]

Would you like to discuss the evidence that Lysimachus has shared with us about the 1260 years?

[Lysimachus]

Oy,ya-ya!

Wherefore art ClubV12?

I'm just curious what you're trying to tell ClubV12?

[jasd]

>>The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism<<

Appears to be a commendable endeavour.

>>How is that they ignore any application of the day-for-year principle for the 42 months/1260 days of Daniel and Revelation?<<

Goes back to my previous question on another thread?—any chance that the 1260 days may be just that? I mean, they do not occur until after the 9th chapter in the book of Revelation where it implicitly yields to an interpretation of literal time – rather than to a day/year formula.

Should the book of Revelation have any chronological order at all – then, ipso fact, any time prophecy after the 9th chapter would be literal time. That said,

any similar time prophecy in the book of Daniel may, in fact, coincide with those of Revelation... that is, literal time.

I’m just sayin’, after all, I’m no grand Poobah of nuthin’.

>>How is it even POSSIBLE to ignore these fulfillments?<<

I can sum up the pages of my Bible to get the number of them it would take to reach the moon.

>>Why is it that Dispensationalists and other Protestants will continue to stubbornly apply the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 as 490 years, but then when it comes to say, a prophecy of the 42 months in Revelation 13, the day-for-year principle has no application?<<

I’d say because the book of Revelation overrides the book of Daniel – as the one was sealed and the other – not.

Just sayin’... rhetoricaly

[jasd]

>>I'm just curious what you're trying to tell ClubV12?<<

Relax bruhdah, I just went play wid dah coconut.

Warn’t it ClubV12 who was all tah wurrin’ about the bandwith?

[jasd]

>>Would you like to discuss the evidence that Lysimachus has shared with us about the 1260 years?<<

Hey!-for sure, but gonna take me plenty long time to read it.

Don't get all, how they say?-bent? The work is, like I say,

commendable. Looks worthy.

[Lysimachus]

Keep in mind that the primary purpose of this article was not to prove the 1260 from 538 to 1798 per say, but primarily to establish that this view was a pre-millerite idea, and that numerous Protestant expositors had a unanimous and compelling conviction concerning this time frame. And those who did not nail the 538 and 1798 A.D. dates were still close enough based on the limited information that they had. Without these established dates, and even those who did not have any dogmatic position on a beginning or ending date on this time frame, still strongly held that they were living during the period of the 1260.

[phkrause]

Excellent posts Lysimachus.

[ClubV12]

A timely thread, in consideration of all the various incorrect interpretations we've seen on this subject recently.

Where have I been you ask?

Finishing some wiring on my house remodeling while keeping one eye on the computer (currently running on an extension cord).

[Lysimachus]

Thank you pkrause, and thank you ClubV12! And you too John317!

I've never been satisfied with just hearing the truth and accepting it. I have to see it with my own eyes when I read. When I read all these different quotes from different Protestants in the past, it blew my socks off.

Then I knew what Ellen White meant when she said:

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid." (1SM, 206)

My goal is to get down to the bare bones....beyond that, the very marrow! We must dig deep to find the rich treasures that are out there, not only in the Bible, but in history.

I have seen more controversy within Adventism and with others of various theological persuasions within the last decade than I ever have before. Ever since 9/11, the controversy between Adventism and modern-day Protestantism has exploded in the Media, and the bullets have been flying. It is truly a sign of the end. Many people are slowly beginning to realize just how formidable our Adventist positions really are. They are not based on flimsy research, or misguided superiors. But based upon bricks and bricks with solid mortar established by our Reformers and Pioneers.

Truly, Adventist Historicism is being VINDICATED! :D

[Gerr]

Wow, Mark, I am impressed with the documentation. The first time I did research on 538 A.D., I was like miz3, I drew a blank. I began to wonder how really legitimate 538 A.D. was as the beginning of the 1260 year prophecy. However, what happened at the terminus of 1798 is incontrovertible. The papacy received a deadly wound. And even the newspapers recognized the beginning of the healing of that wound in the concordat between the Vatican and the Italian gov't. You have presented more documentation than I have ever seen. Thanks.

[Lysimachus]

Thank you Gerry! You're very welcome! Most of those quotes can be find in Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume II. I was disappointed to see that nobody had compiled them in a single paper so that Adventists could get their hands on them. So I decided to extract them, and comment upon them. I really recommend that all Adventists who are interested in vindicating our faith and successfully defending it, that they take out the time to read The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers 4-volume set, as well as Heidi Heiks new Source Book series. Or at least purchase them for reference.

[jasd]

>>Thank you pkrause, and thank you ClubV12! And you too John317! <<

What!?—am I chopped liver? Where’s the Glory-be and Thankee! Thankee! Thankee! to the jasd?

I know I ain not no gladhander, but ain I not no more the zest in your puddin’?

Carry on and never mind moi, I’m just bein’ delightfully cheeky, yes?

[Lysimachus]

My apologies jasd, at first I didn't think you commented anything positive about it, but now that I look again, I see that you did mention it was a "commendable endeavor". Yes, thank you too jasd!. :)

[jasd]

me. [/grinnin']

[12tribes]

The symbolic time periods are always found within the context of apocalyptic passages where symbols predominate. For example, the three and one half times are found in the context of four symbolic beasts, a symbolic sea, symbolic winds, symbolic clouds, symbolic horns, and a symbolic little horn. Similarly, the 1260 days are found in a context where a symbolic woman, clothed with a symbolic sun, stands on a symbolic moon, with 12 symbolic stars on her head. She is persecuted by a symbolic dragon who has seven symbolic heads, ten symbolic horns and who casts a third of the symbolic stars to the earth.

In Revelation 13, the 42 months are found within a context where a symbolic composite beast, with ten symbolic horns, receives its power from a symbolic dragon. It also arises from a symbolic sea and later uses a symbolic image beast to impose a symbolic mark! The same could be said about Daniel 8. There we have a symbolic ram, a symbolic he-goat, and a symbolic little horn. It only stands to reason that if the scenes where these time periods are found in are symbolic, then the time periods must also be symbolic!!

[fccool]

I think it's worth to note that the date 538 A.D. as mentioned by these scholars revolves around the idea that Pope is the antichrist, and that 1260 years are literal.

Allow me to demonstrate.

1) The scholarly deductions from the information posted rely heavily on the end date of Pope's captivity, and then counting back 1260 years to see if there was any significant event during that year. So, what's the real history of Goth's during that period?

Quote:

The weakness of the Ostrogothic position in Italy now showed itself. The Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I had always strove to restore as much of the Western Roman Empire as he could and certainly would not pass up the opportunity. In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths. Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy where he captured Naples and Rome in 536 and then marched north, taking Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540.

.....

In 545 Belisarius then returned to Italy, where he found the situation had changed greatly. Eraric was slain and the pro-Roman faction of Gothic elite had been toppled. In 541 the Ostrogoths had elected a new leader Totila; this Goth nationalist and brilliant commander had recaptured all of northern Italy and even driven the Byzantines out of Rome. Belisarius took the offensive, tricked Totila into yielding Rome along the way, but then lost it again after a jealous Justinian, fearful of Belisarius' power, starved him of supplies and reinforcements. Belisarius was forced to go on the defensive, and in 548, Justinian relieved him in favor of the eunuch general Narses, of whom he was more trustful.

Totila was slain in the Battle of Taginae in July 552 and his followers Teia, Aligern, Scipuar, and Gibal were all killed or surrendered in the Battle of Mons Lactarius in October 552 or 553. Widin, the last attested member of the Gothic army revolted in late 550s, with minimal military help from the Franks. His uprising was fruitless; the revolt ended with Widin captured and brought to Constantinople for punishment in 561 or 562.

With that final defeat, the remaining Ostrogoths went back north and (re)settled in south Austria. The Ostrogothic name wholly died... The nation had practically evaporated with Theodoric's death.

The point is that Goth's were not "uprooted" in 538. The went on to resist somewhat successfully until mid 50s. The connection was made by counting backwards 1260 years. Before that "end data" the year 538 was not in these scholar's minds.

Nevertheless, we'll give a benefit of the doubt and say that it was close enough.

2) There were no "10 horns" in Europe during these days. To just call out 10 nations/tribes during that era is simply ignoring the real history. There were much more than 10, and all of them were at constant war with each other.

3) Roman-Papal supremacy was a gradual process that dates well before 538, back to 4th century with Constantine's establishment of Christianity as state religion.

One can't honestly set the date 538, and say that this was the year that Papal supremacy was established. This date is solely derived from counting back from 1798.

4) A HUGE problem with prophetic timeline is how long the saints will be persecuted and be "dominated". The persecution by Papal authority did not begin in 538, and it certainly did not end in 1798.

There are other problems, but I think we should be clear that the 538 date comes from counting back to 1798, which many protestants saw a some kind of monumental event.

In reality, the 42 months CAN be literal months, because there's not instance in the Bible where a timeline is given without interpretation and to be counted as day-for-year.

God explicitly states where day is day, and where year is year. There were no "day for year".

In case of Israel, they were punished for 40 years in the wilderness, a year for each day of their rebellion. It was the similar case where prophet is to lie on his side. It was day for year of captivity.

There are plenty of prophetic times where day simply means day. Consider resurrection. Why would it be so inconsistent, if day=prophetic year? Jesus should have resurrected after 3 years. There are plenty of other instances.

I'm all for prophetic enterpretation, but it has to be done with honest outlook on history, without any attempts to try to stretch history to fit certain view... which I believe is done with 1260 day-for-year from 538-1798.

[miz3]

I think it's worth to note that the date 538 A.D. as mentioned by these scholars revolves around the idea that Pope is the antichrist, and that 1260 years are literal.

Allow me to demonstrate.

1) The scholarly deductions from the information posted rely heavily on the end date of Pope's captivity, and then counting back 1260 years to see if there was any significant event during that year. So, what's the real history of Goth's during that period?

Quote:

The weakness of the Ostrogothic position in Italy now showed itself. The Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I had always strove to restore as much of the Western Roman Empire as he could and certainly would not pass up the opportunity. In 535, he commissioned Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths. Belisarius quickly captured Sicily and then crossed into Italy where he captured Naples and Rome in 536 and then marched north, taking Mediolanum (Milan) and the Ostrogoth capital of Ravenna in 540.

.....

In 545 Belisarius then returned to Italy, where he found the situation had changed greatly. Eraric was slain and the pro-Roman faction of Gothic elite had been toppled. In 541 the Ostrogoths had elected a new leader Totila; this Goth nationalist and brilliant commander had recaptured all of northern Italy and even driven the Byzantines out of Rome. Belisarius took the offensive, tricked Totila into yielding Rome along the way, but then lost it again after a jealous Justinian, fearful of Belisarius' power, starved him of supplies and reinforcements. Belisarius was forced to go on the defensive, and in 548, Justinian relieved him in favor of the eunuch general Narses, of whom he was more trustful.

Totila was slain in the Battle of Taginae in July 552 and his followers Teia, Aligern, Scipuar, and Gibal were all killed or surrendered in the Battle of Mons Lactarius in October 552 or 553. Widin, the last attested member of the Gothic army revolted in late 550s, with minimal military help from the Franks. His uprising was fruitless; the revolt ended with Widin captured and brought to Constantinople for punishment in 561 or 562.

With that final defeat, the remaining Ostrogoths went back north and (re)settled in south Austria. The Ostrogothic name wholly died... The nation had practically evaporated with Theodoric's death.

The point is that Goth's were not "uprooted" in 538. The went on to resist somewhat successfully until mid 50s. The connection was made by counting backwards 1260 years. Before that "end data" the year 538 was not in these scholar's minds.

Nevertheless, we'll give a benefit of the doubt and say that it was close enough.

2) There were no "10 horns" in Europe during these days. To just call out 10 nations/tribes during that era is simply ignoring the real history. There were much more than 10, and all of them were at constant war with each other.

3) Roman-Papal supremacy was a gradual process that dates well before 538, back to 4th century with Constantine's establishment of Christianity as state religion.

One can't honestly set the date 538, and say that this was the year that Papal supremacy was established. This date is solely derived from counting back from 1798.

4) A HUGE problem with prophetic timeline is how long the saints will be persecuted and be "dominated". The persecution by Papal authority did not begin in 538, and it certainly did not end in 1798.

There are other problems, but I think we should be clear that the 538 date comes from counting back to 1798, which many protestants saw a some kind of monumental event.

In reality, the 42 months CAN be literal months, because there's not instance in the Bible where a timeline is given without interpretation and to be counted as day-for-year.

God explicitly states where day is day, and where year is year. There were no "day for year".

In case of Israel, they were punished for 40 years in the wilderness, a year for each day of their rebellion. It was the similar case where prophet is to lie on his side. It was day for year of captivity.

There are plenty of prophetic times where day simply means day. Consider resurrection. Why would it be so inconsistent, if day=prophetic year? Jesus should have resurrected after 3 years. There are plenty of other instances.

I'm all for prophetic enterpretation, but it has to be done with honest outlook on history, without any attempts to try to stretch history to fit certain view... which I believe is done with 1260 day-for-year from 538-1798.

Well put!

[skyblue888]

I'm all for prophetic enterpretation, but it has to be done with honest outlook on history, without any attempts to try to stretch history to fit certain view... which I believe is done with 1260 day-for-year from 538-1798.

______________________________________

You guys have got to be kidding us!

Only a Jesuit could say something like this.

Honestly!

sky

[Lysimachus]

fccool,

Did you read all 5 posts? Apparently you seem to be ignoring that Adventist scholarship no longer attributes the 538 A.D. date to the uprooting of the Third Horn. The defeat of the Ostrogoths has nothing to do with the commencement of the 538 A.D. date.

Yes, the early scholars did attribute this date as the beginning of the 1260 years because of the uprooting of the Ostrogoths out of Italy. God veiled their understanding of the 538 A.D. date, although they got the date itself right, but their information in supporting the 538 A.D. was not entirely accurate. Kind of like William Miller with 1844. He got the date right, but the event that marked the date wrong. Same it is with the Holy Spirit guiding the minds of the scholars listed.

Keep in mind that the only reason why the Ostrogths swept back into Italy a few years shortly after 538 was because a huge plague swept Europe, killing half the population. The Ostrogoths used this to their advantage, and invaded when Italy was overrun with this plague. But the Ostrogoths didn't hold it very long. They relied heavily on the fact that the plague had crippled the Roman armies. However, 538 A.D. was the "handwriting on the wall", that began digging the grave for the Ostrogoths. It was this defeat of the Ostrogoths in 538 that SECURED Justinian's code in the West. While the Ostrogoths overrode Italy, it was already codified in the law, so what the Ostrogoths did does not retract what had been legally set in stone.

However, as we have already unequivocally established, what secures 538 A.D. has to do with the Sunday Law that was enforced at the Third Synod of Orleans. It was the first Sunday Law enforced by the Papacy after Justinian had given all authority to the Canons--a legal backing of the state. This was the first Sunday Law that compelled the consciences of all men to not do any labor in conjunction with the threat of punishment.

Heidi Heiks has a new book entitled "AD 538 Source Book" Also click here, and here.

Heidi Heiks agrees with you that the the defeat of the Ostrogoths in 538 A.D. is not in any way shape or form the marking point of the 1260 years. His 350 page book, however, solidifies 538 A.D. as the commencing date IN STONE!

Ellen White herself never ONCE stated that the commencement of the 538 A.D. date was dependent on defeat of the third horn. She said unequivocally that the CHANGE IN THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT is what fulfills this prophecy of the 1260 years.

So the critics against the 538 A.D. can jump, they can cry, they can squeal, they can dance between the rain drops, play peekaboo and ring around the rosy, but they can no longer dismiss the 538 A.D. date.

So tough willies!! :D