The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[fccool]

Quote:

Only a Jesuit could say something like this.

Honestly!

Well, I'm not a Jesuit, which shows that your "Honestly" statement is once again sides on the dishonest side . If you seek the truth, you should leave the labels and consider the argument.

I'm willing to elaborate further, and to show you that both day-for-year principle, and that Papacy is the beast are derived by stretching certain ideas to make it fit the profile.

I'm certainly not defending Papacy here. What they've done throughout history is terrible. Yet, if you look and compare worldwide what similar religious regimes done such as China and Japan... you will see that your focus is rather narrow when it comes to religious persecution globally.

I don't believe that Papacy alone fits a profile, and I don't believe that this "mark" solely belong to Vatican. It's naive and somewhat blind-sided. You have to look at the whole world, and global events ... and how they fit in the prophetic scheme.

You may be waiting and interpreting something that will never come to be, while you can be following something as evil as the entity that you denounce.

All I can say is be careful with narrow-minded view. It simply does not work. It did not work for JWs, for Mormons, Millerites, and the latest and greatest example of Harold Camping... who is still convinced that he is right and that Jesus came back "spiritually". I guess the end of the world in October will be "spiritual" too.

I respect your beliefs. I simply give you my reason why I don't hold them. No need to call me a Jesuit. I take is as an insult.

[Lysimachus]

For your information also, Heidi Heiks also came out with a new book on 1798. A whole book just to that date, along with 1843. All your arguments have been categorically refuted, and the case is closed.

Like it or not.

One of these days, you critics against these dates are going to have to face the music head on. Your arguments are running out.

http://www.thesourcehh.org/ad1798.htm

And also, the 1798 A.D. is not directly related to the "ending of Papal supremacy". That is an assumption, straw-man argument by critics, to try and pretend that they have a case against this date. The arguments put forth fail miserably.

[Lysimachus]

Well, I'm not a Jesuit, which shows that your "Honestly" statement is once again sides on the dishonest side .

You may not be a Jesuit, but your mind has certainly come under Jesuit influence, whether you realize it or not.

And yes you are defending the Papacy. When you remove the 1260 years of being applied to the Papacy, you remove the stigma of it being applied to the Antichrist Beast. And when you remove the Antichrist Beast application to the Papacy, you remove the fact that Sunday Sacredness is her Mark of Ecclesiastical power and authority.

This is a down-right, Devilish, deceptive maneuver the Devil has implanted in your brain through the Jesuits. Whether you want to accept this fact or not.

[fccool]

Quote:

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.

I did not ignore your posts. My addressing the issue is consistent with what is being taught in Adventist seminars today. It has hardly been altered.

I've said that even if it was close enough, you still have all of the other problems to contend with, which you did not address.

I respect your views. I would be interested in you addressing the following issues.

1) The 10 horns issue (there were much more than 10 nation/tribes)

2) The day year principle DOES NOT NECESSITATE the interpretation of day for year. In Biblical prophecy it was explicit when the year was year and when day was day. Not in a single instance you'll see something to be said to take place in certain period of days, and then it takes place in span of years.

For example. The Israel was to wonder for 40 years... a day for each year. The days are days, and years are years. It's just like saying to a student "You will be punished 1 hr of detention for every minute you are late in class". That statement does not necessitate minute-for-hour principle.

3) The length of persecution by the Papacy was not constrained to the period of 1260.

4) The Sunday was not established in 538. It was established well before with Constantine's decree. You know that

Quote:

Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, "Sunday"—as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:

On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

So, once again. To say that Sunday was established in 538 is to stretch history.

[fccool]

You may not be a Jesuit, but your mind has certainly come under Jesuit influence, whether you realize it or not.

And yes you are defending the Papacy. When you remove the 1260 years of being applied to the Papacy, you remove the stigma of it being applied to the Antichrist Beast. And when you remove the Antichrist Beast application to the Papacy, you remove the fact that Sunday Sacredness is her Mark of Ecclesiastical power and authority.

This is a down-right, Devilish, deceptive maneuver the Devil has implanted in your brain through the Jesuits. Whether you want to accept this fact or not.

Well. All I can say is that I do respect your views, but I can't hold an intelligent conversation with you when you accuse me of these things simply because they don't fit in your box of beliefs.

[skyblue888]

Lysi, what do you mean by 1798 not directly related to the ending of papal supremacy??? 1798 was the deadly wound inflicted by General Berthier under Napoleon and since then the papacy has been working behind the scenes to regain that temporal supremacy which was lost at that time. Right?

Concerning the date 538 as the beginning of the temporal supremacy of the papacy, A.T. Jones, in his book The Two Republics, an excellent book, has this to say:

"Therefore, the year A.D.538, which marks the conquest of Italy, the deliverance of Rome, and the destruction of the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, is the true date which marks the establishment of the temporal authority of the papacy, and the exercise of that authority as a world-power. All that was ever done later in this connection was but to enlarge by additional usurpations and donations, the territories which the bishop of Rome at this point possessed, and over which he asserted civil jurisdiction." A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, p.553.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Well, I'm not a Jesuit, which shows that your "Honestly" statement is once again sides on the dishonest side .

You may not be a Jesuit, but your mind has certainly come under Jesuit influence, whether you realize it or not.

And yes you are defending the Papacy. When you remove the 1260 years of being applied to the Papacy, you remove the stigma of it being applied to the Antichrist Beast. And when you remove the Antichrist Beast application to the Papacy, you remove the fact that Sunday Sacredness is her Mark of Ecclesiastical power and authority.

This is a down-right, Devilish, deceptive maneuver the Devil has implanted in your brain through the Jesuits. Whether you want to accept this fact or not.

Well said.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Futurist Interpretation of the 1260 of Revelation 11, 12, 13, and Daniel 7 falls to pieces on one page:

If you are going to view the "1260" as exclusively in the future, I've got some big news. There is no "after" a "future 1260 literal day tribulation". Jesus comes at the end of the tribulation.

Also keep in mind that the scriptures demand the following of the time period in question:

• 1. That it be Exactly 42 months (Rev. 11:2; 12:6)

  2. That it be Exactly 1260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6)

  3. That it be Exactly 3.5 years (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 12:14)

If we go by the Solar Calendar of 365.2422 days, then we must multiply it by 3.5:

365.2422 x 3.5 = 1,278 days... not 1260. That's an 18 day discrepancy!

That being said, 1260 days (which the Bible also calls "42 months") is not actually 42 months, but less than 41 and 1/2 months.

But let's assume we are using a Lunar Calendar then:

A prophecy of 42 months or 1260 days requires that each month be exactly "30 days" in length.

But a Lunar Month is never exactly 30 days long. On average, if is 29.530588 days in length.

That would make each Lunar Year 354.367056 days in length. NOT 360!!

Remember, 360 x 3.5 = 1260!

But no, we must go by the Lunar Calendar as do Futurists, and see what we come up to:

354.367056 x 3.5 = 1240.284696 days! NOT 1260! It gets worse, it's now 20 days off! and LESS!

(you can come to this same calculation if you simply multiply 42 months x 29.530588 days)

We see now why God gave us this time period in 3 definite phrases, where the specification of this prophecy requires the time to be:

• 1. Exactly "forty and two months" (42 months) (Rev. 11:3; 12:6)

  2. Exactly "one thousand two hundred and three score days" (1260 days) (Rev. 11:2; 13:5)

  3. Exactly "time, times, and dividing of time" (3.5 years) (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 12:14)

With this in mind, we see why symbolic time is the ONLY available option left to make these time units work out with any real time period in Bible prophecy. There is no existing month with exactly 30 days, and there is no existing year with exactly 360 days. It can only be a symbolic time measurement.

The only way for it to have been literal time is if Daniel or John had used the terms:

"three years and six months" (Luke 4:25; James 5:17) -- and it is the only logical way to describe it if meaning literal time, and not symbolic time.

Thus the year-day principle to the 42 months of Revelation not only stands vindicated, it is simply the only method that works out mathematically.

[phkrause]

4) The Sunday was not established in 538. It was established well before with Constantine's decree. You know that

fccool, Lysimacus never said that 538 was when Sunday was established, he said:

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.

Read that last sentence again, what he's saying is that Sunday was being inforced, and if you worked on that day you would be punished. I believe this is what he is saying.

[Lysimachus]

Lysi, what do you mean by 1798 not directly related to the ending of papal supremacy??? 1798 was the deadly wound inflicted by General Berthier under Napoleon and since then the papacy has been working behind the scenes to regain that temporal supremacy which was lost at that time. Right?

Concerning the date 538 as the beginning of the temporal supremacy of the papacy, A.T. Jones, in his book The Two Republics, an excellent book, has this to say:

"Therefore, the year A.D.538, which marks the conquest of Italy, the deliverance of Rome, and the destruction of the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, is the true date which marks the establishment of the temporal authority of the papacy, and the exercise of that authority as a world-power. All that was ever done later in this connection was but to enlarge by additional usurpations and donations, the territories which the bishop of Rome at this point possessed, and over which he asserted civil jurisdiction." A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, p.553.

sky

I'm sorry if I was not very clear. Yes, you are right, 1798 was the legal ending of Papal Supremacy. My phraseology was being tailored in how fccook was was digesting the info. It is true that the Papacy did continue to wield its influence, and persecute after 1798. But legally speaking, the State was not under Papal authority. Fccook is trying to be sneaky in trying to convince us that Papal Power did not come to an end, but he's missing the whole point. He's missing exactly what makes this date valid. You have to try and put yourself in their brain sometimes. I know exactly how they are thinking, and it's all twisted and warped, lol.

A.T. Jones was partly right about 538. He didn't have the full picture however that we do now. Since A.T. Jones wrote that, tons and tons of info has surfaced, validating what "exactly" marked the commencement of the 1260 in 538. And far more than the defeat of the Ostrogoths (which was only the beginning of the end of the Ostrogoths), was the Sunday Law imposed at the Third Synod of Orleans.

Without the Sunday Law in 538, I do believe we still have sufficient grounds to make 538 the commencement date. But the Sunday Law now seals this date in stone more than ever before. So the critics can whine all day about the Ostrogoths not getting uprooted in 538 A.D. but regardless of what they may think on this point, it will not change the fact that the 4th commandment was officially and legally changed by the Papacy under the full authorization of the State to the Canons as established in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis.

[Lysimachus]

fccool,

You're way out in left field. The things I'm stating seem to be going right over your head. And yes pkrause, you hit the nail on the head. Heidi Heiks also forcefully drives home this point. By compelling the consciences of men with the threat of punishment, the Papacy usurps the authority of heaven.

[skyblue888]

Lysi, I read about Sunday laws being enacted in the fourth century. Am I not right? I have never heard of a Sunday law in A.D.538 which would have marked the beginning of the temporal supremacy of the papacy.

[Lysimachus]

Here is what I said earlier in my posts:

Quote:

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.

Allow me to quote a little bit from Heidi Heiks. Keep in mind that critics will be HARD PRESSED to refute Heidi Heiks. You guys have to get his books! They are FILLED with original sources. Here is from Heidi Heiks own words:

Quote:

The primary documents from Justinian himself confirm that it was not December 10, 536 (when King Vitiges abandoned Rome without a fight and Belisarious simply went in and occupied Rome) that established Justinian's judicial authority in the west. No, the deciding factor that would establish Justinian's judicial authority in the west would be the outcome of the first siege of Rome that began on February 21, 537, and ended one year and nine days later in a massive defeat of the Ostrogoths in March 1, 538. It was the outcome of that battle alone that secured for Justinian his judicial authority in the west. Novel 69, issued June 1, 538, confirms that this was the first time in 62 years that a Catholic Emperor had held legal jurisdiction in Italy

Heidi Heiks then goes on to quote the original documents, which, well, are pretty much irrefutable evidence.

Concerning the Sunday Law, he says:

Quote:

These were the codes of Sunday legislation that were enforced in the eastern Roman Empire. Please take special note of Codex III. 12. 10. After Justinian revised his codes in the year A.D. 534, this code reveals the punishment for the violation of the Sunday sabbath as the loss of one's employment and the confiscation of one's property. However, let us not forget how Justinian's ecclesiastical legislation comes to fruition. From Codex I. 1. 4., we have read the letter by Justinian that he wrote to Pope John II on March 15, 533 as follows:

• "For we do not sufer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what caused the difficulty may be clear and from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the authority of your See." (Scott, S. P. trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ; Lawbook Exchanged, 2001), Codex III. 12. 1-10. 12:275-278)

Church and state legislation was very direct and needed no commentary:

• "For it is certain that whatever differs from the Christian religion is opposed to the Christian law." (Ibid. Codex I. 1.4, 12:12)

  "No one is ignorant of the fact that, in Rome, legislation originally emanated from the head of the Pontificate. Hence We now deem it necessary to impose upon Ourselves the duty of showing that [66] We are the source of both secular and ecclesiastical jurisprudence by promulgating a law consecrated to the honor of God, which shall be applicable not only to this city but to all Churches everywhere, and exert its salutory vigor over them as far as the Ocean, so that the entire West as well as the East, where possessions belonging to Our churches are to be found, or may hereafter be acquired by them, shall enjoy its advantages. . . . This Our law, enacted in honor of Omnipotent God and the venerable See of the Apostle Peter, shall be observed in all lands of the entire West, and be applicable to the most distant islands of the Ocean; and Our solicitude for the subjects of Our Empire induces Us to declare it to be perpetual." (Ibid, The Novels, 9. 16:65-66, April 14, 535)

There was nothing which has reference to the state of the church in ecclesiastical matters that did not come first before the pope for approval. This procedure was already established when Justinian declared, "We shall exert Ourselves in every way," and was legally confirmed by the legislative support of the state that the church canons received. Codex I.3.44 of Justinian's law codes, for example was implemented on October 18, A.D. 53, 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 Iustinius, I.3.44 (decreed Oct. 18, A.D. 530) (Berolini Apud, Weidmannos, 1888), 2:30. See also Asterios Gerostergios, Justinian The Great The Emperor And Saint (Belmond, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies), 163-4)

This codex alone was sufficient to elevate the laws of the church to the equality with the laws of the state. Having been accorded this political backing, church canons had to be obeyed by all. This serves as the only explanation as to why the papacy claims that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis is the basis of all Roman Catholic canon law:

• "So the immortal 'Corpus Juris Civilis' was produced. . . . It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this 'Corpus.' It is the basis of all canon law. . ." (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Justinian I" (New York: Appleton, 1910), 8:579)

Now concerning the Sunday Law in 538 (which was already given its basis and authority in Justinian's Code in 530), Heidi Heiks states in his Preliminary book "508 538 1798 1843 Source Book (Preliminary)":

Quote:

Regarding the little horn's prophesied attempt to change God's "times and laws," it must be observed that, after the passing of A.D. 476, not until the amalgamation of Church and state in A.D. 508 did the church have power to bring Sunday to the front as the Sabbath to be enforced. However, evidence indicates that the spurious Sabbath was not legally effected until A.D. 538. From 476 up to 538, the only significant articles by the church on Sunday worship are from 506 onward, found in three church councils prior to 538. None forbid manual labor, and none called issue to the Sabbath as being a Jewish superstition supplanted by the Church by the Christian observance of the Lord's Day. The first canon, in 506 at the council o Agde in Southern Gaul, reads thus:

• "Canon 47. One Sundays all laymen must be present at the whole Mass, so that they are not allowed to depart before the blessing. If, nevertheless, they do so, they shall be publicly censured by the bishop." (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. and T., 1895) 4:84)

Two canons came from the first synod of Orleans 1 in A.D. 511.

• "Canon 26. The people must not leave the church before the end of Mass [on Sunday] in the church which lies nearest to him." (Ibid., 91)

  "Canon 31. A bishop, unless he is ill, must not fail in attendance at divine servce on Sunday on the church which lies nearest him." (Ibid, 92)

The third canon, from the council of Tarragonin, in A.D. 516, referred to nothing more than cases of Christians being heared in the ecclesiastical courts of the church on Sunday.

• "Let not any bishop or presbyter or any of the inferior clergy hear causes on the Lord's Day, etc., ...but let them be occupied in the performance of the solemnities ordained in honor of God." (Ibid. 102-6)

Nothing else found by this author in an extensive search meets the criteria regarding the compelling of conscience or labor being forbidden for the first time, except the twenty-eight canon in 538 from the church synod at Orleans, that labor be suspended on "the Lord's day." with the threat of punishment.

Continued...

[Lysimachus]

Lysi, I read about Sunday laws being enacted in the fourth century. Am I not right? I have never heard of a Sunday law in A.D.538 which would have marked the beginning of the temporal supremacy of the papacy.

This is true. Sunday laws were being enacted in the fourth century.

The issue, however, has to do with the nature of enforcement and punishment associated with such a law. I'll outline the differences of these Sunday laws in a bit.

[fccool]

Quote:

365.2422 x 3.5 = 1,278 days... not 1260. That's an 18 day discrepancy!

It is, if you are going by modern calendar .

Ancient year was 360 days, and went by moon cycles. They had a leap year where they added a month.

360 x 3.5 = 1260

Since the prophecy was given to and by the ancient people. It would make sense that it was using their time-frame.

Good point, but it's invalid.

[fccool]

Quote:

I'm sorry if I was not very clear. Yes, you are right, 1798 was the legal ending of Papal Supremacy. My phraseology was being tailored in how fccook was was digesting the info. It is true that the Papacy did continue to wield its influence, and persecute after 1798. But legally speaking, the State was not under Papal authority. Fccook is trying to be sneaky in trying to convince us that Papal Power did not come to an end, but he's missing the whole point. He's missing exactly what makes this date valid. You have to try and put yourself in their brain sometimes. I know exactly how they are thinking, and it's all twisted and warped, lol.

I think I'll have to give you more information on this subject. As I've shown above, I hope it gives you a bit of humility when approaching the subject with understanding that you don't grasp all of the issues, and perhaps you are missing some info that causes you to interpret certain things against a frame of refference that's faulty.

I've demonstrated that with you faulty perception of 365 day years. I've demonstrated it with your faulty perception of day-year interpretation.... I would love to see a Biblical example where God says that something will last days, and it turns out to be "prophetic years". I've tried to find some, and I only find years and days. You wonder for 40 years for every day of your disobedience. You lay on your side for 390 days which will signify 390 years. In both cases the distinction was made explicitly. Day was to be a year. On the other hand, I will be raised in 3 days meant 3 days... because no distinction was made.

The point is, you can't approach this subject with arrogant attitude and dismiss critics as "workers of the devil", "twisted" and "evil". The wise person changes his mind once in a while to prove that he has one.

If you are indeed incorrect, and Christ himself comes down and tells you otherwise, you'll chase Him off. It's a prideful attitude that gets us nowhere. That's what happened to Jews, and that's the reason that they did not know Him or expect Him. They have their own preconceived ideas of how things will unfold... and His coming did not fit their ideas.

Why do I have a feeling that it may just happen again?

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

365.2422 x 3.5 = 1,278 days... not 1260. That's an 18 day discrepancy!

It is, if you are going by modern calendar .

Ancient year was 360 days, and went by moon cycles. They had a leap year where they added a month.

360 x 3.5 = 1260

Since the prophecy was given to and by the ancient people. It would make sense that it was using their time-frame.

Good point, but it's invalid.

42 months is not 1260 though. 42 months is 41 1/2 months.

The prophecy requires exactly 1260 days to be exactly 42 months.

This is impossible.

It has also been proven, unequivocally, and unapologetically, that the Jewish prophetic lunar reckoning of 360 was never used to govern the year, but only the seasons and festivals.

Bob Pickle's material along with my material that I have already established in this forum proves unequivocally that only solar years can be employed to the 70 weeks in order for the numbers to work out. Therefore, consistency demands that solar years be employed to the 42 months.

70 weeks = 490 days = 490 Solar Years

42 months = 1260 days = 1260 Solar Years

2300 evening-mornings = 2300 days = 2300 Solar Years

Just like we say "weeks of years", even though the qualifier "of years" does not exist, we can easily say "42 months of years" or "days of years" just as well.

[Lysimachus]

Continuing to respond to you Sky, here is a quote I made in the 70 x 7 thread, in post #465432:

Also folks here is a difference in the Sunday decrees that lead up to the one in 538:

• DECREE 1. A CIVIL Anti-Jewish decree prohibiting the observance of the Sabbath or any Jewish festival or Holiday (by Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D.)

• DECREE 2. An ECCLESIASTICAL decree declaring the transfer of sanctity from Saturday to Sunday (316 A.D., by Pope Sylvester I -- this date is questionable, it could have been much later)

• DECREE 3. A CIVIL decree enforcing a Sunday law, prohibiting work, buying, and selling (321 A.D. by Constantine)

• DECREE 4. A LOCAL ECCLESIASTICAL decree prohibiting BOTH the observance of the Sabbath AND the enforcement of Sunday observance, defined by ECCLESASTICAL AUTHORITY ALONE. (336 A.D., Council of Laodicea—a local, Eastern, Greek-speaking synod)

• DECREE 5. A CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL decree prohibiting BOTH the observance of the Sabbath AND the enforcement of Sunday observance, defined by ECCLESASTICAL AUTHORITY and SUPPORTED BY THE POWER OF THE STATE, OR CIVIL POWER! (Third Synod of Orleans – 538 A.D.) -- also first decree COMPELLING the consciences of men against ALL manual labor on Sunday with the threat of punishment.

Ellen White is clear that the change of the 4th commandment is the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Here is the unparalleled statement by Ellen White that fully mirrors our Biblical application and interpretation of Daniel 8:12 as the last prophetic specification to be fulfilled that heaven declared would mark the beginning of the 1260-day/year prophetic period:

• “The change in the FOURTH COMMANDMENT exactly FULFILLS the prophecy. For this the only authority claimed is that of the church. Here the papal power sets itself above God.”(Great Controversy, p. 476)

Her words are in harmony with Daniel 7:

• Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most High....”

We now see the commencement period of the 1260:

• "...and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Daniel 7:25)

Thus we see that the commencement of the "time and times and the dividing of time" is not dependent on the uprooting of the 3 horns, rather, the enforcement of Laws in opposition to God's Law in Heaven, and especially the 4th commandment.

Ellen White is clear on this matter.

• "It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims; and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as "the Lord's day." (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pp. 446-7)

• "Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular power were the steps by which the pagan festival attained its position of honor in the Christian world." (EGW, Great Controversy, p. 574)

History shows that this Sunday Law was instituted by the Catholic Church for the first time after Civil Power was endowed upon it in the year 538 in the 28th Canon.

[Lysimachus]

I think I'll have to give you more information on this subject. As I've shown above, I hope it gives you a bit of humility when approaching the subject with understanding that you don't grasp all of the issues, and perhaps you are missing some info that causes you to interpret certain things against a frame of refference that's faulty.

I've demonstrated that with you faulty perception of 365 day years. I've demonstrated it with your faulty perception of day-year interpretation.... I would love to see a Biblical example where God says that something will last days, and it turns out to be "prophetic years". I've tried to find some, and I only find years and days. You wonder for 40 years for every day of your disobedience. You lay on your side for 390 days which will signify 390 years. In both cases the distinction was made explicitly. Day was to be a year. On the other hand, I will be raised in 3 days meant 3 days... because no distinction was made.

The point is, you can't approach this subject with arrogant attitude and dismiss critics as "workers of the devil", "twisted" and "evil". The wise person changes his mind once in a while to prove that he has one.

If you are indeed incorrect, and Christ himself comes down and tells you otherwise, you'll chase Him off. It's a prideful attitude that gets us nowhere. That's what happened to Jews, and that's the reason that they did not know Him or expect Him. They have their own preconceived ideas of how things will unfold... and His coming did not fit their ideas.

Why do I have a feeling that it may just happen again?

My sincere apologies fccool for coming across arrogant and with a prideful attitude. My reaction was based on the fact that I have gotten overly weary by the attacks against Adventism, trying to undermine our historic pillars. So that tendency to want to lash out sometimes gets the best of me. Please do forgive me.

I will make every effort to continue my dialogues with you in a very subdued and humble attitude.

[fccool]

Quote:

It has also been proven, unequivocally, and unapologetically, that the Jewish prophetic lunar reckoning of 360 was never used to govern the year, but only the seasons and festivals.

The Prophecy was given to Jews in Babylonian captivity. This calendar was not Jewish. It was Babylonian. it was the calendar that they lived by, and the time-frame that was given to Daniel in 1260 prophecy... in Babylon.

Quote:

Bob Pickle's material along with my material that I have already established in this forum proves unequivocally that only solar years can be employed to the 70 weeks in order for the numbers to work out. Therefore, consistency demands that solar years be employed to the 42 months.

The issue with that is that these prophecies was not given to "solar year" people. I'll have to discuss this a bit in depth later on.

Perhaps the numbers are not working out, because you are trying to apply them to events that these were not meant for? Have you considered such possibility?

[fccool]

Quote:

My sincere apologies fccool for coming across arrogant and with a prideful attitude. My reaction was based on the fact that I have gotten overly weary by the attacks against Adventism, trying to undermine our historic pillars. So that tendency to want to lash out sometimes gets the best of me. Please do forgive me.

I will make every effort to continue my dialogues with you in a very subdued and humble attitude.

I appreciate it, and I hope we can discuss this further. I love thorough discussion and thorough information, and I certainly appreciate your way of laying it out and explaining it throughout.

I'll have to jump back in tonight, since my work breaks are short and don't allow for anything lengthy.

I don't think you should interpret these questions/information/statements as "Attack on Adventism". Truth extends beyond our established theology. If out theology is defended, then so be it, it's worthy to be upheld.

If it's not, then we should be searching more. I hope you can agree.

[Lysimachus]

I realize the 360 comes from Babylon fccool. I used to use this as an argument to disqualify it. If my computer wasn't broke, and I could swap between windows more proficiently, and I would provide you data from "The Chronology of Ezra 7" by Siegfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood.

My new computer will arrive sometime in the middle of next week.

We'll continue this discussion more soon. In the meantime, I'll finish providing some of the data I promised Sky, then I'll let it rest for now, and we can pick up sometime after my new computer arrives.

Blessings.

[John317]

... 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.

Let's remember what the important point is here: PRIMACY of the bishop of Rome. The fact of history is that the bishop of Rome's PRIMACY as "corrector of hereticks over the churches" can be dated from 538 AD.

What happened in 538 A.D. was that the Ostrogoths were driven out of Rome and the bishop of Rome was able to govern without serious resistence to his authority.

In 533, Justinian decreed the bishop of Rome to be the "corrector of hereticks" of the churches, and 5 years later, the bishop was able to fulfill the role that Justinian had designed for him.

If you read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 41 to 47, you will see that the Ostrogoths never again were able for a significant length of time to be a serious threat to the power of the bishop of Rome after their defeat in Rome by General Belisarius' army. That's the significance of the date, 538 AD, as far as the rise of the papacy is concerned.

No one is claiming that the Ostrogoths were totally wiped off the map in that year, but it was most definitely a turning point in the temporal power and PRIMACY of the bishop of Rome, and also in the complete disapearance of the Ostrogoths from history within a few decades.

Here's the history of the Ostrogoths following 538 AD. You will see that they were not very successful at all after 538 AD:

Quote:

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...

[Lysimachus]

For Sky. Here is more good stuff from Heiks:

Quote:

As Justinian continues to regulate Church-sanctioned legislature, his standard protocol for implementing his jurisdiction in newly conquered territory is seen from his Novel 37.9., issued on August 1, 535:

• "9. Furthermore we remit all the privileges of the sacrosanct church of our Carthago Justiniana which the metropolitan cities and their priests are recognized to have, which also even when separated from sacrosanct churches in his first books are recognized to offer their honor by our Codex: so that the city which we regarded should be decorated by the name of our divine will bloom while decorated also with imperial privileges." (Schoell, Rudolfus, Corpus Iurus Civilis, Novellae (Berlin: Apud Wiedmannos, 1959), 3:244-5.)

From Novel 37.9., we see Justinian's authority implemented in the former Vandal province to, first and foremost, bring honor to his "Codex" so "the name of our divine will bloom while decorated also with imperial privileges." This was standard protocol for Justinian when he claimed legal jurisdiction of a newly conquered territory including the land occupied by the Ostrogoths of Italy.

From the following Codex law code that was published and in force in 534, we have Justinian himself affirming that all former laws of previous emperors that were “in favor of the orthodox faith shall be valid and in force in the future and are retained in force by the present pious legislation.”:

• Codex I. 2.12.

  “We decree that the privileges conceded by former Emperors under the general terms of constitutions, to all the Holy Churches of the orthodox religion, shall be observed, and remain firm and unimpaired for all time.”

  (Source: Scott, S. P. trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian] (Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001), Codex I. 2.12. 12:180.)

  Codex I.11.9.3

  “3. All the punishments which were introduced by former emperors against pagan error or in favor of the orthodox faith shall be valid and in force in the future and are retained in force by the present pious legislation.”

  (Source: Paul Krueger, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, (Berolini Apud Weidmannos, 1888), 2:63-4. Greek text.)

This especially applied to Justinian’s Sunday Laws since all of them were from previous emperors. He wrote nothing of himself on this issue because for him it was already an established precedent of the orthodox faith that was not to be contested. It just simply needed to be enforced. Codex I. 2.12. and Codex I.11.9.3 is the legal proclamation that gave Justinian the legal basis for the enforcement of his Sunday laws which had been established by previous emperors and were to be found in his subsequent Codex III.12.1-10. Justinian stated that they “are retained in force by the present pious legislation.” This legislation was never altered or retracted in any way from 534 to the end of Justinian’s reign in 565. Justinian’s subjects, from 538 and onward, whether from the east or from the west, all had to observe and reverence the papal sabbath, the first day of the week, or suffer loss of employment, confiscation of property and perhaps even death itself. This proves that Justinian’s Sunday laws were part of the enforced jurisdiction implemented in Italy on June 1, 538. With small beginnings in the west, Sunday enforcement was in full swing in the east. However, by the end of the year 538 and just ten days into the New Year, Justinian’s jurisdiction was declared by Justinian himself to encompass Italy, the entire West and those of both Romes, meaning Rome and Constantinople:

• BEFORE WHOM THE CASES OF MONKS AND ASCETICS SHALL BE

  TRIED.

  SEVENTY-NINTH NEW CONSTITUTION.

  CHAPTER II.

  CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT AND OBSERVANCE OF

  THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE

  LEGAL CONTROVERSIES IN WHICH MONKS ARE CONCERNED.

  “Litigation in which monks are involved shall be speedily disposed of. This law is of general application, and its enforcement shall be committed to the Most Glorious Prefects having jurisdiction in all dioceses, namely: those of Illyria, Italy, the entire West and those of both Romes, as well as by the Most Glorious Praetors of the People, and the magistrates of the provinces, with their subordinates; and it shall not be evaded in any way but must be observed unchanged for the honor of the most reverend monks.” (Scott, S. P., trans., ed. The Civil Law [of Justinian], 17 vols. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange, 2001, Justinian, The Novels-79, 16:294-5, March 10, 539.)

The year was AD 538. The entire then-known world of Christendom was under a universal Sunday law just as the scriptures predicted and as Pope Vigilius is to confirm. With the biggest threat of opposition removed and believing that the ongoing threat of war was also removed, the Roman populace was delighted in the uniting of the old empire as one again under one religion. Pope Vigilius (537-555), writes to Justinian on Sept. 17, 540, the following letter of praise for establishing the one and only true faith “in every corner of the world”:

• “We have noted in the letter of Your Clemency...that you do not permit any differences, any discordance in the Christian faith which honors and worships the Divine Trinity.... Not the least of our satisfaction in the Lord is to see that He deigned in his mercy to give you not only an imperial, but a priestly soul. In offering the sacrifice according to ancient tradition, all pontiffs pray that the Lord may deign to unify the Catholic faith and preserve it throughout the world. This Your Piety effected with all possible strength, when you imposed in all your provinces and in every corner of the world the inviolate maintenance of that faith which we know was defined and imposed as Christian confession by the most venerable Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, the First of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and when you refused to call Christian whoever severs himself from the unity of those Synods. . . .”

  (Source: Guenther, Otto, Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum, Avellana Quae Dicitur Collectio, 2 pts. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 92), 348, Sept. 17, 540. Mansi, Joannes Dominicus. Sacrorum Conciliorum: Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, facs. ed. Paris: Welter, 1902, 9:35.)

H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, correctly states:

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act.” He goes on to say, “And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” The Universal Sunday law throughout Christendom in 538 was simply the catalyst or the Mark of her ecclesiastical authority which signaled that the Pontifical government of force or, more accurately stated, the government of Satan, was then fully underway and thereby commenced the 1260 prophetic period in A.D. 538. Previously divorced from Christ, no longer widowed, but married to the state, the Catholic Church was “given” a specified time of 1260 long years-to “practice and prosper.” What a witness to the universe of the “new order” of Satan’s rule! You cannot have a Sunday law without first denying religious liberty and this is the real issue behind the Sunday law.

• “The man of sin thinks to change times and laws. He is exalting himself above God, in trying to compel the conscience.” (Ellen White, Review and Herald, December 24, 1889)

In AD 538 we now have a perfect application of 2 Thessalonians 2:4:

• “The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came finally to be honored as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed. The great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself ‘above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.’ 2 Thessalonians 2:4. He had dared to change the only precept of the divine law that unmistakably points all mankind to the true and living God. In the fourth commandment, God is revealed as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is thereby distinguished from all false gods. It was as a memorial of the work of creation that the seventh day was sanctified as a rest day for man. It was designed to keep the living God ever before the minds of men as the source of being and the object of reverence and worship. Satan strives to turn men from their allegiance to God, and from rendering obedience to His law; therefore he directs his efforts especially against that commandment which points to God as the Creator.” (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1911), 53–4

Please notice that the prophet uses the term "festival," the very term used by Justinian in the original sources for the heading of his Sunday laws. The original source reads thus:

• THE CODE OF JUSTINIAN, BOOK III. 12, 10.

  TITLE XII.

  CONCERNING FESTIVALS.

• "And thou shalt be called, The Repairer of the breach. . . . Now we have come to understand what the breach is. Look at the fourth commandment. . . . Here comes a power under the control of Satan that puts up the first day to be observed. God calls him the man of sin because he has perpetuated transgression [Daniel 8:12]" (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Maryland: E.G. White Estate, 1993), 5:45)

For those who would like to look further into the concepts of “exalt,” “magnify,” and “truth” in their very close relationship to the law of God, we suggest a study of those words in the context of Daniel 7:25; 8:11–12; 11:36–37; and of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, 10, 12.

Having fully sustained and illustrated by the definitive primary sources every specification of the scriptures pertaining to the identity, nature and commencement of the 1260-day/year prophetic period, we rest our case.

Heidi Heiks then continues to quote more from Justinian's code, establishing just how much it encompassed every social, religious, and private aspects of his subjects.

The information above is extracted from Heidi Heiks' book "A.D. 538 Source Book".

Dear fellow Adventists, a new gem has surfaced. It's time to get our hands on these books and read, so that we may have ALL the information, and present it with 100% accuracy. :)

[Lysimachus]

I also found this info very fascinating from Heiks:

Quote:

As mentioned earlier, believing that the biggest threat of opposition had been removed and the ongoing threat of war ended, the Roman populace was delighted in the uniting of the old empire as one again under one religion. You will remember the letter we viewed earlier that Pope Vigilius wrote to Justinian on September 17, 540, praising him for establishing the one and only true faith “in every corner of the world.” Hardly had the words gone forth from the pen of Pope Vigilius, when it happened. In the summer of 541 the world-wide epidemic called the Bubonic plague touched down on the Mediterranean at the extreme eastern edge of the Nile Delta. Procopius describes the severity of the plague:

• “During these times there was a pestilence, by which the whole human race came near to being annihilated.”

  (Source: Procopius, History of the Wars (London, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1919; reprint, 2000), II. xxii. 1. Or, Vol. 1:451.)

Constantinople remained untouched until March or April of 542, but when it hit like elsewhere, it took out nearly half the empire. Justinian’s empire never fully recovered. In the meantime, the Ostrogoths regrouped and the ongoing war cost the ravaged empire dearly, but Justinian finally prevailed against the Ostrogoths in March of 553. In turn, Pope Vigilius sends another letter to Justinian on May 14, 553, in gratitude and with hope that his accomplishments may go down as a pattern for all future ecclesiastical peace:

• “Among the many cares that burden your imperial charge, we hear of Your Clemency's praise worthy determination to remove all the seeds of discord which the enemy of the human race has sown in the Lord’s field. For this purpose you have hastened to bring to unity and concord all the priests of God by having them make their professions as witness to their conscientious belief, to show that they remain faithful to the definitions and decisions of our holy Fathers, of the four venerable Synods, and of the heads of the Apostolic See. That the form of these professions may go down to posterity as a pattern of ecclesiastical peace. . . .”

  (Source: Guenther, Otto, Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum, Avellana Quae Dicitur Collectio, 2 pts. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35. Prague: F. Tempsky, 1895, (ep. 83), 230, May 14, 553.)

Thus officially ended the reign of the Ostrogoths.

I have a feeling that had it not been for that Bubonic plague, the Ostrogoths would have never been able to retake Italy.