Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

March 8, 2016

Kevin H,

Ignoring the Biblical Explanation in Rev. 17

I’m not sure if you’re gauging my actual points, because it does seem that you’re side-stepping them. You refer to “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” as if that somehow proves a case for a Papal Seventh Head. But I simply refer to the Bible’s own explanation given in the text itself. So far you’ve decided to ignore the Biblical explanation in Rev. 17. I’m not sure why. Why ignore the angel who gives the message? He says “I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her” (Rev. 17.7). Surely he knows better than we do? Would you presume to know more? That surely is a precarious path to walk on. We are not wiser than God, so why search for another explanation other than the one he gives? Its quite a straightforward proposition really – accept his explanation.

In His Own Words: God’s Explanation of the Seven Heads

So I’ll just repeat it since it bears emphasising. In Rev. 17.10 the angel tells us when explaining the seven heads that “they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen.” Five have fallen is pretty clear to me. That means five empires no longer exist. “One is,” he says. That seems pretty clear too. It means one is presently in existence. Simple enough. The Roman Empire exists at this point in time. So number 6 is the Roman Empire. And here’s the next key phrase: “The other has not yet come.” Obviously the empire to come after the Roman Empire is to be the 7^th. Clear as day! Given the very obvious nature of successive empires conquering preceding ones (for example, Babylon was conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia, Persia was conquered by Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Hellenistic Empires of the Seleucids and Ptolemies were conquered by Rome), it is very obvious that we must look for the one that conquered the Roman Empire to identify who the 7^th head is. Pretty straightforward I would have thought.

The Seventh Head is the Islamic Ottoman Empire

And it turns out, based on actual historical testimony, that the Roman Empire was conquered in 1453 finally and completely by the Islamic Ottoman Empire, as I presented out earlier (see my first post). None of the points I raised there were refuted. This is not speculation my friend. This is actual reality, by actual historians. I would be sorry to see you reject actual historical reality in favour of fiction. If you don’t think what I’ve presented is reality then I would challenge you to put a single quote down to verify what you believe reality to be. If you cannot, then your assertion will have no factual grounding. It will remain just that – an assertion, but a highly fictional one. Of course, it would better that you’d embrace reality. But that remains a choice for you. I’ve already embraced it and therefore stand by the facts. I hope you would too.

Alexander the Great and Mehmed II: Alleging that the 5th and 7th Heads Would Be Christian

As to your assertions that “the 5^th head and 7^th head will look very Christian” I find this very… strange. Where in any text does it say that they will be Christian? This habit of making strange statements and somehow believing that by simply iterating them makes them true and factual is not a good habit. If you would read God’s actual explanation in Rev. 17.10 he says that “five have fallen.” That would include the 5^th head. And obviously the 5^th head must be before the 6^th head of the Roman Empire. Therefore the 5^th head must be the Hellenist/Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. Why would Alexander be Christian? And why would the 7^th be Christian? These are simple questions that I hope you would answer by quoting something to “prove” (1 Th. 5.21) your case, not simply repeat it. How else can your case be established?

Six Previous Fallacies

And remember, this is on top of the many earlier speculative false claims that you have already made. Allow me to remind you of them (for detailed evidence of quotes please look back at the response above):

God would have Returned in the Time of Emperor Domitian, or the Time of the Flavians, or the Time of the Fall of the Temple (1^st century): this is totally speculative, presumptuous and simply unprovable. But more importantly it is contradicted by your own assertion that “Jesus could not yet come back because he is doing a heavenly ministry.”
Ten Emperors in 68-69 AD: there were actually only 4 in rapid succession.
Emperor Vespasian (The First Flavian) Uprooted Three Emperors: he only uprooted one.
The Mark of the Beast at the time of Emperor Domitian, Being Adjusting Shoes When Bowing Down: Emperor Domitian is a 1^st century power whereas the Mark of the Beast is given in the 8^th End of Time Empire. Not to mention the fact that this interpretation is totally bizarre.
Paul Believed Only in Preaching the Gospel to the Jewish World: Rom. 11.13 and 1.16 totally contradict that, revealing that he saw himself as “apostle to the Gentiles” and believing that the Gospel was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek”.
Political Leaders are Not Economic Powers: this is simply a confused understanding of empires – empires are called empires because they have control over vast swathes of territory and thus resources, and hence they by default have aggrandised their economic power on top of already being military and political powers.

Banks and Corporations as the Antichrist?

Regarding the controlling of finances, do you really believe that the corporations and banks are going to fulfil the prophecies regarding the Antichrist? Are you saying that the Antichrist will come from the banks? I’m not sure where you want to go with this.

The Banks Running Islamists

Stating that “the banks and corporations run them [the radical Islamists] too and will get them to start dancing to their tune” is, I regret to say, quite ignorant of what actually is going on, and, to put it mildly, quite laughable. ISIS, who cares for no one else, neither the superpowers of USA nor Russia nor France, who chops heads off at will, who blows up Russian planes out of the sky, who attacks cities like Paris, who runs their own state with their own oil, their own banks, their own ransom money and the illegal selling of precious archaeological artefacts, are run or will be run by the banks? Saudi Arabia who actually runs the life-blood of the world economy – oil – is run or will be run by the banks? Iran? Boko Haram in Africa? Hezbollah in Lebanon? Hamas in Gaza? Al-Qaeda? Kevin, you need to really come out of fantasy land. This is simply not reality. If you continue to believe this then please provide some evidence to prove it. I haven’t seen any evidence yet, just assertions.

The Eighth Beast is Middle Eastern and Persecutes Christians

JoeMo’s response hit the nail on the head when talking about who has the present control of the Middle East. This is actually a key factor of the Beast’s Empire composition in Rev. 13.2 – Babylonian (Lion), Persian (Bear) and Alexandrian (Leopard) territories, which are all Middle Eastern (see empire maps below). And Radical Islam is pervasive throughout the Middle East, in particular the biggest Sunni and Shia blocks, Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively, as well as Islamic State in Syria-Iraq-Libya, and endless number of terrorist groups in the region and beyond. What I would like to know is what is your case for fulfilling the Middle Eastern criterion in Rev. 13.2?

A second criterion is that this Beast persecutes believers in Jesus (Rev. 13.7). The actual reality is that Islam is the single force biggest force monstrously persecuting Christians throughout the world today. This persecution is of Biblical epic proportions.

· Relevant Magazine calls it the “highest level of global persecution of Christians in the modern era” (23 February 2015).

· Conservative news outlet World Net Daily rightly titled their magazine article “Christian Martyrdom is Back - with a Vengeance” (3 April 2015)

· British newspaper The Independent decried “Christians: The world’s most persecuted people - The former Chief Rabbi is appalled at the lack of protest about the treatment of Christians round the globe, and so should we be” (26 July 2014) citing several non-religious statistical organisations that agree with this, such as the International Society of Human Rights and the Pew Research Center.

· Newsweek magazine aptly described it on its front page as “The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World” (2 June 2012).

· The oldest news magazine in the English-speaking world, Spectator, had emblazoned on its front page “The War on Christians: The global persecution of churchgoers is the unreported catastrophe of our time.” (5 October 2015).

· The Wall Street Journal published several ominously titled articles: “Saving Christians from ISIS Persecution” (1 Oct 2015); “The Religious Silence on Christian Persecution” (20 July 2012); “The Plight of the Middle East’s Christians: Ancient communities in Syria and Iraq are in mortal peril. Can the West find a way to preserve the Christian presence in the Middle East” (15 May 2015); “Exterminating Christians in the Middle East: Islamic State marks the houses of Christians with the Arabic letter ‘N’ for Nazarene” (20 August 2015) – this one chillingly reminded me the Passover in Egypt but in inverse.

· I watched a House of Commons debate in 2013 titled “Persecution of Christians in the 21^st Century” (another debate was also titled “Persecutions of Christians in the Middle East”). Several memorable and poignant statements were made during the debate. The opening statement set the tone: “there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith... Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally… I believe that the persecution of Christians is the biggest story in the world that has never been told…” Member of Parliament, Andrew Selous, called it “comparable to the holocaust.”

· Numerous books are continually being published given the urgent concern on a subject that is almost taboo.

Please watch the excellent video report by CBN titled “Islam’s War on Christians” (8 January 2015) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUXFzaBLzY) that emphatically points this out.

All that this goes to prove is that Islam is the only power today that can fulfil this Biblical criterion for the 8^th Beast. No other.

These are just two criteria out of many more. Yet I would still be bold to ask: is there anything comparable to Islam’s fulfilment of even just these two?

Black Gold: The West’s Oil Addiction

Joe hit the nail on the head again when talking about oil. This is massive. But you simply brushed it aside and ignored it. I think this is unwise. The addiction of the West to oil and its utter dependence on it is a well-documented reality.

The London Telegraph gives a succinct overview of the history of Western oil dependency (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pfSREZBqAk).
A more extensive look at oil is brilliantly documented in a BBC Documentary released just last year in fact called Planet Oil: The Treasure That Conquered The World (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gzf5l, downloadable videos found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gzf5l/episodes/guide). That’s how real and contemporary this issue is. It revealed how addicted and dependent the West was to oil given that it not only supplies fuel, but its by-products are used to create all kinds of consumer products that we all live on.
Another interesting video that explains this is one based on influential American economist and advisor to the European Union, Jeremy Rifkin (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyqprG1pDzE).

Such dependence on oil is what blackmails Western nations from tackling the source of Radical Islam namely Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism (see Sarah Stern, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace, and former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism). Banks don’t control the oil. The oil is the life-blood of the banks, and the world economy. They need oil to simply run their organisations. Take that life-blood away from them and they are permanently crippled. And like I said, this has actually happened in the past in the 1973 Yom Kippur War where OPEC imposed an oil embargo on the West resulting in total shutdown.

An example of how a crash in oil supplies could affect world economies has been already imagined in History Channel’s, Mega Disasters, episode “Oil Apocalypse” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYb73iiTBEA).

Right now, if you follow the financial situation, OPEC led by Saudi Arabia is decreasing the price of oil globally, hitting big powers like Russia and others hard (see a brief video by the Discovery Channel video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijfbnoc74E), and many economic commentators are assessing the grave concern this poses.

By the way, you see your credit card (to use your analogy)? That’s powered by oil. How do you think it arrived at your house? There would be no money in the banks if oil didn’t power the vehicles to provide the cash. You see your local supermarket? That’s powered by oil too – there would be no products on the shelves if there weren’t any oil. You check your car lately? That’s also powered by oil (unless of course you don’t have a car, like in my case, or you have an electric powered car). The list is endless of how oil affects not just the global financial market but the very individual lives of ordinary citizens. What more could cause the “merchants of the earth to mourn” as you say than if they ran out of oil? They simply couldn’t sell because they would have no supplies to sell. And by the way, ISIS now has oil too, as well as a huge arsenal of artillery and weapons, a huge army that is attracting Muslims all over the show including young westerners, and actually is effectively a full fledged terrorist state. It also has a religious mandate to conquer the planet. Does this sound like a situation that the banks are or can control?

In the words of the British historian of Middle Eastern history, Bernard Lewis, when asked about what was at stake when it came to Islam, replied very solemnly “the survival of our civilisation.” Sir Hew Strachan, another prestigious British historian ominously remarked “In my moments of gloom, if I want to think where a Third World War would break out, it would be in the Middle East.” Sounds pretty serious to me.

An Ominous Turn: The United States President and the Muslim Brotherhood

Joe hit the nail on the head again with the Muslim Brotherhood and the current president. President Obama has revealed his true colours by massively boosting the agenda of Radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood in the world. It is simply too broad to go into detail, but in summary:

He has advisors who are Muslim Brotherhood (CBN, WND, WND; background to the Muslim Brotherhood Clarion Project PDF Factsheet, Stand with Us Summary (Cached)).
He invites Muslim Brotherhood affiliates/operatives into the White House (Robert Spencer Clarion Project, Breitbart News, The Washington Free Beacon, Newsmax).
He has suppressed many official documents from the Holy Land Foundation Trial that indicted a Muslim Brotherhood charity operative in the United States that could help tackle more groups (The Project Documentary, The Blaze News).
He has removed all references to Islam in national security and law enforcement training manuals (Middle East and Islam Specialist Raymond Ibrahim).
He has supported the building of the Ground Zero Mosque in New York (Fox News, Fox News Poll, Politico, ABC News) which is being led by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Feisal Abdul Rauf (Robert Spencer, ISNA, AMA).
He has revised American history by saying that Muslims have always been part of its beginnings in attempt to aggrandise Muslim prestige in America – this interestingly parallels how the Qur’an and Islamists revise history (Breitbart News, Real Clear Politics, read an excellent rebuttal of Obama’s claims by Joseph Klein on Counter Jihad Report and Front Page Mag).
He protects Islam from criticism by blaming the Benghazi incident on some insignificant film (Fox News), whilst knowing that it was nothing to do with this but instead part of a Al-Qaeda/Ansar Al-Sharia assassination (Newsweek, Fox News, Fox News, Newsmax), as well as refusing protection to the Ambassador (Examiner).
His administration has been foremost in supporting the OIC to institute sharia protection of criticism of the Qur’an and Islam at the U.N. (Clare Lopez, Nina Shea, CNS News, Reuters).
He, along with U.S. General John Allen (NPR) (perhaps at Obama’s behest), apologised to Muslims in Afghanistan for the disposal of unused Qur’ans by the military, despite Afghans murdering and injuring U.S. soldiers in response with no apology (Fox News, CNN, NBC News, Newsmax).
He has pressured Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to apologise to Turkey’s dictatorial, Islamist and Neo-Ottoman ambition-driven premier, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for the Flotilla incident in which Turkish terrorists were targeted and killed caught smuggling weapons into Gaza (Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Ynet News).
He bows to the Wahhabi terrorist state Saudi King as if acknowledging fealty to him (WND, Telegraph), but rubs the shoulders of the Queen of England like pals showing no respect.
He helped initiate the Arab Spring in his famous Cairo speech and has supported, funded and armed so-called “rebels” (who are in reality terrorist groups) in taking down dictators like Muammer Gaddafi (Libya) and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt).
He is the first president since 1979 to have brought the pariah state of Iran back to the table of the civilised world, alleviating it from sanctions (Clarion Project) and thus boosting their nuclear program (Newsmax, Clarion Project)
He was the principle backer of the revolution to oust Mubarak and thoroughly endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist (the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are listed as a terrorist group – Clare Lopez, Clarion Project) Mohamed Morsi (Israel National News, WND). He was the first leader to congratulate Morsi (New York Times), welcome him into the White House (Clarion Project), and financially and militarily boost his government (National Review) to which no other Western state leader has as far as I’m aware. Now why would anyone go that far out of their way for a terrorist group?
When Mohamed Morsi wanted to impose Sharia law into the constitution but was subsequently ousted by popular demand, Obama sent two senators to his aid in an attempt to get him released (Fox News). When Morsi was sentenced to death, Obama condemned it (USA Today)
But he continually goes out of his way to snub, even publicly, Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S.’s long time ally wherever and whenever he can (Politico, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Reuters, Tea Party), although the Saudi Minister gets a open door hearing when the Boston Bombings happened (The Blaze); he was noted even by the media to be ashamedly absent in Paris when the attacks happened, when 40 other state leaders stood in solidarity with France in a time of the worst terrorist crisis it has seen in a generation (CNN, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC News); and even spies and taps phones of Western allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel! (The Telegraph, Der Spiegel, The Guardian) I mean what on earth is going on!
He finally chooses to visit a Mosque in the States, but tellingly he chooses one that has Hamas terrorist ties (Fox News, Robert Spencer, The Daily Caller).
It is now revealed through a secret directive called the Presidential Study Directive 11, that as a policy Obama actively supports the Muslim Brotherhood (The Washington Times, WND)
And finally, and most disturbingly (as if all of that was not disturbing enough already), not only does he sound like an Islamist by his words and actions, he was raised as a Muslim in the past (Daniel Pipes Middle East Expert), and (here’s the kicker), his brother is the Executive Secretary for the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated-Hamas sponsoring Islamic Dawa Organization in Sudan (Front Page Mag, The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch, World Net Daily, WND, Raymond Ibrahim, The New American, Walid Shoebat, Counter Jihad Report), and one member of the Egyptian judiciary along with an Al Jazeera report alleges that Obama is even a secret Muslim Brotherhood member! (The Blaze, Raymond Ibrahim/CBN)

The list is endless and disturbing. And this is only to do with what I can remember from the top of my head. If he walks like the Muslim Brotherhood, talks like the Muslim Brotherhood, acts like the Muslim Brotherhood, is advised by the Muslim Brotherhood, invites the Muslim Brotherhood, protects the Muslim Brotherhood, funds the Muslim Brotherhood, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, then he probably is Muslim Brotherhood. It’s terribly disturbing that there aren’t more Americans waking up to the fact that they have a Radical Islamist infiltrated into the presidential office. There is a whole lot more in the book Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office, by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott, which I’m reading right now.

So to say that you can’t see Radical Islam taking over. My friend, they already are taking over.

March 8, 2016

On 06/03/2016 at 4:59 PM, JoeMo said:

I totally agree with hch, Thomas. If hch comes back and agrees with you, feel honored and respected.

I sure respect you. You are such a great researcher and writer, you should write a book. I'll buy the first copy.

Thanks Joe! I really don't know what to say. Again, I am always appreciative of your support. It is quite a rarity that I do since usually I face controversy, so truly your words are a welcome sight! God bless brother.

March 8, 2016

17 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

It’s terribly disturbing that there aren’t more Americans waking up to the fact that they have a Radical Islamist infiltrated into the presidential office ... So to say that you can’t see Radical Islam taking over. My friend, they already are taking over. ..

This is indeed sad. All presidential candidates say that we must go to the Middle East and destroy ISIS. We don't need to go there - they are already here - just waiting for the word to wake up. The MB increasingly flexes their muscle and interferes with business in America by leveraging the First Amendment (freedom of religion) against us. Over 150 Muslims walked out of a packing plant here in Colorado because management would not allow them to all leave an operating production line to pray 5 times per day. The Muslims did not return to work for 3 days; so they were fired; and the company hired replacements. So the MB cries foul and demands that the packing plant rehire the Muslims.

A bakery refuses to provide a cake for a gay wedding and is fined over $135,000 by the government putting them out of business. In the same arena, the government fines a trucking company for firing a couple Muslim drivers who won't deliver beer to stores. Equality for both religions? NOT!! The POTUS almost exclusively (at least initially) blames terrorist Islamic acts on lack of gun control rather than Islamic terror. Tell that to the people for Paris - which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world - whose people were mercilessly gunned down by Islamic terrorists. Tell that to the people of San Bernardino.

There are mosques and Islamic Cultural Centers going up all over the U.S. in small rural areas where there are no Muslims - at least until the new mosques and cultural centers are built. By the way - many (if not most) of these new mosques are financed by the MB. They are also frequently built adjacent (or very close) to Christian churches; and are built larger and taller to imply Islamic dominance over Christianity.

This is not a rant against Islam. Most Muslims I know are peaceful and patriotic - just wanting to be left alone to live their lives in safety and security. This is a rant against radical jihadists who by warfare or subterfuge are trying to impose their own version of Islam on the entire world. It is also en expose' on those religious and political ostriches who cling to political correctness and arcane, outdated eschatological assumptions and refuse to even consider the signs of our times NOW rather than what they were 150 years ago. If this attitude doesn't change, I fear that the free world will lose the war before they even realize they were in one. Look at the refugee crisis in Europe right now; and the disrespect Muslim hardliners are showing their benefactors. Do we want that here in the U.S.? If that is our desire, let's stay on the track we're on now; and buy burkas for all of our wives and daughters. Oh yeah! Quit worrying about a National Sunday Law and start worrying about a National Friday Law.

March 8, 2016

This is the question:

Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

In Revelation 12 the heads were Satan ruling the 6 pagan nations and the papacy.

In Revelation 13 the heads were individuals (popes/kings)

Pius XI
Pius XII
John XXIII
Paul VI
John-Paul I
John-Paul II
Benedict XVI

And in a secondary sense in Revelation 13 the heads were the pope's names

Pius
John
Paul
John-Paul
Benedict
Francis
Pending

In Revelation 17 are the heads pagan nations or individuals?

"The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
And there are seven kings" (Rev 17:9-10)

the original language makes it clear:

"The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
EVEN SO THEY ARE seven kings" (Rev 17:9-10)

Thus the beast is the papacy. The seven kings are the 7 popes. And the woman is Apostate Protestantism.

Pius XI
Pius XII
John XXIII
Paul VI
John-Paul I
John-Paul II
Benedict XVI

Benedict is the one that ruled for a short space.

7 is the number of completeness.

Babylonian custom dictates that the king in office on new years day gets credit for the entire year

Babylon's New Year is 29 March on the Gregorian Calendar

John-Paul II was king/pope 29 March 2005 (he died 2 April 2005) 2005 was his last year

Benedict's Accession year was from April 2005-28 March 2006

Benedict's reign was 29 March 2006 to 28 February 2013 (a month and day short of completeness=a short space)

To change the heads of the beast in Rev 17 from individuals into kingdoms is "Ignoring the Biblical Explanation in Rev. 17"

By allowing the passage to explain itself, I was able to understand that Benedict would not be pope

AFTER THE SPRING OF 2013 -- Thus I confidently announced in 2011 that 2012 was his last year.

"He might last till the spring of 2013"

The presentation of this other stuff looks really professional, but it is not much more than window dressing

March 8, 2016

Sorry hch,

I'm with Thomas on this issue. We never corresponded until he joined CA; yet we both have independently arrived at the same conclusion. That feels like confirmation for me; especially when I see the excellent research and eloquent presentation that Thomas does. Of course it helps that I am of the same opinion as he; he just says things much better than I do.

March 8, 2016

56 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Sorry hch,

I'm with Thomas on this issue. We never corresponded until he joined CA; yet we both have independently arrived at the same conclusion. That feels like confirmation for me; especially when I see the excellent research and eloquent presentation that Thomas does. Of course it helps that I am of the same opinion as he; he just says things much better than I do.

JoeMo,

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. The doubter does have a nice spread.

I admired it. But I am a truth seeker and I have to follow the facts where ever they lead.

If someone's view of Bible prophecy is faulty, is their spiritual counsel trustworthy?

Prophetic understanding is measurable and verifiable.

Understanding Rev 17 in 2011 to know that Benedict would not be pope in 2013 is measurable.

Knowing that Francis is a Short Timer is measurable.

Knowing that Hilary and Trump will not be President in 2017 is measurable.

The more we understand of God's word the more reliable it is.

But if the measurable things of God's word are not understood,

there is no reason to think that the spiritual things will be any more reliable

Christian regards

March 8, 2016

1 hour ago, hch said:

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. The doubter does have a nice spread. I admired it. But I am a truth seeker and I have to follow the facts where ever they lead.

If someone's view of Bible prophecy is faulty, is their spiritual counsel trustworthy?

Prophetic understanding is measurable and verifiable.

It is your opinion that Thomas' and/or my opinion is faulty. It is my opinion that they are not faulty; and that the measurability and veracity of our view of prophecy is measurable and verifiable. It is circular logic to say your point is scripturally verifiable because scripture the way you view it agrees with you and scripture as you view it is God's word. I can't say those things either. Prophecy will unfold the way it unfolds; and neither of us will "know" with any certainty how it unfolds until it does unfold. Until then, all any of us has is an informed opinion. I won't change your mind; and you won't change mine - that's my CA experience. So from my perspective, this discussion serves no further purpose than to hijack this thread.

March 10, 2016

hch,

Thank you for your response. It is generous for you to take the time out to compose it. I also appreciate the fact that you are writing a book on some of these things, so it gives me an opportunity to challenge myself, whilst perhaps helping you at the same time in your attempts to get the facts, before you publish.

There were many things in there that needed to be addressed, and my attempt to be succinct in response has failed. The reason why is because I think its always important, when making a case for truth, to ensure that it’s not just me saying what I’m saying, but that it is actually supported by others who are specialists in their field. So forgive me for the length of my response. If you tire throughout the reading, it might be easier to go straight to the conclusion and then backup to the sections that are related so that you’re able to see the actual evidence in black and white.

Also, I think its important to get clarity about one thing before proceeding, otherwise we’ll end up like ships passing in the night. The reason I say you’ve interpreted the 7^th Head as Pagan Rome is because you actually typed it: “7) Pagan Rome killed the Manchild, who arose from the dead and ascended to heaven.” I certainly didn’t attempt to misrepresent you. This might be a genuine typing error, to which I can forgive. But I need clarity that this is a mistake, since you’ve levelled against me the allegation of misrepresentation. Now since you say “Fact 2: The Papal-Roman Empire is the 7th Head on the beast in Rev 12” I’ll now just presume that that is exactly what you mean. No hard feelings on my part.

Facts

I think it is also important to understand what a ‘fact’ is. A fact is something that be verified (1 Th. 5.21) by evidence (2 Pet. 1.16) and independent/impartial (1 Tim. 5.21) and credible (Lk. 1.1-3) sources, which in this case is independent historical and sources and Biblical evidence. Since you haven’t verified or proven any historical claims with any independent historical sources and Biblical evidence then to claim something as ‘fact’ in bold is highly presumptuous and is yet to be proven. It’s not that I’m trying to discredit you. It’s just that you’ve simply iterated a view, but haven’t referenced it with any independent support, or use a coherent process of argumentation/logic to decipher the text, in order to demonstrate that it was indeed a fact.

I could do the same and start telling people, ‘The King of England has many wives. He’s also gay. He’s actually not the real king at all but a stand-in for the real king whom somebody assassinated to which the royal family has covered up so as not to lose face. It’s a fact.’ Who will take me seriously? I’d have to have some evidence of this, like wedding certificates of all his wives, letters of his gay lovers, authentic highly credible testimonies from multiple independent sources, like eyewitnesses to testify to this, anything of this nature.

Motivation and Methodology Revisited

There are two reasons why it should be obvious that I feel you have in fact actually “fit [it] into the pigeon hole that I have been so neatly placed,” (to use your words). The first reason is, you don’t provide any evidence at all to demonstrate how the Papacy directly succeeded the Roman Empire after its Fall. You simply presume it. Little else matters if this pivotal foundation, on which everything else is built, cannot be demonstrated by a clear assessment of the Fall of the Roman Empire. This you haven’t shown.

The second reason is that this presumption is based on clear bias towards the Adventist traditional position, as opposed to an objective investigation of actual historical facts. This is easily seen when you say: “You can dispute Ellen White's explanation that the first beast in Rev 13 but she is right so I won't waste my time on this faulty dispute.” You start off with Ellen White’s interpretation and take it as fact, without question. But you still have to prove that what she says is true.

And again you say “Disagreeing with history, Ellen White, and the entire historical department of the SDA Church won't change the facts.” Again, you equate Adventism with fact without question, as if to say, that what they say automatically makes it fact by its own merit. That’s the equivalent of saying, ‘they are right because they simply said it was true.’ You haven’t proven anything only asserted you’re belief in it.

Both of these factors contribute to the predetermined Papal Rome 7^th Head conclusion, and therefore instead of objectively search for the truth, the road is paved for attempting to fit Rev. 12, 13 and 17 into that predetermined conclusion. So like I stated first, this is bad methodology. One must start with evidence and build to a conclusion based on that evidence, not start with a conclusion and ignore evidence that contradicts it.

The Seventh Head Still Follows the Sixth: The Islamic Ottoman Empire Still Follows the Roman Empire

No matter how one wants to interpret Rev. 12 it still has to be in harmony with the clearer explanation given in Rev. 17. Why? Simply because the 6^th Head is followed by the 7^th in both cases. Pretty straightforward. And since we agree that the 6^th Head is the Roman Empire, the 7^th must be the empire that followed it. To decipher this, one must find out when the Roman Empire falls. And based on works from historians, it turns out that the Roman Empire was conquered in 1453 finally and completely by the Islamic Ottoman Empire (see Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 1,’ (Salford: BBC, 2013)), as I presented earlier (see my first post on the first page of this discussion with all the quotes from historians). Here are the points in summary:

The transfer of the capital, thus the governing centre, of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, shifted the centre of gravity from the West to the East.
The Empire subsequently split into two halves, East and West, in 395, so that when the Roman West fell in 476, the Roman Empire continued on from the already governing capital of Constantinople in the East.
It is firmly recognised by historians that the eastern half of the Roman Empire existed up until 1453, a thousand years after the fall of western half, and that they saw themselves as Roman.
The mandate of Islam to conquer Constantinople and the Roman Empire, and the relentless pursuits of succeeding Muslim Caliphs to fulfil it, prove not only the Roman Empire’s continual existence even after the western half had fallen, but also that the Islamic Ottoman Empire was the successor to the Roman Empire.
The conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Umar in 638, and the indelible mark of persecution that Muslims have had generally on the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad up until today, also supports the candidacy of Islam for the 7^th Head.
The gradual annexation of Roman territory by successive Sultans-Caliphs of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, additionally support the candidacy of Islam for the 7^th Head.
The final conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottomans in 1453, and thus the Final End of the Roman Empire, prove decisively that the Islamic Ottoman Empire is the 7^th Head.
The legitimate claim of Sultan Mehmed II of being the natural successor and heir to the Roman Empire adds enormous weight to this fact.

And yes, all of these are historical facts – check the numerous references on my first post which is on the first page of this discussion.

In addition to this, if you look at the previous 6 empires they have 3 common factors: (1) succeeding the preceding empire by conquest (for example, Babylon was conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia, Persia was conquered by Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Hellenistic Empires of the Seleucids and Ptolemies were conquered by Rome); (2) conquering the Land of Israel and affecting the Jewish people – notice that your very own criteria of typologically “killing the Manchild”, either in the form of Israel, the Jewish people or Christians, agrees with this very point; (3) focussing on the Middle East. From these commonalities it is very obvious that we must look for the one that (1) conquered the Roman Empire, (2) conquered the Land of Israel and affected the Jewish people, (3) focuses on the Middle East, to identify who the 7^th head is. The Islamic Ottoman Empire fulfils all those criteria, including fulfilling your criterion, whereas the Papacy at best partially fits the 2^nd criterion, which I want to look at next.

The Criterion of Using the Death of the Manchild (Rev. 12)

You have said: “The 7 heads in Rev 12 align with the powers that tried to kill the Manchild.” This typological criterion actually turns out to benefit the case for the Islamic Ottoman Empire more than it does the Papacy. This is because Islam has had more to do with conquering, subjugating and even attempting to destroy Israel, and with persecuting Jewish and Christian people in one way or another, than the Papacy ever did.

Conquering Jerusalem

The Papacy certainly never conquered Israel. Islam did, only 16 years after it had officially begun in 622:

“638 – In southern Syria (Palestine), Jerusalem falls to an army led by Abu Ubayda. Caliph Umar travels to Jerusalem, where he prays to Allah on the Temple Mount” – Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide: History of Islam, (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003), p. 52.

Whilst the Crusades were ‘called out’ by Pope Urban II in defence of Christians in the East against the marauding Muslims (“He [Pope Urban II] then turned to the plight of Jerusalem, where Christian pilgrims were being regularly robbed and persecuted by the city’s Turkish overlords. It was now, he emphasised, the duty of Western Christendom to march to the rescue of the Christian East.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 114), the Pope never laid claim to having conquered Jerusalem, or being its king. This was left to the crusaders themselves:

“A new Kingdom of Jerusalem is proclaimed, to be ruled by Geoffrey of Bouillon, who assumed the title ‘Defender of the Holy Sephulchre’ – the site where Jesus Christ was supposedly laid to rest after his Crucifixion. Within weeks of the Christians’ triumph, however, disease and famine spread among their ranks, persuading many to return home; by the year’s end the crusaders’ numbers have faled to no more than 60,000. Nothwithstanding, the fall of Jerusalem leads to the creation of four main Christian states: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, at one point stretching as far south as the Red Sea, and to the north of this the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the County of Edessa.” – Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide: History of Islam, (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003), p. 175.

Pope Urban II died never knowing their conquest (“Pope Urban, however, never knew of their victory. He died two weeks later, shortly before the reports reached Rome.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 115), and the immediate succeeding Popes concerned themselves with affairs primarily in Rome (since that’s where their monarchical seat was based), that led to their unpopularity and eventual miserable deaths. This supports the understanding that the Pope did not in fact conquer Jerusalem/Israel. That conquest by the crusaders, in any case, did not have much impact on the Islamic world (“From the Muslim viewpoint, the Crusades seem not to have been quite so significant – at least at the time.” – Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide: History of Islam, (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003), p. 181), and was short-lived after being re-conquered by the great Saladin (1099-1187 – that’s 88 years compared to about 1200 years of Islamic rule). Islam only lost Jerusalem to the British as a result of the First World War.

Supplanting Temple Mount Worship and the Trinity

Muslims also indelibly and eternally stamped their mark on the city by planting an Islamic shrine – the Dome of the Rock – on top of the Jews most holiest site, Temple Mount, in 691-2 thus supplanting it. In it, are writings that defiantly mock Christianity specifically by having written in effect ‘God is one God, exalted above having a Son,’ (Qur’an 3.19; see also “He is God, one, eternal; he does not beget nor is he begotten” – Qur’an 112:1-3) thereby denying one of Christianity’s most central beliefs, the Trinity (see Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), pp. 68-70; see also Waldemar Januszczak, The Dark Ages: An Age of Light, ‘The Wonder of Islam,’ (Salford: BBC, 2012)):

Muslim caliphs banned Jews from worshipping at the Mount in 720 for a thousand years (see Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem: The Making of a Holy City, ‘Episode 2 – Invasion, Invasion, Invasion,’(Salford: BBC, 2011)), and even today, the Jordanians are actually still in charge of it, and still prohibit Jews from praying on it (Times of Israel, “Right-wing activist, Glick, returns to Temple Mount,” 1 March 2016).

Persecution of Jews from the Dawn of Islam

This antagonism against the Jews started from the Prophet of Islam himself, slaughtering 700 Jews after they had surrendered, and taking their wives as sex slaves, setting the example for posterity:

“627 – Because the Meccans had been aided by the Quarayzah Jews, Muhammad orders the immediate massacre of 700 Quarayzah men, and arrages for their women and children to be sold into slavery. From this date no Jews remain in Medina, except those few who have already converted to Islam.” – Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide: History of Islam, (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003), p. 30.

“The Qurayzah [Jews]… chose to surrender to the Muslims. After some deliberations Muhammad decided to put the fate of the tribe into the hands of the Muslim warrior Sa’d bin Mu’adh… When Sa’d rode up on his donkey, Muhammad told him, “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sa’d replied: “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet of Islam was pleased. “O Sa’d! You have judged amongst them with the judgment of the King (Allah).” He confirmed Sa’d’s judgment as that of Allah himself: “You have decided in confirmation to the judgment of Allah above the seven heavens.”… Sa’d’s sentence was duly carried out, with Muhammad himself actively participating. According to Ibn Ishaq [Muhammad’s biographer], “The apostle went out to the market of Medina, which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of the Qurayzah] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”… Ibn Ishaq puts the number of those massacred at “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.”” – Robert Spencer, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, (Washington: Regnery Publishing Ltd, 2006). pp. 129-130.

A whole account of Muslim persecution of Jews can be read in Mark Gabriel, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, (Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma House, 2003), and Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, (New York: Prometheus Books, 2008), as well as Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: Islam – History, Theology, Impact on the World, (Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002). A profound documentary by Pierre Rehov titled The Silent Exodus (2009) recounts the chilling persecution of Jews by Muslims just before the modern state of Israel was born.

The Attempted Annihilation of Israel Just as it is Reborn in 1948

And even when Israel was reborn in 1948 a coalition of Arab nations was formed to snuff out and thus annihilate the fledgling nation:

“On 14 May [1948] David Ben Gurion proclaims the state of Israel inside Palestine… Ben Gurion’s proclamation provokes the First Arab-Israeli War as Israel’s neighbouring Arab nations take collective action, guided by the Arab League. Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian forces converge on Israel, but are repulsed.” – Justin Wintle, The Rough Guide: History of Islam, (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003), p. 378.

This attempt has been continuing ever since in several wars after, including the famous Yom Kippur War in 1973. Even to this day, the rhetoric coming out of the Islamic world against Israel and its inhabitants is for its annihilation.

The Greatest Persecution of Christians on Earth are Committed by Muslims

In addition to that, today the biggest persecution on earth is against Christians and is predominantly committed by Muslims (see George Thomas, “Islam’s War on Christians: Worst Yet to Come?,” CBN News, (9 January 2015)).

The Superiority and Peak of Islam

During the peak of Islam from the 16^th century, Western Christian civilisation, which included the Papacy itself, was terrified and in awe of Sultan Suleman The Magnificent of the Islamic Ottoman Empire:

“A war leader, and a great administrator, a man of considerable cultural achievement, a man who was interested in learning, Suleman is one of the most impressive figures of the age” – Prof. Jeremy Black, University of Exeter (The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, (Salford: BBC, 2013)).

“The Ottoman Sultan really stood out as perhaps the most powerful man in the world in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ruling over this vast territory with all of the wealth that the empire enjoyed, the Ottomans were able to put together an army that was really the fear of Europe. And it that sense you could point to the time of Suleman as the period in which Europe was really in awe of and terrified by the Ottoman Empire.” – Dr Eugene Rogan, University of Oxford, in The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 2,’ (Salford, BBC, 2013)).

“It is no wonder that the people in Christian Europe think of the Turk as a figure of fear. When you’re thinking of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse the people depict that in paintings as Durer does. One of the Horsemen is depicted as a Turk. Children are told that if they aren’t quiet in the evenings, if they don’t go to sleep, a Turk will get them.” – Professor Jeremy Black, University of Exeter, in The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 2,’ (Salford, BBC, 2013).

“If you asked any European, ‘Who are the Muslims?’ they would’ve said ‘The Turks, The Ottomans. They are the ones that we are afraid of.’” – Professor Robert Hillenbrand, University of Edinburgh, in The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 2,’ (Salford, BBC, 2013).

“Sultan was a name to be conjured with, in London as in every other city in Europe.” – Professor Lisa Jardine, University College London, in The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 2,’ (Salford, BBC, 2013).

The Ottomans already possessed European lands in Eastern Europe as far as Hungary and the Mediterranean as far as Greece, and came as close to Central Europe as far as the borders of Vienna:

“Suleman spent a quarter of his reign on the battlefield, and expanded the empire almost to the peak of its power. He captured Baghdad, and brought modern-day Iraq under his rule. He did the same with Budapest and Hungary. Victory first at Rhodes and then in key Greek provinces gave him control of the eastern Mediterranean.” – Rageh Ommar, The Ottomans: Europe’s Muslim Emperors, ‘Episode 2,’ (Salford: BBC, 2013).

So as we gather all these historical realities together –

(1) The Conquest of Israel and Jerusalem;

(2) Commandeering Temple Mount and supplanting it with the Dome of the Rock, and defying Christianity’s core Trinitarian belief;

(3) The Persecution of Jews from the time of Muhammad;

(4) The Partnership of Muslims in the Holocaust led by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Amin Husseini (Nazi Collaborators: The Grand Mufti);

(5) The Attempted Annihilation of the Modern State of Israel and the continuing wars to do so, even to this day;

(6) The Persecution of Christians, in history as well as in modern times on the grandest of scales;

– we are faced with the reality that, on top of the fact that the Islamic Ottoman Empire succeeded the Roman Empire in 1453, it overwhelmingly fulfils the criterion of the persecution of Israel, Jews and Christians. Therefore I ask, what reason did you have for leaving them out of your list? Islam is the biggest one to fulfil your criterion!

The Alleged 1260 Years

What about the 1260 years? Well, you simply ignored the historical reality that the Ostrogoths ended in 550s (Encyclopaedia Britannica), which was even supported by a seasoned Adventist scholar (Samuele Bacchiochi). Your reaction was just continuing believing the invented reality, that says the Ostrogoths ended in 538. But ignoring historical realities by actual historical works aren’t a good way of saying that your version is true – on the contrary it’s the best way to demonstrate that its not true.

Let’s look at your claims in more detail. The issue is about the Papacy rising to supremacy after being established in 538, thus beginning its reign of persecution:

“The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538…” – Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (1888), p. 266.

“When Justinian’s general Belisarius liberated Rome in A. D. 538, the bishop of Rome was freed from the control of the Ostrogoths, whose Arianism had resulted in their restricting the developing Catholic Church. Now the bishop could exercise the prerogatives Justinian’s decree of A. D. 533 had granted him; he could increase the authority of the “Holy See.” Thus began the 1260 years of persecution as Bible prophecy foretold.” – General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists Believe… A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, (Review and Herald Publishing Assoc.: Maryland, 1988), p. 156.

You expand it a little more:

“After Emperor Justinian's appointee Pope Vigilius was installed 29 March 537 the Goth's siege of Rome was broken and King Witigis was virtually powerless after 538. Thus Vigilius was finally enabled to act as the surrogate Western Roman power over state and church. The popes maintained their authority until the French imprisoned Pope Pius VI in 1798.”

Lets look exactly at what this traditional position says and then examine it with actual history.

According to this position, (1) Pope Vigilius was freed from the Ostrogoths (2) which resulted in the Papacy rising to its supremacy, (3) and thus began a period of Papal persecution. The issue isn’t about King Vitigis of the Ostrogoths specifically. It is about Pope Vigilius being freed from the power of the Ostrogoths.

(1) Was Pope Vigilius Free after 538?: Totilla and the Recapture of Rome by the Ostrogoths

The answer is only for a certain time, until 546 when Totila, the Ostrogoths’ greatest ruler, reacquisitioned and raided Rome:

“Hildebad [the Ostrogoth King] meanwhile had been murdered, as had his immediate successors; and so the way was clear for the rise to power of the greatest, as well as most attractive, of all the Gothic rulers. Totila was Hildebad’s nephew, still in his middle twenties. Once in power he galvanised the Goths as none of his predecessors had done… Within months of his accession Totila was strong enough to drive back one imperial army of 12,000 men from the gates of Verona, and to annihilate another in pitched battle outside Faenza. In the spring of 542, some fifteen miles north of Florence, he completely routed John’s army. By the late summer he had subjugated all Italy apart from Ravenna, Rome, Florence and a few coastal cities. Chief among the latter was Naples; and it was to Naples that he now laid siege. The Gothic blockade of the city was total; and in May the Neapolitans were starved into surrender… The fall of Naples, for the second time in seven years, dealt a further blow to Byzantine morale. In January 544 the Greek generals in their various redoubts wrote to Justinian that they could no longer defend the imperial cause in Italy; it was this letter, almost certainly, that decided the Emperor to send back Belisarius… During this time, however, he [Belisarius] had understood all too clearly how the situation had changed during his absence. It was now no longer just the Goths who were actively hostile; it was virtually the whole population. With the forces at his command he might just succeed in maintaining an imperial presence in Italy; but he could never reconquer it… Almost simultaneously, the army of Totila reached Rome and laid siege to the city… The last chance had been lost: Rome’s fate was sealed. Yet it never surrendered. On the night of 17 December 546 a group of four discontented soldiers of the garrison opened up the Asinarian Gate, and the Goths flooded in… Bessas [commander of the imperial garrison] took flight at once, and several of the Roman nobles rode off with him. The remainder sought refuge in the churches till Totila had brought his men under control, then slowly emerged to resume their search for food until supplies in the city returned to normal. Of the populace, Procopius tells us that only 500 were left. Although the fall of Rome was of little strategic significance, as a symbol it was all-important.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), pp. 76-78.

This was to happen again in 550, with permanent consequence, which saw the Ostrogoths under Totila stay in Rome permanently, albeit for only a few years:

“On 16 January 550, history repeated itself and another group of disaffected Isaurians in the Roman garrison opened the gates to Totila’s men. Whereas in 546 the Goths had entered the city as raiders, they now showed every sign of staying. Many of them appropriated empty houses and settled in with their families; refugees were encouraged to return; damaged buildings were repaired and restored. The following summer Totila revived the games in the Circus Maximus, personally presiding over them from the imperial box. This last insult finally stung Justinian to action. He immediately looked for a new commander-in-chief for Italy, choosing not Belisarius but the eunuch Narses, now well into his seventies.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), pp. 79-80.

So how could it be true that the Papacy was somehow freed in 538 from the Ostrogoths when it was raided in 546 and occupied in 550 by those very Ostrogoths? That is truly a strange definition of being free.

In truth the final end of the Ostrogoths holding Rome occurred a few years later, from their defeat in 552(/554) by the eunuch Narses sent by the Roman Emperor Justinian:

“In the early summer of 552 Narses and his army of 35,000 men began their march into Italy. Advancing around the head of the Adriatic to Ravenna, they continued southward down the Via Flaminia, Totila meanwhile advancing up the same road to block their path. So it was that one day towards the end of June the Roman and Gothic armies met for the decisive encounter of the war. It was over quite quickly: the Gothic army was progressively outflanked and outfought until, as the sun was sinking, it fled in panic and disorder, the Byzantines in hot pursuit. Totila himself, mortally wounded, took flight with the rest and died a few hours later.

Under Teia, one of the bravest of Totila’s generals, the Goth continued the struggle as Narses advanced southward. Rome itself fell after a brief siege – changing hands for the fifth time since the beginning of Justinian’s reign – but the old eunuch marched on. It was in the valley of the river Sarno, a mile or two from Pompeii, that in October 552 Romans and Goths met for the coup de grace. Teia was soon felled by a well-aimed javelin; and on the evening of the following day the few surviving Goths agreed to negotiate. By the terms of the subsequent treaty, they undertook to leave Italy and to engage in no further warfare against the Empire. That desperate battle beneath Vesuvius marked the defeat of the Goths in Italy. Justinian’s grandest ambition was realized at last.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), p. 80.

“In the summer of 551, Narses was in charge of operations against barbarian raiders, mainly Huns, Gepids, and Lombards, who were devastating the Balkans. Later that year, with the resurgence of Ostrogothic power in Italy under Totila, Narses headed for Italy with 30,000 troops. He defeated the Ostrogothic forces under Totila (who died of his wounds) in June 552, at Taginae in the Apennines. During the next two years, he crushed scattered Ostrogothic resistance.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Narses,” http://www.britannica.com/biography/Narses-Byzantine-general.

Looking at your claims again, it could hardly be said that from 538 the Pope was freed from the Ostrogoths. In truth, this happened from 552 onwards.

(2) Was the Papacy in a Position to Persecute?: Pope Vigilius is Cowed, Reviled, Banished and Broken

We have already seen that Rome, under Pope Vigilius, was reconquered and reoccupied in 546 and 550 by Totila of the Ostrogoths, and therefore was definitely not be in any position to pursue such an undertaking – it was trying merely to survive and rebuild at this point. But it gets worse. Not only was he not in any position to persecute, he was kidnapped by the Roman Emperor Justinian and brought to Constantinople. There he was pressed by the Emperor and Empress to put his support to an imperial edict called ‘Three Chapters’ against his will (this decree was Emperor Justinian’s attempt to resolve a sectarian dispute between the Orthodox bishops and Monophysite bishops (those who believed Jesus was only God) by condemning another group, the Nestorians, hoping that both Orthodox and Monophysite would unite against a common ‘enemy’). Vigilius eventually capitulated. So much for unleashing Papal persecuting power – more like cowed into submission.

“Eighteen months later, however, Totila was at the gates of Rome. Were he to capture the city he might hold the Pope hostage, with disastrous consequences. Justinian acted quickly. On 22 Novemer 545 a company of the imperial guard arrived in Rome, seized Vigilius and carried him off to Constantionple. Once there, the constant pressure exerted by the Emperor and Empress began to wear him down. On 29 June he was officially reconciled with the [Monophysite] Patriarch, and on 11 April 548 he published his Judicatum, in which he solemnly anathematised the Three Chapters.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), p. 79.

As if that wasn’t worse enough, after retracting his support for the edict, Pope Vigilius was in the end excommunicated by the Emperor:

“On 14 May, the Pope issued a so-called Constitutum, declaring the entire agitation to be unfounded and unnecessary and forbidding any ecclesiastic to venture any further opinion on it… Now at last Justinian could treat Vigilius as he deserved. On receipt of the Constitutum he sent the Council three documents. The first was the text of a secret declaration by the Pope of June 547, anathematising the Three Chapters; the second was an oath to work for their general condemnation; and the third was a decree that his name should be struck from the diptychs – virtually a sentence of excommunication. On 26 May the Council formally endorsed the Emperor’s decree and condemned the Pope in its turn, ‘until he should repent his errors’. For Vigilius, it was the end of the road.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), p. 81.

As a result of the Pope’s re-capitulation he was seen as a traitor by many, and was reviled throughout western Christendom:

“The Pope was now generally reviled throughout Western Christendom as a turncoat and an apostate. In Carthage indeed, the bishops went further still and excommunicated him.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 31.

Finally and pitifully he was disgraced, banished, broken in body and spirit, and died miserably of sickness, alone on his journey home:

“For Vigilius, it was the end of the road. Disgraced and banished to an island in the Marmara, he was told that until he accepted the findings of the Council he would never be permitted to return to Rome. Not for another six months – by which time he was suffering agonies from gallstones – did he capitulate; but when at last he did so, his surrender was absolute… By now too ill to travel, he remained for another year in Constantinople and only then, in a brief respite from pain, started for home. But the effort was too great. On the way his condition suddenly worsened. He was obliged to interrupt his journey at Syracuse; and there, broken alike in body and spirit, he died. For him there was to be no tomb in St Peter’s.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 35.

My question to those who still continue to believe that in Pope Vigilius was the fury of Papal supremacy and persecution unleashed onto the populace, what part of his actual story do you ascribe this to? It should be undeniably clear by now that this myth is refuted in utter totality.

(3) Was this the Time of Papal Supremacy?: Pope Vigilius Marks An All-Time Low for Papal Prestige

Did the legacy of Pope Vigilius mark the grand supremacy of the Papacy? Absolutely not. In fact, the abject contrary is true. This was an utter low point of the papal prestige, and this legacy would continue on in Vigilius’ successor:

“The story of Vigilius did untold harm to the papacy; and when his successor Pelagius I (556-61) on his accession instantly added his voice to the condemnation, papal prestige lay in tatters. Several sees – including those of Milan and Aquileia – broke off communion with Rome; it was to be half a century before relations were restored with Milan, one and a half before Aquileia and Istria returned to the fold. Meanwhile, in 555 Justinian had decreed that in future the Emperor’s personal fiat (‘Let it be done’) must be obtained for any election of a Bishop of Rome.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), pp. 35-36.

By now it should be obvious that this century and a half old relic from a bygone era, is totally indefensible. It is simply a myth created by prejudice. It cannot be upheld against any serious historical investigation.

I have already shown by historical references that the Papacy did not actually fall in 1798 but rather, saw a resurgence in political prowess. The actual fact of the matter is that the political power of the Papacy ended in 1870. And since there was no refutation of either of these points it seems unnecessary to repeat it. Nevertheless, it remains unchallenged and uninjured. The veracity of it is so undeniable that even seasoned Adventist scholar, retired professor of Andrews University, has had to acknowledge it:

“The death of Pius VI [1798] can hardly be seen as the "abolishment" or "the downfall of the Papacy." It was simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8, 1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pius VII, in deference to his predecessor. The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in 1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated the extent of the Papal authority in France. The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority…”

“In my view, a more important humiliation of the papacy occurred on September 20, 1870, when, as mentioned earlier, Victor Emmanuel II, King of Sardinia and later first King of Italy, captured Rome and took over the States of the Church which included most of the central part of Italy from Naples to Ravenna. The annexation of these territories which the Pope had controlled since 756, was necessary in order to unify Italy into one nation. The loss of the States of the Church in 1870 marks the end of the temporal rule of the Papacy. The Pope was no longer a political ruler with his own territory, known, as "PATRIMONIUM PETRI - The Patrimony of St. Peter." He was left only with the Vatican, the Lateran, and Castel Gandolfo - a situation which has remained unchanged to this very day. The Pope protested, excommunicated Victor Emmanuel, and declared himself "prisoner of the Vatican."” – Samuele Bacchiocchi, End-Times Issues Newsletter, No. 87, A Reply To Criticism: Part I “The Use of E. G. White’s Writing in Interpreting Scripture”, (1 August 2002), http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html.

This myth should once and for all be laid bare, exposed and rejected, or else it will remain a total embarrassment to the Adventist claim of having the truth.

Last note about the 1260 years in the way that you uniquely apply it both before (“there were about 1260-years from Moses birth in Egypt until Christ's birth”) and after Christ (“Papal Rome tried to kill the Manchild's people for 1260-years after Christ ascended to Heaven”). There simply aren’t 1260 years between Moses and Jesus, and the 1260 after Jesus that you allege begins in 538 – 500 years after Christ. That’s 500+1260=1760 years! It’s time to rethink and reassess everything that you know.

The Alleged Papal Beast

To your disadvantage, you didn’t even address my point of how Rev. 13’s own criteria of the Beast being composed of Lion-Bear-Leopard totally disqualifies the Papacy being the Beast. It’s worth mentioning briefly to remind us what the point entails.

An empire is defined by its territories (dictionary definition).
The Lion, Bear and Leopard represent the empires of Neo-Babylon, Achaemenid Persia and Macedonian Greece. Their empires consisted of territories that spanned the Middle East.
Therefore, the Beast Empire consists of Middle Eastern territories that were encompassed by those empires.

It turns out that the Pope never owned even a patch of the Middle East, let alone the vast swathes like those empires. The Islamic Caliphate however, has always historically conquered those areas, having a legacy today that leaves Islam’s mark on the region despite the Caliphate finally abolished in 1924:

“Within little more than a century after the Prophet’s dead, the whole area had been transformed, in what was surely one of the swiftest and most dramatic changes in the whole of human history. By the late seventh century, the outside world attests the emergence of a new religion and a new power, the Muslim empire of the caliphs, extending eastwards in Asia as far as and sometimes beyond the borders of India and China, westwards along the southern Mediterranean coast to the Atlantic, southwards towards the lands of the black peoples in Africa, northwards into the lands of the white peoples of Europe. In this empire, Islam was the state religion, and the Arabic language was rapidly displacing others to become the principal medium of public life.

Today, more than fourteen centuries after the beginning of the Muslim era, the Arab empire of the caliphs has long since passed away. But in all the countries that the Arabs conquered, except only in Europe in the west and Iran and Central Asia in the east, colloquial Arabic, in a variety of forms, remains the spoken language of the people, and literary Arabic remains the principal instrument of commerce, culture and government. As the language of religion – of scripture, theology and holy law – Arabic spread far beyond the lands of Arab speech and later beyond the limits Arab conquest into many regions in Asia and Africa that never knew Arab rule.” – Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day, (London: Phoenix Press, London, 2005), p. 55.

Conclusion

I want to draw all the major points together in a quick summary since I have said quite a lot, and it might be necessary to recap:

The 7^th Head Still Follows the 6^th: even by using Rev. 12 as the anchor point like you do, the 6^th Head is still succeeded by the 7^th Head. Therefore when the Roman Empire falls in 1453 the only candidate available to succeed it is the Islamic Ottoman Empire since it is the Ottoman Empire that ultimately brought down the Roman Empire.
The Criterion of Using the Death of the Manchild Qualifies the Islamic Empire more so that the Papacy: the legacy of Islam, from its inception to the present day has persecuted Jews and Christians for 1400 years, and still does so today. At its peak it was the fear of Europe, its Sultan being “the most powerful man in the world,” and was close to total world conquest at the Siege of Vienna in 1684. It has seized Jerusalem and Israel and only lost it after the First World War to the British (by contrast the Crusades only mark a mere 88 years on the city’s timeline). And ever since World War II, the Rebirth of Israel in 1948, and subsequent wars like the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Muslims have sought to annihilate Jews and the state of Israel irrevocably. Even today the rhetoric continues among all radical Islamists, including ISIS and Iran. The Papacy simply doesn’t have that historical and contemporary persecuting clout to outdo Islam on this.
The traditional interpretation of the ‘1260 Years’ is an utter myth, refuted by the simple historical reality that in Pope Vigilius (the pope in whose reign was supposed to mark the ‘supremacy’ of the Papacy) marks one of the Papacy’s lowest ebbs, and in Pope Pius VII marks a resurgence in Papal achievements (a pope after the one in whom it was supposed to have fallen).
The Beast’s composition indicates a makeup of Babylonian-Persian-Hellenist empire territories to which only Islam, not the Papacy, has fulfilled.

We are now in the 21^st century where access to information is at an all time high. Books, documentaries, news articles, are available like never before. And yet Adventist leadership still has you believe this mythological relic from the 19^th century is a fact, but which is totally abashed by the clear historical data. If pastors would just simply read a history book or encyclopaedia whilst they did their Master’s degree in mythology they might have found that out and saved wasted time and money, and would have prevented leading unsuspecting vulnerable people astray. But their ignorance reveals that the blind are still leading the blind. But its time that this blindness is revealed and perhaps sight can be restored to some again.

And since you are writing a book, I would advise you to read other books, especially historical books, if you’re going to be able to sustain one iota of credibility on this issue. Otherwise, someone who knows better will just bring out those facts that refute these myths and will not be so kind. I respect your stand for the truth. Just ensure that it is truth you are actually standing for and not tradition.

God be with you in your quest and in writing your book.

March 10, 2016

On 08/03/2016 at 6:35 PM, JoeMo said:

If this attitude doesn't change, I fear that the free world will lose the war before they even realize they were in one.

You said it brother.

As I read your post on the goings on in the States I am dumbfounded. It is truly shocking the level to which Western society has bent over backwards to accommodate this radicalism. It truly is. I appreciate your informing me of these things also, since its virtually impossible to keep up with the takeover. And that in itself (unable to keep up with the Islamization of societies around the world) should be testimony in and of itself of how real and overwhelming this situation is. I'm blown away, truly. It is already impossible to ignore, but as it gets worse and worse (which it undoubtedly will) it will be utterly impossible to fight back. That's because, like you said, its already here, crippling any criticism of it, and already punishing those who do. I was disgusted and aghast, dismay, I can't find the words, when it was reported all over the news here of the hundreds of women who were sexually assaulted in Germany on New Years Eve by, you guessed it, Muslims, particularly the newest batch of migrants. And I was in utter disbelief that the mayor of Cologne, I think it was, who blamed the victims! How sickening! There truly are no leaders or spokespersons, religious or secular (except a handful), who are fighting this battle.

God bless you always Jo for your support (your encouragement to writing a book is still ringing in my ears - interestingly enough, I have actually been thinking to do so for a long time. At one point a lot of my research was lost since my laptop broke down. But getting into this forum, and hearing what you said, has really got me inspired to resume that pursuit. Thanks so much again brother! Take care.)

On 08/03/2016 at 6:35 PM, JoeMo said:

Quit worrying about a National Sunday Law and start worrying about a National Friday Law.

That is exactly it! That's a good way of putting it!

March 11, 2016

On 08/03/2016 at 9:34 PM, hch said:

I am a truth seeker and I have to follow the facts where ever they lead.

hch,

Joe's right. We are together on this. And I agree with him also on the circular reasoning that you employ (as you will see from my newest post). Whilst you say the above, I invite you to read the many historical facts that I have presented, which I hope you will read, and maybe change your mind about the many things that you've said, if it is facts that you follow.

God bless

March 11, 2016

10 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

The first reason is, you don’t provide any evidence at all to demonstrate how the Papacy directly succeeded the Roman Empire after its Fall. You simply presume it.

Doubter,

Having read kind though your lengthy introduction, I hope to keep my reply to the point.

My synopsis of the FACTS was never intended to be "proof" of anything. To presume that evidence does not exist because it was not provided at the time of the statement is an unwarranted assumption.

The Bible is the word of God, the writings of Ellen White are trustworthy, and history depicts prophecy fulfilled (whether partial or complete is to be determined by study). The papacy succeeded the Roman Empire: It managed the affairs of state in what had been the Western Roman Empire.

"The vast empire of Rome crumbled to pieces, and from its ruins rose that mighty power, the Roman Catholic Church. This church boasts of her infallibility and her hereditary religion." {YI, September 22, 1903 par. 6}

"Notwithstanding that vice prevailed, even among the leaders of the Romish Church, her influence seemed steadily to increase. About the close of the eighth century, papists put forth the claim that in the first ages of the church the bishops of Rome had possessed the same spiritual power which they now assumed. To establish this claim, some means must be employed to give it a show of authority; and this was readily suggested by the father of lies. Ancient writings were forged by monks. Decrees of councils before unheard of were discovered, establishing the universal supremacy of the pope from the earliest times. And a church that had rejected the truth, greedily accepted these deceptions." {GC88 56.2}

"Thus the pope came to be almost universally acknowledged as the vicegerent of God on earth, endowed with authority over Church and State." {GC88 51.3}

March 11, 2016

11 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

You start off with Ellen White’s interpretation and take it as fact, without question. But you still have to prove that what she says is true.

I have taken the time to confirm the reliability of EGW's writings to my satisfaction. That is settled for me. I do not have to prove EGW. Thus without a doubt her writings (correctly understood) have more credibility than others folks who never had the blessing of divine inspiration. You may choose to discount her views, others have tried and failed. But when all is said and done: Bible first, EGW second, and history (history is not as reliable as it once was with the revisionists trying to do their dire work).

March 11, 2016

11 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

No matter how one wants to interpret Rev. 12 it still has to be in harmony with the clearer explanation given in Rev. 17. Why? Simply because the 6^th Head is followed by the 7^th in both cases. Pretty straightforward. And since we agree that the 6^th Head is the Roman Empire, the 7^th must be the empire that followed it.

Doubter,

This is where your reasoning has become faulty. Revelation repeats and enlarges.

The 7 heads of the dragon beast in Revelation 12 were the kingdoms from Egypt to papal Rome. Egypt tried to kill the Manchild by killing all the male Hebrew babies. For 1260-years Satan worked through 6 pagan nations to accomplish that goal, until he finally killed Christ (the grown Manchild) through pagan Rome. The Exodus from Egypt is dated by some historians 1200-1300 BCE. It does not take a math genius to see that 1260-years have transpired from Egypt to the birth of Christ in the pagan Roman kingdom. Then the 7th head on the beast in Rev 12 is papal Rome.

Revelation 13 repeats and enlarges the 7th head on the beast in Rev 12. It is presented in 13 as if it had become the beast and as the beast, it has 7 heads. One of its heads is wounded and healed. So which head of the papal beast was wounded?

FACT: The Pius head (Pius VI was captured by French February 1798).

The secular kingdom was taken from Pius VI at that time and he was made subject to the will of the French. Under French control the popes enacted reforms that they were only too happy to revoke when they thought that they had the power to do so. But the loss of papal authority could not be more obvious than during Italian unification. Italy took the papal states and France negotiated a set border with Italy while allowing the annexation and the pope was powerless to stop Italy from moving the capitol to Rome.

The Pius head counterfeited Christ's Friday death, Sabbath rest in the grave, and Sunday resurrection as much as God would allow. Pius VI was imprisoned in 1798 & died in captivity, there was no pope for most of 1799, and the Pius head was resurrected in 1800 when Pius VII was installed as pope. But the healed Pius papal head was not the powerful secular authority that it had been prior to 1798.

FACT: Mussolini restored secular authority to Pope Pius XI in 1929.

The Pius head that had been wounded was healed.

From the 1929 secular healing of the papacy, there have only been 7 pope to head the papal kingdom as solo popes like the popes that had ruled for at least 800-years before France deposed Pope Pius VI. The Francis head is a dual pope. Since Benedict is alive there are 2 living popes. Francis includes Benedict in almost everything.

When Revelation 17 repeats and enlarges, the beast is still the papacy. And the 7-heads are still the 7-solo popes: Pius XI & XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I & II, and Benedict XVI (he was allotted a short space 29 March 2006 to 28 February 2013). See my earlier explanation of his short space being less than 7-years,

The beast in Rev 17 is allowed one hour. Sin is allowed 7000-years. 6000 to deceive man. 1000-years for Satan to be in the abyss. So an hour in that setting is 1/12 of 1000-years =83-years 4-months. The deadly wound was healed in 1929. From Yom Kippur 1929 (14 October 1929) the 83-years 4-month hour ends 14 February 2013. Pope Benedict had announced his resignation 11 Feb 2013 to be effective 2/28/13.

Conclusion: to ignore the facts above in favor of a well crafted illusion that does not follow the Bible's model of repeat and enlarge is to be blinded by assumption when it is time to watch the FACTS.

Thomas Doubter: you can have the world but give me Jesus. His word is sure and by studying it in conjunction with the writings of Ellen White, I have come to an understanding that will stand as the final events rapidly unfold around us.

I am not going to spend hours here "proving" this. It is in my book (The Great Controversy: Earth's Gran Finale) with so much more (details and dates). A major publisher of Christian literature has contacted me for the right to review this work, so I will delay self-publication until they make their decision re. publication.

March 11, 2016

12 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

The Seventh Head Still Follows the Sixth: The Islamic Ottoman Empire Still Follows the Roman Empire

Thomas,

As I continued reading your post I noticed the apparent disagreement above.

In Rev 12 the 6th head is pagan Rome. Thus the 7th head is papal Rome that I explained at length in my previous post. But you completely gloss over papal Rome to make the Ottoman Empire the 7th head when it would be the 8th.

The good news is that as the idol in Daniel 2 had 2 iron legs that extended into the feet of iron and clay. Likewise pagan Rome divided into 2 kingdoms: Eastern and Western Roman Empire (they were both divided by 10 tribes). So while the prophecy focused on the Western Roman Empire, God did not forget the Eastern Roman Empire.

In the Eastern Roman Empire Presidents Bush II and Obama have fell Afghanistan and Iraq. And my study indicates that President Obama will fell Iran (3 of the 10 horns dividing what had been a part of the Eastern Roman Empire).

So where we have appeared to take different views, when Iran fulfills the ships from Chittim in Daniel 11 and Obama fulfills 11:30 and beyond you will have an opportunity to view the bigger picture: Rome, the Eastern Roman Empire, and the USA turning on God's people.

We are in the final sealing time and the sleeping Virgins will soon be distinguished from the virgins that have aroused from their slumber and are preparing to meet the Bridegroom.

Keep studying, praying, and clinging to Jesus.

March 12, 2016

Here are 2 videos, sermons, or whatever you'd lie to call them by Kenneth Cox about Revelation 17:

Revelation 17 Explained : Great Harlot/Whore of Babylon, Scarlet Beast - Ps K Cox

Revelation 17 Commentary: Ten Kings and Great Whore of Babylon - Pastor Kenneth Cox video sermon

March 12, 2016

Reading through your well referenced documentation Thomas, and Joe's review of Obama's support of the Islamic agenda, was GREAT!! I can see Islam as the 7th "head". I'm just not sure THAT head will also be the 8th head.

Gabriel told the prophet Daniel that the vision of the Ram and Goat was for the "time of the end".

"for the vision belongeth to the time of the end" (Dan 8:17 ASV)

"the vision refers to the time of the end" (Dan 8:17 CJB)

"at the time of the end shall be the vision" (Dan 8:17 KJV)

"the vision pertains to the time of the end" (Dan 8:17 NAU)

"the vision concerns the time of the end" (Dan 8:17 NIV)

"the vision is for the time of the end" (Dan 8:17 NRS)

I'm thinking the ENTIRE vision is describing events to take place at the "time of the end". Traditional Christian explanation has been to put most of it back in ancient history.

Daniel 8:19 He said, "Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. (NAU)

The events described in this vision will BRING the END of this age!

NOW - the RAM, pushing North, South, and West - but not East towards China. Daniel is told the "two horns--they are the kings of Media and Persia". WHO are these "kings" at the "time of the end". Islam is made up of Sunni and Shia. I believe these are the "two horns". Persia IS Iran. Iran is Shiite. The center of the Median empire was Northern Irac, Southern Syria. The Kurds claim to be descendants of the Medes. This is where ISIS is. ISIS is Sunni.

This RAM is going to do something so terrible that the WEST (the Western powers - the goat) will finally react with great force. The Western powers - led by the "notable horn" = the United States, will come at the Islamic forces with great fury. And they WILL soundly defeat them!! Could it be the Iranians finally land a bomb, and destroy the Old City of Jerusalem?

What happens at this battle?

Daniel 8:7 "And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. (NKJ)

So there's the END of the 7th head - the end time Muslim empire.

But what comes AFTER the Ram is stomped on? Answer: The little horn

In the WEST, the "notable horn" is "broken without hand". A financial collapse??? In it's place 4 horns grow. And out of one of the 4 comes a little horn, that subdues the other 3 horns.

This little horn "grew exceedingly great" and "(v.11) "exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host" and "by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down". The trampling of the sanctuary and the host will last for 2300 evening/morning. Then the sanctuary will be "cleansed" (set right).

This definitely involves Jerusalem. The "little horn" ON the "terrible beast" takes over the Temple Mount, and exalts himself. I believe he will demand that all men serve him. The little horn has all the earmarks of the Antichrist!! Now - just exactly WHO this will be - pope or other - we don't see yet.

THIS IS ALL END TIME!!!!

I personally believe the "notable horn" represents the USA. Who else could lead and power a war against Islamic nations? After the war, our economy is broken and the nations of the world don't need us any longer, to fight their battles. The 4 horns come up IN PLACE OF the big notable horn. The four horns are the SAME AS the "four beasts" of Daniel 7. Lion, bear, leopard, and terrible beast.

The little horn comes out of the "terrible beast" in the Daniel 7 vision. It comes out of one of the 4 horns in the Daniel 8 vision. This is the rise of the 8th "head". This is WHEN it comes to power. After war between the West and the Ram.

Personally - I see this war coming like a freight train.

March 12, 2016

Thomas,

You must read a million words a minute; and type equally as fast. I continue to be astounded by the depth of your research and the eloquence of your presentation. I really hope people are taking the time to read through your posts. They exquisitely document just about everything that I simply ramble on about.

You referred at leat once to Montifiore's "Jerusalem - The Biography" - one of the most fascinating and educational books I have ever read on the history of the Middle East.

I can't confirm it, but it seems to me that you may be spiritually gifted in the area of research and discernment. I feel the same way about a few other posters on here.

Blessings to you, Brother!

March 13, 2016

22 hours ago, phkrause said:

Here are 2 videos, sermons, or whatever you'd lie to call them by Kenneth Cox about Revelation 17:

Thanks for sharing these videos. I just wish that Kenneth was not so out of date. He identifies the woman as the papacy.

"The term Babylon is derived from Babel, and signifies confusion. It is employed in Scripture to designate the various forms of false or apostate religion. In Revelation 17, Babylon is represented as a woman, a figure which is used in the Bible as the symbol of a church, a virtuous woman representing a pure church, a vile woman an apostate church." {GC88 380.3}

"Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. Furthermore, in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation, in a message which is yet future, the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God's people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. At the time of their rise, these churches took a noble stand for God and the truth, and his blessing was with them. Even the unbelieving world was constrained to acknowledge the beneficent results that followed an acceptance of the principles of the gospel. In the words of the prophet to Israel, “Thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty; for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God.” But they fell by the same desire which was the curse and ruin of Israel,—the desire of imitating the practices and courting the friendship of the ungodly. “Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown.” {GC88 382.3}

The beast is the papacy. The woman is apostate Protestantism for the papacy is not riding itself. Protestantism is clinging to the fornications of the fallen papal-beast.

March 13, 2016

Nope they are Egypt, Assyria, Neo Babylon, Persia, Greece, Papal Rome and Pagan Rome. Let see if this make sense:

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. Rev 17:9 , 10

Now this is simple history, the angel is talking to John. Five had fallen Egypt, Assyria, Neo Babylon Persia and Greece. I suspect that is five right. What one is, if you have wisdom, why Pagan Rome still and the short time is Papal Rome. Those have always been the 7 heads or Kingdoms after Nimrod world empire was stopped and his pagan religion was spread throughout the world. But here is the wisdom, only the empires that had direct contact with those who were chosen by ELOHIM to spread the Gospel. YAHWEH gave it to the Canaanites first, who had beside Adam the only known High Priest of THE MOST HIGH and he was also the king of what city. Salem the short form of Jerusalem. I hate inform you but ELOHIM came to the Black first, and he gave them 430 years and then gave the brown skin people 490 years and both were check mate of the scene. No its been Japheth time and he is about out of time to. When the 8th head arises it will be to late. He is not the papacy but he will destroy the whore according to the Bible which is the will of THE FATHER. It is all in the Bible. Can we discuss it with prayer and an open mind with THE HOLY SPIRIT Wisdom please! Oh I am a SDA so please stop think that I am not okay! I just believe we has stop studying that is all!

Blessings!

March 14, 2016

On Monday, March 07, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Thomas the Doubter said:

Kevin H,

Ignoring the Biblical Explanation in Rev. 17

I’m not sure if you’re gauging my actual points, because it does seem that you’re side-stepping them. You refer to “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy” as if that somehow proves a case for a Papal Seventh Head.

I have not been online for a few days, so I have not yet had a chance to read your post. I will give it careful consideration. However I need to start out with shock of this comment. I hope that you will come back here and said "I'm sorry I typed this sentence too fast and 'Papal Seventh Head' was typed by mistake since most people I am discussing this topic with believe in the Papal Seventh Head."

If you did not mistype then could you point out anyplace where I supported a Papal Seventh head? I've been here with you warning against the tradition of the Papal 7th head. I am just following how I understand the Bible to teach. I see the Papacy as having played a huge role under the 5th head, and that we are wrong when we are looking forward to a return to the 5th head instead of moving on to the 7th head. That the 7th head is different from the other 5 heads because the other 5 were political conquests, but the 7th head is predicted in the Bible to be the whole world submitting to the corporate and banking cartels/ the merchants of the earth. They control our money and decide who are able to buy and sell. We are seeing this happening today. We are seeing the whole world uniting behind this. Ever read the book "The Rich and the Superrich"? http://www.amazon.com/The-Rich-Super-Rich-Study-Power/dp/0818400692 There is only a handful of families who own everything and control all of us including the people you are worried about.

Now the Papacy has a habit of USUALLY (not always) joining the wrong side in issues. We have "The Keys of His Blood" that was showing how Pope John-Paul II was working with this group (although towards the end of his life he became critical of this and started giving quotes that showed a better understanding of Adventist Eschatology than we were giving). The office of the Papacy is becoming the moral voice of this group, but we are not going back to the 5th head where the Papacy played a central role. Under the 7th head the Papacy will only have a supporting role. And while we are looking for the Pope to become the center of attention and while we have our front door guarded against the pope, we are welcoming the developing 7th head through the back door.

March 15, 2016

In Rev 17:10, 5 "heads"/kings/mountains had fallen when John received the vision. One "was". That would make pagan Rome the 6th head. The "other" who was "yet to come" would "continue a SHORT TIME". Islam has existed since 660 AD. Not exactly a "short time".

And the Papacy also lasted longer than several of the others. Not a "short time".

Hitler lasted only a short time - compared with the other heads/kings. That is the biggest reason that I see the 8th head as being LIKE Hitler.

Now the 8th head - THAT I could definitely see lasting only a "short time".

March 15, 2016

Hch,

I see that you chosen to ignore much of what I have put forward which is extremely unfortunate indeed. By simply ranting against the insurmountable weight of historical evidence stacked against the position you have chosen to hold, only makes that position all the more embarrassing. It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s not embarrassing to reverse a position in the face of the evidence, especially since you’ve said that you “follow the evidence where it leads.” That’s what I had to do. But as long as you stay the course it will always remain that way – embarrassing. Why? Because the past doesn’t change. And all of what I presented is historically established, even acknowledged by one of Adventism’s most prestigious scholars Samuele Bacchiocchi who is himself a Professor of Church History. By pretending that there is some other reality, one is living in a fantasy.

When all is said and done it really boils down to this simple question (that I have repeated several times, which you are unwilling or unable to address): when did the Roman Empire end and who ended it? Simple really. And none of what you presented proves at all that the Papacy was any part of that – it certainly didn’t bring down and extinguish the Roman Empire, whereas the Islamic Ottoman Empire did. It’s that simple.

As for your many assertions, well, that’s all they remain to be – assertions. They simply are not facts, they are simply your misinterpretations of what the Bible has stated, and a skewed revision of historical reality. And again I say, why not accept the historical factual reality? Is it because it doesn’t fit your theory?

“My synopsis of the FACTS was never intended to be "proof" of anything. To presume that evidence does not exist because it was not provided at the time of the statement is an unwarranted assumption.”

“I am not going to spend hours here "proving" this.”

It isn’t an assumption. You simply haven’t put down any evidence. You even say that you don’t want to prove it! Surely if your position is as robust and powerful as you say it is, you could put at least one quote from an independent specialist in the field? But by refusing to do so, are you saying then that your theory must be accepted as fact simply because you say it is? And aren’t you also indirectly revealing that such a position is weak and lacking credibility if you cannot verify it by a single historical reference? If you had followed the principles I highlighted in the first paragraph about what constitutes a fact, you wouldn’t be defending a defenceless position. I understand that you might’ve invested a lot into it, and it might be hard to face the reality that it was wrong. But there certainly is no shame in turning around and following the truth. Truth only leads to life. There’s nothing shameful about that at all. I encourage you to reconsider. I was in the same position. It is certainly a shock to learn that many of the things that we have been taught are not as they were claimed to be. That is an unfortunate reality that we must face, and a chain we must break to be free. But ultimately the rewards are great: freedom, truth, love, life, adventure, spirit, wonder, awe, growth, the list is endless. There are hardships, yes (I’ve faced many as a result), but there is internal gratification, fulfilment, a walk like no other, not a perfect walk, but an adventurous one that breeds growth, understanding, passion, the fullness of life.

“The papacy succeeded the Roman Empire: It managed the affairs of state in what had been the Western Roman Empire.”

What you missed out was the fact that the Eastern Roman Emperor was still in charge of the existing Roman Empire that was run from its beating heart of Constantinople from 330 AD. In fact, the Pope Vigilius was still under the authority of Emperor Justinian as I’ve shown. Can you say he wasn’t? Moreover, Pope Vigilius died with a legacy of having brought Papal prestige to its lowest ebb, as I have shown also. Doesn’t sound much of a grand succession to the Roman Empire to me.

“I do not have to prove EGW.”

Let me put it in a way that makes it clearer. Do non-Adventists believe in Ellen White? Obviously not. Therefore how are you to convince them that what she says is true? By simply saying she is? Of course not. To convince them you’d have to refer to independent experts that verify her claims. So yes, you still have to prove what she says is true. Ironically enough, even she states this:

“If the Testimonies speak not according to this word of God, reject them.” – Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691.

Of testing Adventist beliefs she makes many other statements. I’ll only present a few:

“If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it.” - The Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. / Counsels to Writers and Editors, 44

“Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy... “ - Gospel Workers, 300. / Counsels to Writers and Editors, 43

“Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible.” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 36, 37

Finally, some of her words on using evidence and arguments/reasons:

“I have been shown that many who profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do not understand the evidences of their faith. They have no just appreciation of the work for the present time. When the time of trial shall come, there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason. Until thus tested, they knew not their great ignorance. And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief, they will be surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth.” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 39, 40

“Agitate, agitate, agitate! The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny....” - Counsels to Writers and Editors, 40

“This is where your reasoning has become faulty.”

Please enlighten me to where exactly my reasoning has “become faulty”. My reasoning is based on (1) number 6 being followed by number 7. That is all. It also based on (2) a similarity of pattern between the empires, which includes (a) conquering the previous empire, and (b) focussing on the Middle/Near East. Another one of those patterns is (c) subjugating Israel/Jerusalem and persecuting Jews and Christians (your variation would call it ‘killing the Manchild’). Islam overwhelmingly fulfils all, whereas the Papacy doesn’t. So what part of my reasoning exactly is faulty? That 7 follows 6? That the 7^th empire conquers the 6^th empire? That all the empires are focussed on the Middle/Near East? That the 7^th empire subjugates Israel/Jerusalem and persecutes Jews and Christians?

“Revelation repeats and enlarges.”

Where exactly in Revelation does it indicate or tell you that Revelation 12 and 13’s 7 seven heads are different? Please show me somewhere else in the Bible where your principle occurs. Parallels do indicate expansion on details, but they still maintain the original structure, in other words, the original structure of 7 heads that are referring to 7 empire kings. But in ch.13 you’ve decided that they don’t apply to empire kings but to 7 Popes! (Popes aren’t exactly empire kings my friend.) Then in Rev. 17 it says that they are empire kings, and you simply ignore it! Hardly the basis for a robust understanding of the 7 heads. Besides, even if we begin with Rev. 12, we still have to find out when the 6^th head (Roman Empire) ended, and who ended it. The Papacy didn’t, the Islamic Ottoman Empire did. Simple.

Question: Are you saying that we shouldn’t look for when the Roman Empire ended and who ended it?

It will not go away I’m afraid, and the more you fight against it, the more embarrassing your position becomes.

“Egypt tried to kill the Manchild by killing all the male Hebrew babies.”

What’s more you haven’t explained how by your own criterion of ‘killing the Manchild’ invalidates Islam. Islam has an even larger record of fulfilling your criterion than the Papacy, so what exact reason do you have for now ignoring it?

“The Exodus from Egypt is dated by some historians 1200-1300 BCE.”

Yes, that’s right, “some historians,” not all. That is because this is such a disputed area. In fact, there is new groundbreaking research to say that it occurred 200 years earlier (David Rohl, A Test of Time), which actually matches not just the Biblical Exodus with the archaeological evidence, it also fits Joshua, David and Solomon (and perhaps others) into the archaeological record, refuting critics of the Bible who said the events described in the Bible never occurred. I would encourage you to purchase the multi-award-winning documentary Patterns of Evidence that reveals this. In other words, this 1260-years before and after Christ doesn’t work. You didn’t even talk about the point I raised about the 1750 or so years after Christ, which totally decimates this loose theorising of Biblical interpretation.

“You can have the world but give me Jesus.”

Jesus, yes, and Jesus believes in truth my friend. He invented it. He does not speak lies. And what the Adventist tradition/leadership has told you (and told me) is misrepresentation and thus lies. When I put simple historical questions to both my pastor and all the pastors in the London area (I think it was around 50 or so) few replied, and not one wanted to answer them, and couldn’t answer them and even dismissed them. Most were silent. Why silent? Even after 150 years of existence surely there must be facts that validate their position? No, there isn’t. That’s why they were silent, including my old mentor from Adventist Muslim Relations, Petras Bahadur, the now GC President of the Adventist Muslim Relations department. But it doesn’t have to be this way for you. You don’t have to believe it. It may or may not necessarily be your fault, I don’t know, it may just be the way that you have been taught. I was always led to believe that what we were told was absolutely true. I stood for it, and told others. But I made a promise to myself after discovering some simple facts that shattered things I was taught. I said to myself, “if I can’t prove it, I won’t take a stand for it.” Then it evolved into, “if I can’t prove it, I won’t believe it.” This was because I had to answer challenges against all sorts of people: atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, non-Adventist Christians, etc. I determined that if I stood for something, I wanted to be sure that what I was standing for was true. I turned from a blindly obedient follower, to a doubting Thomas (hence, the name). And that has led me into another universe that has opened up my eyes, heart and reality to the beyond. Jesus is bigger now to me than he ever was, discovering all manner of things in innumerable areas, including the most important which is Salvation.

I encourage you, look again. Take time out. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s even more admirable to do so. The reality is encroaching upon us all. Whether we choose to accept that reality will not change it, but do it before it is too late, and all the walls of falsehood that you/we have surrounded ourselves with will collapse around us. Islam is here to stay. It is taking over. To merely challenge it, particularly here in Europe, is a dangerous prospect indeed. And no one can protect us. Its only God’s power that can sustain us.

God bless

March 15, 2016

1 hour ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

I encourage you, look again. Take time out. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s even more admirable to do so. The reality is encroaching upon us all. Whether we choose to accept that reality will not change it, but do it before it is too late, and all the walls of falsehood that you/we have surrounded ourselves with will collapse around us. Islam is here to stay. It is taking over. To merely challenge it, particularly here in Europe, is a dangerous prospect indeed. And no one can protect us. Its only God’s power that can sustain us.

Good advice for hch; and good advice for all Christians looking forward to the end of this age and the coming Kingdom. Don't leave your denominational blinders in place and miss the current "Signs of the Times"!

March 15, 2016

2 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

I see that you chosen to ignore much of what I have put forward which is extremely unfortunate indeed. By simply ranting against the insurmountable weight of historical evidence stacked against the position you have chosen to hold, only makes that position all the more embarrassing.

Doubter

In regards to your book/booklet/post:

You have chosen to read the Scriptures one way and I another. By my reading of the Scriptures with due attention to EGW, I was able to predict 8 times from 9/3/11 to 9/30/12 that Pope Benedict would not be pope in 2013. "He might last till the spring 2013" was may last post on that topic. Guess what: he did not last till the Spring. He left office in February 2013. My 8 Benedict tweets are dated in Twitter's archives. All before the fact. And history confirms my reading of Bible prophecy.

Having an understanding that was on target is not based on an embarrassing position.

From my prophetic understanding, I know that Pope Francis is a short timer, Satan will soon appear personating John-Paul II, and I know TODAY who the President of the USA will be on 1/22/2017.

Regarding all of your pompous words: "where's the beef?"

What have you shared with us that has proven itself by its dependability in regards to prophetic understanding? Your interpretation of past events? How about when the rubber meets the road? It is one thing to lament that the antediluvians should have listened to Noah and gone into the ark, it is quite another to understand before it started raining that it is time to go into the ark!

You claim that Revelation 17 has nothing to do with popes and disregard my understanding of the fulfilment of Bible prophecy when I understood ahead of time that Revelation related to popes. And my correct understanding identified when the pope in question would leave office.

I am not ashamed that I have prayerfully yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit and diligently studied Bible prophecy. I am not ashamed that it has cost me my family, friends, life's savings, job, been a source of ridicule and humiliation. I only wish that I could have awakened sooner and known how to present the glorious Present Truth in Christ in a more clear way so as to save others from their folly in rejecting of something as important to their eternal destiny. If we don't know the part that the endtime players will fulfill in the Great Controversy, we will be deceived by them.

Christian regards,

March 15, 2016

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Good advice for hch; and good advice for all Christians looking forward to the end of this age and the coming Kingdom. Don't leave your denominational blinders in place and miss the current "Signs of the Times"!

Thank you JoeMo for your concern on my behalf. But I understand the place of Islam in Bible prophecy. I am one of the few people who identified that ISIS is drying up the Euphrates to prepare the way for Christ's coming. You may have missed it:

"Study Revelation in connection with Daniel, for history will be repeated" {EGW, 1888 1491.1}

Isa_45:1 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;"

Dan 5:6 "Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed..."

During the orgy the night that ancient Babylon fell, the joints of the king's loins were loosed.

Dan 5:27 "TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting."

Dan 5:28 "PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given ..." [to those who Cyrus was to rule]

Dan 5:29 "They clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom." [Kings Nabonidus, Belshazzar, Daniel]

"Rev 18:2-3 "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen...for all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her" [as ancient Babylon was fallen, so was papal Babylon]

Pope Benedict resigned 28 February 2013 in the midst of a fornication scandal that focused on the RC's priests' "loose loins".

The prophetic earth is fallen: when USA committed the priests' fornication (gay sex) to be America's law of the land.

The Supreme Court of apostate protestant America was fallen on June 2015 because of papal Babylon's fornication

Papal-Babylon now has two living popes/kings as ancient Babylon had 2 kings until Daniel was made 3rd ruler

There is soon to be a third pope/king when Babylon's history repeats.

Because ISIS is drying up the Euphrates River [people (Rev. 17:15) along Euphrates are fleeing for their lives]

"The pope is the Vicar of Christ"

When will Satan personate Christ? When history is repeated and Babylon has its third ruler/king?

Pope Francis is a Short-Timer - Loudcryer right again?

https://youtu.be/258evSZHtZ4

You don't have long to wait to see Satan personate Christ.

" Satan will not only appear as a human being, but he will personate Jesus Christ; and the world who has rejected the truth will receive him as the Lord of lords and King of kings. He will exercise his power, and work upon the human imagination." {EGW, RH, April 14, 1896 par. 6}

There is more, but this is a quick synopsis to say the Jesus is even at the door.

“Though no man knoweth the day nor the hour of His coming, we are instructed and required to know when it is near. We are further taught that to disregard His warning, and refuse or neglect to know when His Advent is near, will be as fatal for us, as it was for those who lived in the days of Noah not to know when the flood was coming. And the parable in the same chapter contrasting the faithful and the unfaithful servant, and giving the doom of him who said in his heart, ‘My Lord delayeth His coming,’ shows in what light Christ will regard and reward those whom He finds watching, and teaching His coming, and those denying it. ‘Watch therefore,’ He says; ‘blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He cometh shall find so doing’ [Matthew 24:3, 33, 42-51]. ‘If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a Thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee’ [Revelation 3:3].” (EGW, GC88 370.2)

Christian regards.

Sign In

Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

Recommended Posts

Thomas the Doubter

Ignoring the Biblical Explanation in Rev. 17

In His Own Words: God’s Explanation of the Seven Heads

The Seventh Head is the Islamic Ottoman Empire

Alexander the Great and Mehmed II: Alleging that the 5th and 7th Heads Would Be Christian

Six Previous Fallacies

Banks and Corporations as the Antichrist?

The Banks Running Islamists

The Eighth Beast is Middle Eastern and Persecutes Christians

Black Gold: The West’s Oil Addiction

An Ominous Turn: The United States President and the Muslim Brotherhood

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thomas the Doubter

8thdaypriest

JoeMo

Posted Images

Thomas the Doubter

JoeMo

hch

JoeMo

hch

JoeMo

Thomas the Doubter

Facts

Motivation and Methodology Revisited

The Seventh Head Still Follows the Sixth: The Islamic Ottoman Empire Still Follows the Roman Empire

The Criterion of Using the Death of the Manchild (Rev. 12)

Conquering Jerusalem

Supplanting Temple Mount Worship and the Trinity

Persecution of Jews from the Dawn of Islam

The Attempted Annihilation of Israel Just as it is Reborn in 1948

The Greatest Persecution of Christians on Earth are Committed by Muslims

The Superiority and Peak of Islam

The Alleged 1260 Years

(1) Was Pope Vigilius Free after 538?: Totilla and the Recapture of Rome by the Ostrogoths

(2) Was the Papacy in a Position to Persecute?: Pope Vigilius is Cowed, Reviled, Banished and Broken

(3) Was this the Time of Papal Supremacy?: Pope Vigilius Marks An All-Time Low for Papal Prestige

The Alleged Papal Beast

Conclusion

Thomas the Doubter

Thomas the Doubter

hch

hch

hch

hch

phkrause

8thdaypriest

JoeMo

hch

stinsonmarri

Kevin H

Ignoring the Biblical Explanation in Rev. 17

8thdaypriest

Thomas the Doubter

JoeMo

hch

hch

Browse

Activity