The Little Horn--More

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://atoday.org/a-new-interpretation-of-the-little-horn-of-daniel-7-a-post-mortem/

 

[JoeMo]

No time to comment right now; but a very interesting article.  I agree with the premise.

[JoeMo]

To me, the premise of the article was to rethink the idea that the little horn is the papacy, because the papacy is not even the slightest threat to Adventism; and that the pope being taken prisoner in 1798 is historically irrelevant to most people of today compared to other worldwide geopolitical shifts over the past few hundred years.  The wild speculation on other interpretations of the 1260 days was just that - wild speculation.  But the premise of rethinking our message on the little horn (and the harlot and the antichrist) in light of present facts (present truth?) rings true to me.  I have presented my opinion on who these entities might be in other threads.  I won't rehash it here.

Could it be that prophecy has a two-fold purpose?  That it not only tells us of events that will happen, but that it also proves the omniscience and sovereign will of God when we see it happen - even if we don't see it until it unfolds?  We will then say "OOHH! God told us this would happen; and it happened just as He said it would!"  It then strengthens our confidence in prophecies dealing with events still future.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg,

 

I was interested in reading the article, but I am of the opinion that the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy, and current events are tending towards the pre-determined end at an ever increasing pace and therefore these prophecies are relevant to today. I suggest that Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 are excellent frameworks for the overall view, and then the Book of Revelation fills in some of the detail. If you remove the framework, then the detail loses its stability.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[JoeMo]

Wanderer,

Thank you for the cordial and constructive feedback.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

and you KNOW, and are 100% certain of this how? 

I don't "know" anything about future events. I am only a poster here whom I thought was allowed to freely express his opinion on what prophecy might say.  The papacy may indeed play a role in end-time events one way or another.  I just don't see it now.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would talk differently if I saw a clear line of biblical reasoning for what you have posted.

I will post my OPINION.  I'm not saying it's "new light".  1798 is a key year based on the "day for year principle (which I don't see the Bible a declaring true for all prophecy); and 538 being the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  The Eastern Roman Empire - centered in Constantinople which was named after King Constantine -  didn't fall until the middle of the 15th century when it was overrun by the Ottomans. From the viewpoint of Middle Eastern culture, THAT event was the fall of the Roman Empire.  Remember that the Bible was written from a Middle Eastern perspective - not a Western perspective.

In Daniel, the angel makes it abundantly clear that his visions involve the time of the end:

"he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” (Dan. 8:17)

"He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end." (Dan. 8:19)

"The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” (Dan. 8:26)

"Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end." (Dan. 12:9)

"As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance." (Dan. 12:13)

I have a hard time accepting that the time of the end - the 1260 days - began almost 1,500 years ago. 

I could go on with texts in Revelation, but this post is already too long.

Call me dense - it's just my opinion.  Feel free to dissect it.

[JoeMo]

More indications (not proofs) that the papacy is not the little horn (assuming that "little horn" in synonymous with "antichrist"):

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)  The Catholic Church/Papacy has never denied that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah in Hebrew).

"Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,  but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist," (1 John 4:2-3)  The Catholic Church/Papacy has never denied that Jesus is from God - His one and only Son.

"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)  The Catholic Church/Papacy has never denied that Jesus is God in the flesh.

[phkrause]

Growing up I've always been taught from many Jewish/SDA pastors, like J.M. Hoffman, Herb Silver, (have forgotten there first names) Roseman, Potland, Potash, and a number of others! Than into my older years, Batchelor, Wolhberg, Shushler, and a few more! More importantly he "takes the place of Christ/God!" Now there are obviously many that oppose Christ, are they considered anti? Not sure, but I do know one that considers himself to be the representative/takes the place on earth of Christ/God!! Of course there are other non Jewish Adventist pastors that also teach this, and all the reformers taught this, the Adventist church did not start this teaching as some seem to think! Also the Apostles taught that the anti-christ was already among them back in the days after Christ had died??

[JoeMo]

Y'all are free to believe what you believe; and I will believe what I believe.  You see what the Bible says one way, and I see it another way.  One of use is obviously wrong - maybe both of us.  Time will tell.  I'll concede your point when I see bands of marauding Catholics running around beheading people all over the world at the order of the pope.

[JoeMo]

20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There is only ONE world power that fits such descriptors ...There IS only ONE "city" on the planet that is also a sovereign power/nation, with representation by diplomats in almost every country there is.

 

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

In my post above I don't think I said any such thing about the Pope.

If you weren't speaking of the Pope, which world power were you speaking of?  If you weren't speaking of Rome, which city were you speaking of?  Not challenging you, just curious.  If you're not "naming" the Pope, what problem do you have with me opining that we should rethink calling the Pope the little horn?

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

I don't have "a problem." I have questions and I have made a point of asking people to look at that scripture and decide for themselves. IF you even have a plausible answer, I am listening.

I have no problem with any of the scriptures - they're scripture.  I just don't think they apply specifically and solely to the Pope, which is basically what the SDA Church teaches.  I don't really care if the church revisits it or not; a pronouncement by the church won't change my belief; solid events in this world might.  Don't those same scriptures also possibly pertain to Islam?

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I'll concede your point when I see bands of marauding Catholics running around beheading people all over the world at the order of the pope.

Where does it say that there will be marauding Catholics running around beheading people per the orders of the pope?

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

Where does it say that there will be marauding Catholics running around beheading people per the orders of the pope?

Isn't this what mainstream Adventism preaches?  If "Little Horn = Antichrist/beast, and the Pope is the one who ends the sacrifices and declares himself to be god, and institutes the mark of the beast and makes war against the saints, and those who are beheaded cry out from under the altar, who else could it be?  If I am misunderstanding SDA doctrine, please explain to me who SDA's thing the Little Horn is?

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

So are you saying that yes, the Pope does have "partial" involvement?

I'm saying he MAY have involvement.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Perhaps if one is an adherent to Pop-Prophecy they might; but I have never seen your posts telling us anything about that with a solid backing from scripture.

Read all of the verses you posted above!  Read the posts from Hebrews and 1 John I posted above!  IMHO, they could pertain to radical Islam just as much as Catholicism.  I have posted scripture after scripture for a few years on the possibility that Islam is the little horn.  If it isn't "solid" enough for you so be it.

I'm not going to debate this issue in vain with anyone; nor do I have to be insulted by having you call my opinions "pop prophecy" and my opinions a "shack of belief". I won't be responding to any more insults on this topic.  

[JoeMo]

22 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I'm saying he MAY have involvement.

After thinking about it, past actions by the papacy and RCC had a whole lot to do with the current animosity between Islam and Christianity (Crusades) and past animosity between Protestants and Catholics (the Inquisition); and their past actions have been influential in setting up end time events. The church has officially and publicly apologized for their past actions. It's been a different Catholic Church since Vatican II and Pope John XVIII. I don't know how much current influence they will have on future end-time events, but they ( as well as many of us Protestants)  have done a good job setting the stage - albeit without understanding the unintended consequences at the time.

[phkrause]

22 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Isn't this what mainstream Adventism preaches?

Not as far as I know?? Sorry, but I've never heard that!!

 

22 hours ago, JoeMo said:

If "Little Horn = Antichrist/beast, and the Pope is the one who ends the sacrifices

Again I've never heard that? As far as I know when Jesus died that is what ended the sacrificial system! Having said that, the Jews didn't stop right away, they stopped I believe when the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70?

 

22 hours ago, JoeMo said:

those who are beheaded cry out from under the altar,

Can I get a quote? Thanks

 

22 hours ago, JoeMo said:

If I am misunderstanding SDA doctrine, please explain to me who SDA's thing the Little Horn is?

I would say that your not misunderstanding the SDA doctrine or those that actually started that thinking, the reformers, Luther, Huss, Jerome, etc.

[B/W Photodude]

On 12/16/2018 at 7:50 PM, phkrause said:

there are other non Jewish Adventist pastors that also teach this, and all the reformers taught this, the Adventist church did not start this teaching as some seem to think! 

The whole thing regarding the Roman church was well developed before there was an SDA church. I believe Uriah Smith added to it. However, the whole topic is on my to-do list. If one was interested in preAdventist thought regarding the Roman church and it's very early pagan roots, you might look up a book called "Babylon: Mystery Religion" by Ralph Woodrow. I had an interesting discussion with him one time, at least 30 years ago, regarding things NOT in the book. He did not mention wedding rings or the Sabbath. But anything else I could possibly have wondered about, he covered it. Woodrow as I recall was a Baptist.

One interesting thing that we missed regarding the papal insignia on the papal miter was it used to be there but came off around the year 1798! So during the years SDAs have been writing about the papal insignia, that was an error in facts. 

[B/W Photodude]

On 12/16/2018 at 12:03 AM, JoeMo said:

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)  The Catholic Church/Papacy has never denied that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah in Hebrew).

---

On 12/16/2018 at 8:20 PM, The Wanderer said:

YES! And this is a very important point! Also very noteworthy is the fact that scripture uses the plural in saying "antichrists" so anyone who says its just one person, ergo a Pope, does not have a scriptural leg to stand on.

So often it becomes a semantical war here! Yes, anti-christ appears all thru the New Testament and refers to anyone who attempts to assume the place of God. Whatever the action, you get anti-christ with lower case "a".

However, there is the Anti-Christ with the upper case "A". This is for no other than Satan himself and refers to that time he will impersonate Jesus and walk on this earth and deceive the whole world.

While the popes may behave as "antichrists" they are not exclusively "the anti-christs." Dare I say there are anti-christs roaming the sanctuaries of SDA churches and even the halls of learning in SDA universities?!

[B/W Photodude]

On 12/15/2018 at 10:20 AM, JoeMo said:

No time to comment right now; but a very interesting article.  I agree with the premise.

---

On 12/15/2018 at 11:03 AM, The Wanderer said:

The whole article was ridiculous, there was no point to it. Seems like all the authors wanted to do was a turkey-shoot. 

I looked at this article and it was just another SMH moment. What part of SDA theology and beliefs have not been attacked with attempts to discredit it? 

(SMH - shaking my head)

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, phkrause said:

Not as far as I know?? Sorry, but I've never heard that!!

The part about marauding bands of Catholics was sarcastic - sorry.  The main point is that EGW in "Great Controversy" Makes it clear that the papacy will lead the world into a Sunday Law and institute the persecution of those who don't abide by it.  The Book of Revelation seems to indicate that the main form of execution will be beheading.  I believe that "Great Controversy" also identifies the Pope as the one who goes into the temple and declares himself to be God.

13 hours ago, phkrause said:

Can I get a quote? Thanks

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:" (Rev. 6:9)  It does say "slain" rather than "beheaded".

[B/W Photodude]

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

 The Book of Revelation seems to indicate that the main form of execution will be beheading.  I believe that "Great Controversy" also identifies the Pope as the one who goes into the temple and declares himself to be God.

The popes in the middle ages used the title "Lord God the Pope". They have already declared themselves God. However, the real claim to be God (Jesus) will be Satan himself who will appear in his glory as a shining angel and the world will follow him. It will be the last great masterful deception to occur.

http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html

http://biblelight.net/Extravagantes.htm

8 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:" (Rev. 6:9)  It does say "slain" rather than "beheaded".

Are you aware that some alters in Catholic cathedrals have bones under the alter?

http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2011/10/why-do-we-have-relics-in-altars/

Who is buried beneath the altar of Saint Peter's in Rome?

There are a number of popes and saints buried under St. Peter'sBasilica. However, the only saint buried under the altar is St. Peter the Apostle and first pope.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_bone_of_saint_buried_under_the_altar_of_a_Catholic_Church

[Gregory Matthews]

In the post above, Photodude gave the following website to support his claim that Catholic Popes have claimed to be God on Earth:

http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html

I invite all to go to that website and to read the entire article.  I especially invite Photodude to go there and to read that article as I suspect that he has never read the entire article.  That article lists seven (7) claims in which the Pope has claimed to be God on Earth.  The article then addressed each claim and refuted it.  IOW, each of the seven (7) claims is said by the article to be false, misleading or otherwise distorted.

In actual fact, the article that Photodude listed supports the opposite of what Photodude implied  it said.

 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

The popes in the middle ages used the title "Lord God the Pope". They have already declared themselves God. However, the real claim to be God (Jesus) will be Satan himself who will appear in his glory as a shining angel and the world will follow him. It will be the last great masterful deception to occur.

Here is a Catholic Forum that debates this issue.  The article and responses are indeed interesting.

https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-the-pope-god/120954

4 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

There are a number of popes and saints buried under St. Peter'sBasilica. However, the only saint buried under the altar is St. Peter the Apostle and first pope.

Hmmmm. Is this a "fact" or a Catholic "Tradition"?  I don't see anything in scripture that even hints at Peter ever being in Rome.  The Book of Romans is thought to have been written sometime around 57 - 60 AD - 25 to 30 years after the crucifixion.  Peter had to be between 55 - 60 years old by then.  You would think he would have set up shop in Rome by that time if he was really there.  Yet, in his extensive list of people Paul says to say hi to in Romans 16, he never mentions Peter; implying either Peter wasn't there or Paul didn't like Peter very much.  How rude not to greet the first Pope!!  Furthermore, it appears from scripture that James was the first leader of the Church; not Peter (See Acts 15).

[B/W Photodude]

---

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I invite all to go to that website and to read the entire article.  I especially invite Photodude to go there and to read that article as I suspect that he has never read the entire article.  That article lists seven (7) claims in which the Pope has claimed to be God on Earth.  The article then addressed each claim and refuted it.  IOW, each of the seven (7) claims is said by the article to be false, misleading or otherwise distorted.

---

The claims on the website listed are among many claims made by many others. So, if the article wishes to make a rebuttal, so be it. However, just because they disagree with it does not make the claims false. Given that the page was written by a priest, you would expect a difference of opinion. However, there are many others sources for those who wish to advance the idea that the title "Lord God the Pope" was used including the other website which had an interesting look at what occurred in the 16th century instead of people arguing about it in the 21st century. I do have a collection of books regarding the Roman church and keep up with some of the history beyond "Foxes Book of Martyrs."

All that is interesting and just something I thought I would bring up. I have no interest in getting into any online tussle over it. Everyone here should be mature enough to do their own research and decide for themselves. There has been so many issues thru the centuries involving the Roman church, even the various protestant faiths, and even down to our very own SDA members that it is really not even important to seriously discuss because you have sinful people doing wrong in every church. I could tell you stories of what SDAs have done that would curl your hair, but it is not important for everyone to rehash it all. Blasphemy regarding such a thing as borrowing a title belonging to God is not for people to solve and I am confident "the Watchers" do not miss anything.

I do get curious when I see people working to discredit the SDA faith, but trip over themselves to defend the Roman faith.

[Gregory Matthews]

Photodude, two comoents:

*  You appeared to list the website as supporting the idea that the pops called themselves God.  In actual fact, your web site did not do such. So, tell us, what was your purpose in listing a website that disagreed with what you were suggesting?  Were you attempting to balance with objections to your view?

*  God is a God of truth.  I malign the character of God when I fail to identify truth wherever it goes.  You do the same, as does every other Christian.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have removed a post from view:

*   We expect in civil conversation that one will refrain from attacks on a person.

*   We may challenge that beliefs of another in this forum.  But, this forum does not exist to focus on the errors of another group.

*  We expect that posts will have a positive focus on the beliefs that we hold.

*  We expect that comments as to what another denomination actually believe will be conducted in a civil manner which will include not attacking someone who presents a view.

*  I man not be perfect.  I do not claim to always be correct.  But, that will not prevent me from acting when I decide that I need to do so.  

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The Wanderer:

*  You are absolutely wrong in your suggestion that another person has been given free range to attack SDA beliefs..   Some of that has occurred in a public discussion and you should know better than to make such a remark.  Some of that has occurred privately..  In this case you should be aware that the other person has complied and is no longer making the statements.

*  The focus of the discussions here has been a person from another denomination who has wanted to better understand SDA beliefs, and in a number of cases has changed his understanding of SDA beliefs as a result of coming here and asking the questions.

*  We will continue to encourage this type of discussion.

*  The focus of this discussion has NOT been to convince that person of the errors in his beliefs.  While we will allow some of that in an attempt to obtain mutual understanding, I am not going to allow unlimited attacks on the beliefs of that person and the denomination that he represents.

*  In this conversation, it is appropriate for him to tell us how he understands our belief system, even if we do not like it.

*  It will also be appropriate for all to recognize the road-blocks to conversation that may be present in the terms that we use and to further define them in an attempt to understand what the other is actually saying.

*  Cool it and tone down your responses.