The Little Horn--More

[B/W Photodude]

Gregory Matthews said:

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?

---

Actually, the website < http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html > was divided into two sections. The top was a listing of claims by critics and following was a listing of responses. Now, I did not read the entire page. However, on looking at the entire page again, I still would have posted the page. It was not intentional, but turned out nicely to have this page in my post. Not only are the claims of critics of interest, but also how the leadership responds to these claims. BTW, because the claims were refuted does not mean they are false!

What is also of interest is that you make no mention of the other page listed which showed documents printed in the 16th showing these titles. And of interest, it seems the church was trying very hard to recall and eliminate these quotes. I tend to think of this situation as being one where the church was up to it's usual in presenting information to a population who had no bibles to compare "if those things were so or not."

I have no allusion that this discussion is going to settle anything in this whole controversy which has now been in progress for nearly 500 years! Reading up on this story including the events of 500 years ago, I suspect the Roman church had to move really quickly to try and coverup their usual theological misdeeds in the face of the onslaught of the Protestant Reformation. I would hate to think where civilization would be today if the reformation had never occurred.

As far as not having read a complete webpage, I am quite sure that I am not the only one who does that. For many reasons, it is not always necessary to read the entire webpage top to bottom.

Consider this quote from another thread:

"It need not be replied that it was convened to deliberate respecting, and if possible to extricate ourselves from the anarchy and confusion of BABYLON in which we had so unexpectedly found ourselves." William Miller

---

This quote got pulled out of an article by William Miller and was from another thread. If I was to guess, I would think that the poster was trying to equate the post-1844 individuals as Babylon. Strange when you consider this is usually a descriptor attributed to the Roman church! Having gone over the entire 14 pages when copied and processed in small type in my word processor, it was the strangest quote of the entire 14 pages to pull out. The link was actually to an incredible chapter of William Miller's memoirs! So, thanks to the quoter, it is now in my wishlist on Amazon to read the entire Memoir!

I have in the last couple of years grown more and more impressed by 19th writers in the command of their language and expression. You might attribute it to the Holy Spirits influence, which becomes troubling as to where is the Holy Spirit when it comes to today's writers! However, given the intellectual habits of today compared to the 19th century, it is not surprising to see the difference in literary styles. 

Gregory Matthews said:

*  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.

---

Sounds like a veiled accusation of untruthfulness. You can only go over so many long webpages to see everything and not get accused of posting false info. I do have a life beyond Adventistan and piles of books to read in addition to my daily Bible reads.

[Gregory Matthews]

Photodude:  I appreciate your engaging in civil conversation.  On a couple of points:

*  Yes, I did not mention the 2nd page.  I also have a life outside of this forum.  I do not read everything that is posted here.  Once I saw that the 1st page you had listed , in my estimation, supported the opposite of what you had implied it supported, I did not take the time to read the 2nd page.  IOW, I did not comment on it as I have not looked at it.

*  As to posting false information:  1st  posting false information is not the same as lying.  It is not being untruthful.  It is being wrong and posting information that is false.  'This is quite different from  being a liar.  All of us, to include me, can be wrong.  Only God is infallible.  But, I believe that a central aspect of God is that of truth.   'IT is from this perspective that I believe it is important  that we in representing God  attempt to be accurate.

 

[B/W Photodude]

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.

---

JoeMo said:

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.

---

I do not know if Peter was ever in Rome or not. I suspect he was and that is where he died.

However, you have to keep in mind that the Roman church is a very relic oriented church. There are bones under the alter, but whose bones? There were said to be be many peddlers of pieces of the cross Jesus was crucified on. Someone wrote that if they had all the supposed pieces of the cross together, they would fill a cargo ship! 

Well, here, check out this page regarding relics in the Roman church and it is not for the squemish. Oh, we are not supposed to talk about it because of item #11:

11. Any Catholic who mentions the Holy Foreskin now can be instantly excommunicated.

The Church noticed, eventually, that all the discussion of Holy Foreskins might be unintentionally amusing. So in 1900, Leo XIII issued an order that anyone talking about Jesus's foreskin would be immediately thrown out of the church.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/how-many-foreskins-does-one-god-need

I do not necessarily believe every assertion in the interpretation in the webpage.

[B/W Photodude]

Gregory Matthews said:

Photodude:  I appreciate your engaging in civil conversation.

---

It is easier on the blood pressure!

[stinsonmarri]

On 12/16/2018 at 8:47 PM, JoeMo said:

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.

1

Joe: Please don’t get upset, can I present something to you and the forum. Here is why we have this debate about the little horn because of the word antichrist! You know where I stand with that word it should say, false messiah. The word christ was not even used in the disciples or the apostle’s days! I will state this again words and interpretation causes confusion. A guest came on the forum and asks two questions and everyone gave him various Bible translations. He came back and said that he knew about various translations, but he wanted to know what certain words actually meant in Hebrew. I explain it and he was ok with it. I not bragging, what I am offering is an example if it is alright with you? We all drive and we all have to read signs. When we come to a stop sign it means stop, halt am I correct? In every country in the world when you drive and see a stop sign it means the same. So why do we have so many translations and interpretations? The Bible does not say this church or that church is completely correct or is a remnant. Is said that there is one faith and the seed from the woman is the remnant! This seed will keep all the Commandments and have the Testimony of YAHSHUA! Then the Bible says the same thing in the OT, “To the Law and the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them.

Getting back to the little horn, can you show me historically two important things that are mention in Daniel Chapter Seven.

1.     It shall attempt to change Time and Laws of YAHWEH

2.     It plucks up three horns or kingdoms

If you would be so kind as to show me in any history book of anyone else who have done these two things and then let’s discuss it with an open mind okay?

 Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:52 AM, JoeMo said:

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. 

One more thing Joe, I do not agree with this either. Nor is it in the Bible! Also in her book TM p. 112, she said we will have less to say about the Papacy. No ones seem to tell you that she changed her mind. She is human and she is not above the Bible! She concluded that both Daniel and Revelation needed to be investigated and study more! 

Blessings!

[JoeMo]

Hi Marri,

Thank you so much for the gentle way you have stated your points above.  Your sweet posts motivate me to consider your points with an open mind out of respect for you.

I agree with you that the term "antichrist" causes confusion among believers.  That term is only used in John's Epistles; and the context is NOT the end times - the context is John's time.  The term "antichrist" is not used in any prophecies about the end times.  Ultimately, the "Antichrist" (against Christ or the opposite of Christ) is Satan.  I also agree that scripture does not specify any denomination as God's true church.

You asked two questions of me.  It will be tricky for me to answer them; because I am a futurist as opposed to a preterist or an historicist concerning eschatology.  The main reason for me being a futurist is the fact that in the book of Daniel, the angel repeatedly tells Daniel that the vision is for the end times.  I find it hard to believe that those "end times" started more than 1500 years ago.  I agree that Constantine (who was not a Pope) changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday; and that the post-apostolic church incorporated pagan practices (like winter solstice and the feast of Ishtar) into Christianity.  But to me, these are applications of "changing laws and times" rather than the ultimate fulfillment; since there was little no force of civil law enforcing these changes.  In the tribulation, these will have the force of law behind them.  One such group who may seek to change laws and times in this day is Islam.  They enforce Friday worship/rest wherever they have control.  I'm not "prophesying" that Islam will be the Beast power, but it is a possibility just as viable as the papacy.  Given that I think the 3 horns will be plucked in the future, I can't give you another example of a power who will swallow up three other powers.  As unstable as things are in the Middle East and North Africa, it is conceivable that one Arab power (Sunni or Shia) will take out the other.  Example - Saudi Arabia (Sunni) could take out Iran, Turkey, and Syria (mostly Shiite).

I will take your word on EGW's statements in TM - I don't have that book in my sparse EGW library.  It's cool that she would say something like that.  Please understand that I don't hold EGW any higher than I do other inspired writers like Billy Graham or Jonathan Cahn.  Nonetheless, I don't reject everything she says.

Blessings to you, sister!

[Gregory Matthews]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:10 PM, JoeMo said:

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.

JoMo has hit upon a couple of important points that are often true of Biblical prophecy.  I would add that such assures us that God knew about it prior to it happening and was prepared for it.  IOW, God's ultimate plan will succeed. 

[stinsonmarri]

13 hours ago, JoeMo said:

You asked two questions of me.  It will be tricky for me to answer them; because I am a futurist as opposed to a preterist or an historicist concerning eschatology.  The main reason for me being a futurist is the fact that in the book of Daniel, the angel repeatedly tells Daniel that the vision is for the end times.  I find it hard to believe that those "end times" started more than 1500 years ago.  I agree that Constantine (who was not a Pope) changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday; and that the post-apostolic church incorporated pagan practices (like winter solstice and the feast of Ishtar) into Christianity.  But to me, these are applications of "changing laws and times" rather than the ultimate fulfillment; since there was little no force of civil law enforcing these changes.  In the tribulation, these will have the force of law behind them.  One such group who may seek to change laws and times in this day is Islam.  They enforce Friday worship/rest wherever they have control.  I'm not "prophesying" that Islam will be the Beast power, but it is a possibility just as viable as the papacy.  Given that I think the 3 horns will be plucked in the future, I can't give you another example of a power who will swallow up three other powers.  As unstable as things are in the Middle East and North Africa, it is conceivable that one Arab power (Sunni or Shia) will take out the other.  Example - Saudi Arabia (Sunni) could take out Iran, Turkey, and Syria (mostly Shiite).

Joe: Thank you for your kind words and your answers to my questions. We are all here to discuss openly what we believe. However, we must not allow it to keep us from understanding the truth. Now, one of the most important things that the Bible does, it gives us history, to back up its prophetic evidence. Let’s take a look at all four beasts, can I state that these beast represent something against THE MOST HIGH, they all do! We know that they are kingdoms and the animals here are not normally recognized by these kingdoms except one. Let me explain. Men choose animals to represent their power. In Chapter Eight, notice the ram is Persia and the goat is Greece. These two kingdoms in history are actually recognized by those animals, but not in Chapter Seven!  There are coins, art, and carvings that have been found to prove the validity of this Chapter.

In ancient Greek religion and mythology, Pan (/pæn/; Ancient Greek: Πάν, Pan) is the god of the wild, shepherds and flocks… Wikipedia

Cut from an ancient stone, the ram and goat with one horn are symbols for Persia and Macedonia, respectively. This engraving may have been done during the time of Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great, goat with one horn, Persia, the ram, ClipArt ETC, College of Education, University of South Florida

This is very important, it shows that YAHWEH provides evidence historically of HIS prophecies to be found here on earth. So why did HE give Daniel different animals? Remember I told you one is recognized in Chapter 7 so that you would know the order chronologically of the three beasts. The lion is recognized as Neo-Babylon:

The Lion of Babylon is an ancient Babylonian symbol: Along those lines, note that some bricks have both a cuneiform inscription and an Aramaic inscription, while some simply have an icon (often a lion), and some have an icon and an Aramaic inscription.

The dating of these inscriptions is based on the three Babylonian kings mentioned in the cuneiform impressions: Nebuchadnezzar, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus. It is argued that the Aramaic impressions and the iconic impressions date to the same basic time frame (i.e., the reigns of these three kings). Book Review of Aramaic and Figural Stamp Impressions on Bricks of the Sixth Century B.C. from Babylon, by Benjamin Sass and Joachim Marzahn; Reviewed by Christopher Rollston; American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 115, No. 4 (October 2011)

Nebuchadnezzar II took his name from the king who had recovered the statue of Marduk from Susa. The later king was ultimately to become far more famous than his predecessor, however: it is Nebuchadnezzar II who appears in the Bible. As king of Babylon, he rebuilt much of the city, constructing an imperial capital with vast palaces and well-appointed temples, colossal city walls, and a great northern entry point, the Ishtar Gate, approached via a long Processional Way lined with colorful glazed-brick reliefs depicting roaring lions. Michael Seymour Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art

There were some 120 lions such as this one decorated along the walls. This painting is from a wall relief at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

Now we chronologically see in Daniel Chapter 7 that the lion is Neo-Babylon, the bear is Mede and Persia but later became Persia and the leopard is Greece.

Here is where the problems come from even with the SDA who I love. They hung on to Uriah Smith concept, instead of the Bible. In order to identify the little horn, you first must identify the fourth beast. Now, listen carefully because this is important. When we write books, we give the conclusion at the end, but that is not what YAHWEH does. HE gives you the whole conclusion of the matter and then breaks it down. Remember HIS WAYS are not like our way, neither is HIS THOUGHTS! Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and we have to pray and study, also each of us has spiritual gifts. Now, many will think that what Paul stated is not true, but it is. That doesn’t mean that our gifts cannot be used together, they can if we humble ourselves. We can all come together, with our gifts collectively, to make the whole! I pray that you understand what I am saying.

The Bible clearly states that the fourth beast is different from the other three beasts. If it is different it is not necessarily just dealing with chronology. You first have to look and see what Daniel saw:

1.     dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly;

2.      it had great iron teeth;

3.     it devoured and brake in pieces;

4.     and stamped the residue with the feet of it

5.     his nails of brass

6.     ten horns that were in his head

Now first the little horn that came up among the 10 horns.  

1.     Another little horn came up among them;

2.     and its appearance was greater than his fellows;

3.     And three of the first horns were uprooted before it;

4.     behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things;

5.     and think to change times and laws;

6.     went and made war with the holy people and overcame them;

7.     and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time; 

8.     But the judgment pleaded shall sit is set; 

9.     and they shall take away his dominion, to consume desolate and to destroy it at the end.

Now after seeing the description of this strange diverse beast, Daniel saw other important things; which take place in Heaven.

1.     I beheld till the thrones were cast down-(Now what thrones?);

2.     THE ANCIENT OF DAY sat-(this is future and an important event about to take place);

3.     The judgment was set and the books were opened;

4.     ONE like THE SON of humanity came with the clouds of the Heavens. And HE came to        THE ANCIENT OF DAY. And they brought HIM near before HIM;

5.     And DOMINION was given to HIM, and GLORY, and a Kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve HIM;

6.     Until the Ancient of Days came;

7.      And judgment was given to the saints of THE MOST HIGH;

8.      and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Daniel also sees what is going to happen to the fourth beast and also the rest of the previous three beasts:

1.     I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame;

2.     As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

Did you notice all these things? This a lot and it did not all happen at one time. We have been given a panorama view of three major empires false worship system that actually Nimrod started. Each of these empires worship systems has things in common that is against YAHWEH. However, within the fourth beast is all of these false worships combine including Rome, the iron teeth. Then there are 10 kings on this beast head and the little horn is among them. Now, this is a lot and Islam did not show up historically until the 7^thCentury and it was never was a worldwide empire, like Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome! Did you know that Persia is Iran today so there's your Islam? Islam is a religion and not an empire. The people of Islam have never been united, they always warred with each other and the Christians. History will prove it. I will stop for now!

Blessings!

PS: I use these versions who words linguistically have the exact Paleo Hebrew meaning ERRB, HRB, TS2009. Lexicons are Brown, Drivers, and Briggs; NASB

 

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Now, this is a lot and Islam did not show up historically until the 7^thCentury and it was never was a worldwide empire,

I respectfully disagree with you.  Look at the realm of the Ottoman (Muslim) Empire in the 15th Century.  It is almost identical to the Roman, Greek, and Medo-Persian Empire.  At their height, the Ottoman/Moorish Empire included areas as far west as Spain.

I also disagree that Islam is simply a "religion".  Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, as is Iran, for example.  

[stinsonmarri]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I respectfully disagree with you.  Look at the realm of the Ottoman (Muslim) Empire in the 15th Century.  It is almost identical to the Roman, Greek, and Medo-Persian Empire.  At their height, the Ottoman/Moorish Empire included areas as far west as Spain.

I also disagree that Islam is simply a "religion".  Saudi Arabia is a theocracy, as is Iran, for example. 

Joe: Remember you said Islam which is a religion, it is not an empire. Yes, Ottoman was an empire whose religion was Islam. This was in the 15^th Century and I did mention Iran who was originally Persia. However, during the time it was known as Persia the false worship was not Islam.

Also, look at:

Now first the little horn that came up among the 10 horns.  

1.     Another little horn came up among them;

2.     and its appearance was greater than his fellows;

3.     And three of the first horns were uprooted before it;

You have to identify the 10 horns or kingdoms that the little horn came up among them. That is why we cannot interpret it ourselves, the angels tell you who it is.

You said; “I am a futurist as opposed to a preterist or a historicist concerning eschatology.” Did you ever think that YAHWEH uses collectively futurist, preterist, and historicist, but not eschatology? Christian theology is actually not Biblical and there are too many different theologies or shall we say beliefs or religions or denominations or churches. So which Christian theology is correct? Now, humbly, I will include the study of 'end things' but not our way or study again, but THE ALMIGHTY WAYS. Who gave us the study, THE FATHER and THE SON so how come we can’t allow THEM to show us THEIR OWN STUDY of end things that are futurist, preterist, and historicist? I humbly feel if we get out of THEIR WAY, and use the gifts that THE HOLY SPIRIT gives us combine then we can see through a glass clearly as Paul said!

Daniel did see in the future, but events like Babylon falling to Persia were also the future and to Daniel it took place and to us, it already happened in the past. This is preterist and historically we have it on record. The three works together that make up the whole and still point to the end. Let me see if I can state it this way, certain future things or events Daniel saw he saw them happen, others would come still in the future after he died. YAHWEH, not us, deals with the past, the now, and the future. That is why YAHSHUA said HE is the Alpha and the Omega; THE BEGINNING and THE END. We do not have those POWERS, so we historically can learn about the past, we are in the present and we look forward to the future. Remember when tomorrow comes it becomes to us as the present and tomorrow is still the future. Now some of us might not make it to tomorrow that’s futurist! Let me say this to you, chronology is consistent with YAHWEH, it is the order of things that will take place in there appointed time. Allow the angel Gabriel to tell us what we need to know. He is the one that gave the prophecies and the understanding to both Daniel and John can we just humbly allow him to speak for himself?

Blessings and prayers!?

 

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

You said; “I am a futurist as opposed to a preterist or a historicist concerning eschatology.” Did you ever think that YAHWEH uses collectively futurist, preterist, and historicist, but not eschatology? Christian theology is actually not Biblical and there are too many different theologies or shall we say beliefs or religions or denominations or churches. So which Christian theology is correct?

Excellent questions.  Speaking for myself, I don't know; but Adventism comes as close as any denomination I'm familiar with.  But - for reasons you brought up in your post - I don't think any of us have it 100% correct.  As you said, YAHWEH will show us as time unfolds.

 

17 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Remember you said Islam which is a religion, it is not an empire.

We can agree to disagree on this.  To say Islam is not an empire is like saying the Catholic Church was not an Empire from the 6th Century to the 17th Century.  Several countries are currently Islamic theocracies.  Just my opinion.  As time unfolds, things will become much more clear to us.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

...  I don't know; but Adventism comes as close as any denomination I'm familiar with.  But - for reasons you brought up in your post - I don't think any of us have it 100% correct.  As you said, YAHWEH will show us as time unfolds.

Perhaps ... we spend so much time studying prophecy and even try to define ourselves as pre-millenials, preterists, or whatever the flavor of the day is, that we really miss what God really wants to tell us and even help us to be. 

[stinsonmarri]

7 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Excellent questions.  Speaking for myself, I don't know; but Adventism comes as close as any denomination I'm familiar with.  But - for reasons you brought up in your post - I don't think any of us have it 100% correct.  As you said, YAHWEH will show us as time unfolds.

 

Joe: I will agree with you that several countries are currently Islamic theocracies. But let me state this clearly, all kingdoms, empires, countries, state government etc., has a state religion. This includes Canada, United States, Russia, England, and Germany and so on; everybody has a state belief! Let’s not forget about China who had an empire as well! Its religions were Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, before Communism! When the President of USA swears in, it is on a Bible. Now there are countries today whose religion governs the people. But, countries who claim democracy still have a state religion, but these countries provide laws for freedom of religion! The USA has people who want their beliefs to govern everyone just like Islam, but the majority doesn’t!

I am truly happy that you said Adventist if you don’t mind me leaving off the ism. I will explain because the original pioneers were all Adventist! They came from different Protestant churches. Matter of fact all of the people in the Millerite Movement did! These people were becoming enlightened by the Bible. Christianity was just like Islam and it kept the people in the dark. When the Protestant sects formed, they too were strict and wanted to control everyone the way they believed. Even when they came to America, people were put in prison, public lockdown, burned even called witches etc. Many left and formed other colonies and beliefs, but they did the same thing too! Now they all hated the Catholic which is why they truly did not like Spain! So these men who wrote the Constitution wrote it to form religious freedom. They still believed in biblical principal (even though they did not act on them) so they include “Christianity,” as the state religion.

The late, 1700 to 1800, was the enlightenment period and knowledge did increase in the western world. The reason the other part of the world was held back was slavery and Islam, Hindu and other theocracy religions. These countries became to be known as the third worlds.

These Adventist that studied were sincere and they realized that the date was correct. They needed guidance, so don’t you think that ELOHIYM would guide them like Daniel and John? Don’t you think that certain future events of appointed time had come? If you look at all of what Gabriel gave it was from Daniel time to certain events that will spread until time will end!

Now all this are futurist, preterist, and historicist, time!

Here are the following:

1.      At the end-Dan 7:26;

2.      The time of the end;

3.      Yet for a time appointed;

4.      to the time of the end;

5.      Till the time of the end;

6.      Latter time of the wrath;

If you would kindly view what the angel said certain events will happen at certain periods or appointed time, and the last or when the latter time of the wrath comes time will end! The angel also said that during a certain period of time will begin the start of the end time and that is what the Adventist pioneers found. The little horn power was halted when this period started. They thought YAHSHUA was coming but they were giving the vision to correct the mistake. The evidence is in Revelation. If the Adventist had continued to progress toward what ELOHIYM was given them, the Everlasting Gospel would have been finished before now. That is why the angel was sent to hold back the winds in Revelation Chapter Seven! THE ALMIGHTY already knew and even revealed it to John and all I can say is wow!

You said; “To say Islam is not an empire is like saying the Catholic Church was not an Empire from the 6th Century to the 17th Century.”  Let me see if I can explain it to you the difference between the two. Rome had a religion but Constantine changed the religion, it was still an empire that rule for centuries. Islam spread started from 622 -1923 and like you said the Ottoman Empire ruled for over six hundred years. You can even say that Islam as a religion spread from Africa, Arabia, the Middle East, Asia, Russia and a part of Europe. But, it did not do what Rome did nor did it have the longevity as one great empire like Rome!

Time has seen the rise and fall of a number of great empires - the Babylonian, the Assyrian, the Egyptian, and lastly, the Persian.  Regardless of the size or skill of their army or the capabilities of their leaders, all of these empires fell into ruin. History has demonstrated that one of the many reasons for this ultimate decline was the empire’s vast size - they simply grew too large to manage, falling susceptible to external, as well as internal, forces.  One of the greatest of these empires was, of course, the Roman Empire. Over the centuries it grew from a small Italian city to control land throughout Europe across the Balkans to the Middle East and into North Africa. The Extent of the Roman Empire by Ancient History Encyclopedia

Rome was not called the Catholic Church during this time, it was called the Holy Roman Empire that made the difference and when did this take place?

Justinian studied Systematic Theology on the nature of Christ and wrote homiletically rules for preachers. He gave textcritical advice to Jews and condemned their doctrinal deviations. This theological hobby of the ruler of the once mighty Roman Empire was to be taken over by a more theological competent power that would eventually lead to papal-caesarism until the unsettling of this new aggrandizing paradigm in 1798 by Napoleon. The prophetic embedding of the 1260 days as “years” prophecies in both Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 definitely started in 538 A.D. contrary to W. Spicer’s (1918) suggestion of 533 or 538 as two alternative dates or any other dates suggested by other scholars in the history of interpretation in historicism. It is also not just a case of history of interpretation hermeneutics but data solidly supported by archaeology, iconography and original historical sources that coincides with the parameters provided by exegesis of the rest of the Books of Daniel and Revelation added with the exegesis of the detail of the passages under consideration. A necessary ingredient for the historical researcher remains to be the faith that God can predict the future and He did and that the data, as well as the prophecies of the Biblical Text, are evidence of that. 538 A.D. and the Transition from Pagan Roman Empire to Holy Roman Empire: Justinian’s Metamorphosis from Chief of Staff’s to Theologian;  International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 7, No. 1; January 2017

Again, it is futurist, preterist, and historicist collectively. I am going to try to say this so you will understand if you will allow me. If you look at what the angel Gabriel gave Daniel it covers all the way to you hear:

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.  And from the time that which is continual is taken away, and the abomination that lays waste is set up, is *one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who is waiting earnestly, and comes to the *one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. Dan 12:10-12 TS2009

And the nations were angry, and THY wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear THY NAME, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the Temple of ELOHIYM

 was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in the Temple of THE SOVEREIGN the Ark of HIS Testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. Rev 11:18, 19 

And I heard a GREAT VOICE out of the Temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of ELOHIYM upon the earth.   And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of Heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before ELOHIYM, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of HIS wrath.   And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of Heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed ELOHIYM because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. Rev 16:1, 17-21 (* These are actual days not years of time, please listen to the angel. In other words they are not time, times and the dividing of time that the angel gave for the horn.)

[stinsonmarri]

Please forgive me, Joe, I forgot to say blessings! To me, it is very important to bless everyone because I feel bless as well!

Blessings!

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

please listen to the angel.

You presented a lot of historical stuff here.  You are quite the researcher!  I will look into what you have said further.

Blessings to you as well, sister!

[stinsonmarri]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

You presented a lot of historical stuff here.  You are quite the researcher!  I will look into what you have said further.

Blessings to you as well, sister!

 

Well, I am the historicist!? it is one of those gifts!?

Take your time and blessings!
 

[B/W Photodude]

Methinks someone is a legend in her own mind!

[hch]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:16 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

See:

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

 

Can sum that article up in one word: heresy

[hch]

I find it shocking that Gregory (a moderator on this form) has used his authority to close down threads that I have started that promote Bible study [that were examining the role of the papacy in Bible prophecy]. When people were really getting into Bible study, the threads that I mentioned vanished at Gregory's doing. Then he has the "authority" to start this thread based on an article that does not encourage Bible study, but that focuses on mocking the studies of the Adventist pioneers. If that article had solid biblical substance to bring the pioneers studies into question or to point to Jesus while reexamining Adventist positions, that would be a different matter. 

I rest on the word of God, "The Lord rebuke thee."

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH:  Be careful for which you ask.  You post what many would call "heresy."    If we closed all such threads down, you would be out of here as we allow you to post a lot of heresy.  

The actual article that you cited did not propose any doctrinal view, as you would know if you had actually read the article.  It simply was a statement as to what the editors were thinking about when they published the article below.  So, as your cited article did not propose doctrine, it could not be properly called heresy. 

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

As to the article above:  If you want to call that article heresy, go ahead and do so.  In this forum, we are fine with you doing that with the above article.  I would not use that term.  There are other terms that I would use to relate to that article.  That does not mean that I am saying that it is not heresy.  It s imply means that I would use other terms.

To be clear, the terms that I would use are the same terms that I would use to describe some of the posts that we allow you to post in this forum.  But, I do not use them to describe your posts.

So, like I say:  Be careful of what you ask.  It just might apply to you.

HCH, if you do not like how this forum is run, you do not have to come here and post.  You may establish your own forum and post what ever you wish.

[hch]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 Be careful of what you ask.  It just might apply to you.

HCH, if you do not like how this forum is run, you do not have to come here and post.  You may establish your own forum and post what ever you wish.

The wheat and tares grow together until the harvest.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, and we allow you to post along with the wheat in this forum.

 

[hch]

Just now, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, and we allow you to post along with the wheat in this forum.

 

Gregory, I think I'll join this discussion. It will give me an opportunity to interact with you some more.

[Thomas the Doubter]

I am totally with JoMo on this, as well as what JoMo described accurately as the thrust of the anonymous Atoday article, namely the non-relevance of the 1798 date. For the sake of conciseness I'm only going to hone in on this key point.

All of the proponents of the 1798 date simply presume that what Adventists have said about it is true. But have any bothered to verify it historically?  If we do a quick survey of the historical facts we find that the traditional Adventist understanding of 1798 – namely, that it marked the end of papal supremacy – is utterly false. Here is a summary (as concise as I can) of some of the significant historical facts about thus period of the French Revolution and the Papacy:

1. The Criterion of Papal Spiritual Sovereignty is Temporal Power

At the time, what gave foundation, sustenance and validity to Papal religious authority and supremacy was temporal power – that is to say, possessing territory in which it alone was sovereign, having centralized governing power as well as the power to coerce within that territory through its own military force. Therefore to lose temporal power was to end de facto Papal supremacy. The Papacy possessed such power over the Papal States:

“Henry Edward Manning, future Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, declared that the temporal power of the Pope was the sign of ‘the freedom, the independence, the sovereignty of the kingdom of God upon earth’… In a sermon… identifying the cause of the temporal power with ‘the independence of the Universal Church’, he denounced the attack on it as a ‘falling away from the supernatural order, and a return to (merely) natural society’, the end of Christendom.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 225.

2. The Coronation of the Next Papal Temporal Sovereign after 1798

The death of Pope Pius VI at this time was not the end of the papacy's temporal authority at all, since the subsequent coronation of a new sovereign over the Papal States, Pope Pius VII, was a clear indication of this:

“The coronation of the Pope was a symbol of his temporal sovereignty. To co-operate in the coronation would be to recognise the integrity of the Papal States, including the Legations.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 204.

3. Emperor Napoleon’s Continued Annexation of Papal Territory After 1798

Emperor Napoleon’s continual attempt to annex Papal territory after 1798 proves that Pope Pius VII was still sovereign over these territories, thus retaining temporal sovereignty (one can only annex something that someone has not what they do not have):

“To secure the papal port of Ancona against British and Austrian forces, Napoleon annexed it in October 1805, a move which the Pope bitterly resented… In February 1806, using Ancona as a base, Napoleon annexed the kingdom of Naples and placed his brother Joseph on the throne. This was yet another insult to the Pope, for Naples was a papal fief, and the Pope had a right to be consulted about any transfer of rule. Finally, Napoleon wrote to the Pope demanding that he close all papal ports to the allies.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 211.

4. The Pope’s Abdication of Temporal Power in 1813 (Retracted Later)

‘On 6 July [1808] a French general presented himself before the Pope and demanded his abdication as sovereign of the Papal States’ (Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 212) to which Pope Pius VII refused and was subsequently arrested. Napoleon continued on in his aggrandisement of territory and in 1810 he had ‘annexed Rome, declaring it the second city of the empire’ (Ibid.). Eventually, the Pope caved in to Napoleon’s harassments and signed away the Papal States:

“When the Emperor finally came to Fontainebleau on 19 January 1813… for six days the Emperor alternately wheedled and stormed at the Pope… Eventually the Pope gave in, and signed a draft agreement on a scrap of paper for the concordat which totally surrendered the temporal power. The Pope would be sovereign of Rome no longer… Pius immediately regretted this surrender…” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 213.

All of this demonstrates that even though the Papacy suffered a setback in 1798 it was not totally divested of its sovereignty or its political power, since both continued to exist, albeit diminished, up until 1813. 1813 was not the end however since Pope Pius VII retracted his agreement and therefore continued to be in possession of temporal power.

5. The Papal States Restored to the Papacy at the Congress of Vienna in 1814

After the defeat of Napoleon, European powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 to discuss the redistribution of territory and ‘redraw the map of Europe’ (John Julius Norwich, The Popes: History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), p. 375). In the process, ‘the papal representative… Cardinal Consalvi… recovered almost all the former papal territories’ (Ibid.). ‘This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact’ regarding the existential reality of the Papacy:

“This restoration of the Papal States is the single most important fact about the nineteenth-century papacy… On the lips of Napoleon the call for the Pope to lay down his temporal sovereignty and to rely solely on spiritual authority had been blatant code for the enslavement of the papacy to French imperial ambitions… If the Pope did not remain a temporal king, then it seemed he could no longer be the Church’s chief bishop.” - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 214.

6. 1798 Marked the Beginning of a Renewed and Enlarged Supremacy of the Papacy, Not the End

Lastly, what is absolutely damming to the traditional Adventist claim is that the Papacy, having suffered the worst excesses in all papal history under the Revolution and Napoleon, emerged victorious as the personification of resistance receiving untold acclaim, respect, and adoration, and was recognised widely as the supreme religious authority:

“The Pope was now seventy-two, and respected in Europe more than he had ever been. The cruelties and excesses of the Revolution and the megalomaniac ambitions of Napoleon had brought about a vigorous spirit of reaction of which the Church, which had endured persecution from the one and consistently harsh treatment from the other, had emerged as the leading symbol; and Pius, whose pontificate had been one of the most troubled in all history and whose own personal suffering had been acute, was now seen as the personification of resistance, which had ultimately led to the destruction of both. No longer was the Pope looked upon – as he had been in the previous century – as a fairly insignficant anachronism; he was once again back on the map of Europe, recognised by the Catholic princes as a temporal ruler as well as the supreme spiritual authority… The prospects for the papacy looked brighter than they had for half a century.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vingtage Books, 2012), p. 376.

Rather than bringing the Papacy to a halt, the French Revolution only served to revive its image, garner widespread recognition of its spiritual authority, and restore its supremacy, more than what it had prior to the Revolution. 1798 marked not the end but the beginning of the road to redemption for the Papacy and a renewed and enlarged spiritual hegemony.

The Wanderer alleged that JoMo’s post was ‘a reflection of History Revisionism at best’. But in truth, it has been and continues to be Adventism’s founders and subsequent propagators who are historical revisionists. What history says is the utter opposite of what they have said and continue to say. It is no wonder that the Atoday article’s authors said of Adventism’s prophetic relevance, “Prophecy is to us Seventh-day Adventists an old rusty tool, a tool that we proudly display in our museum, but we are no longer capable of using”. Will Adventists continue to propound such falsehoods in the face of historical facts? Or is loyalty to a false belief much too painful to admit.