The Little Horn--More

[JoeMo]

I don't know if it is this thread or another, but someone said that the SDA Church does not teach that the papacy is the beast power.  Wanderer made the point that this teaching appears nowhere in the 28 Fundies.  If these are valid points, then I DON'T have to accept that the papacy is the sole candidate for the beast power or that 1798 has any meaning at all in prophecy to remain an SDA in good standing - is that fair?  Therefore, we have no points of contention.

[JoeMo]

It's weird how you can be so sensitive about people allegedly attacking you personally; yet you have no problem mocking others here.

[JoeMo]

6 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

lol, what on earth do you think the GC is going to do? Come after JoeMo for quoting and giving proper credit to their own writings?

It has nothing to do with that.  Firstly, it has something to do with ethics whether or not it is legal.  Secondly, how many quotes do you need to believe that the concept is in the quarterly. Thirdly ( and probably most importantly), I'm trying to watch football and am too lazy to produce several more quotes!?

[Thomas the Doubter]

10 hours ago, hch said:

Thomas,

Thanks for sharing that material. here is my thought: For the 1798 date to have any merit in relation to the prophecy as it relates to the papacy, something had to happen that fulfills the prophecy in 1798 if the start date is correct.

History tells us that pope Vigilius was appointed by the Eastern Roman Emperor rather than the Roman Catholic Church (the church approved him after he was appointed because the Roman army was occupying Rome). They had a pope in 537 that had been chosen by the influence of the Arian Ostrogoths (they were the power in Rome at that time). When the Eastern Roman army returned from the African campaign against the Vandals, they ousted Pope S...and enthroned Pope Vigilius. Then Witigis the king of the  Ostrogoths returned to Rome his army sieged Rome until 538 when the Eastern Roman Army broke out. So the beginning date for the changed papacy under Pope Vigilius fits 538 when the appointee of the Eastern  emperor was free to govern the whole Church.

The prophecy states that there will be a deadly wound in 1260-years. The math says that if this is the right beginning date (538), then the wound must come in 1798. In that year the French took Pope Pius VI prisoner. (that is interesting because the French under King Clovis had been instrumental in elevating the pope's status to be the head of all the churches). The French did not KILL the papacy, they wounded it with a DEADLY WOUND according to the prophecy.

Christ received a deadly wound at Calvary. His friend (Judas) who had wanted Jesus to be King betrayed Him like the French betrayed the pope that they had supported in times past. Christ died; But he did not stay dead. (Adventists use a day for a year to explain some prophecies.) Christ received His deadly wound on Friday. Pope Pius VI received his deadly wound in 1798 when he was imprisoned in 1798 (he actually died early in 1799). Christ rested in His tomb on Sabbath, and there was no pope for most of 1799 (much like Christ's remaining in the tomb Sabbath). Christ arose on Sunday, and Pope Pius VII was installed in 1800 (like Christ rising from His deadly wound on Sunday...the first day of the new week, the papacy recovered from it's deadly wound on the first day of the new century).

When the papacy's deadly wound is  compared to Christ's deadly wound the 1260 years from 538 to 1798 are a mirror image of Christ's 1260 day ministry (3.5 years). Christ had been anointed by the King of the universe and Pope Vigilius had been appointed by the world's emperor.

To understand if the 1798 deadly wound fulfilled prophecy we must understand 1) how it mirrored [counterfeited] the life of Christ, 2) what exactly the prophecy is calling a deadly wound, and 3) who the prophecy is talking about. 

God inspired His word and by faith, He will give us the understanding that we need at the right time. There is no promise in the Bible that everyone will understand or that everyone will believe the word of God. He will not remove every doubt, nor will God compel people to see that prophecy has been fulfilled when it happens. The best we can do is to reason together.

That's my understanding of the dates: 538-1798; of the role of the papacy in fulfilling the prophecy; of the meaning of the deadly wound; and of the necessity to depend on God for the ability to understand His word

Christian regards

 

Hi hch,

Good to hear from you. Some interesting points here and I appreciate you taking the time out to describe it. 

I understand why it is tempting to look for 1798 because the 538 date is seemingly established. I would suggest two things however. The first is to adopt a principle of independent verification for both dates, that is to say, investigate them independently of each other so as not to contaminate the objectivity of our investigation. In this way we don't force either date or distort events surrounding those dates to fit our prior belief in the 1260 years interpretation of prophecy. Following this independent line of thinking, even if we found that the 538 event had some significance to any claim that was being made (i.e. that it was the year in which Papal supremacy began) it doesn't automatically follow that 1798 is also related to that claim. In other words, the 1798 event has to still be independently verified, as opposed to automatically believed to be true, even if the 538 event were true. That's the first point.

The second point I want to make is that the events surrounding 538 do not really fit what the traditional Adventist position alleges to have happened. The claim is that 538 marked "the establishment of the papacy” (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, (1888, 1911), p. 266). The General Conference's Seventh-day Adventist Believe handbook on the 27 Fundamental Beliefs try to support this by saying that "the bishop of Rome was freed from the control of the Ostrogoths, whose Arianism had resulted in their restricting the developing Catholic Church.” (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).

What I discovered was that the establishment of the papacy, described in the way just cited, did not happen. In fact, it was the complete opposite that is true - Pope Vigilius marked one of the lowest ebbs of papal prestige; and Rome was not freed from the Ostrogoths since they were to come again and subjugate the city. 

The Ostrogoths Return to Conquer Rome in 549/550

Under their new leader Totila the Ostrogoths returned to Rome to conquer it and reside in it permanently:

“Rome itself changed hands three times in quick succession, ending up in 549 CE in the hands of Totila.” - Will Wyeth, "Justinian I," Ancient History Encyclopedia, (Ancient History Encyclopedia, 28 Sep 2012), <http://www.ancient.eu/Justinian_I/> [accessed 24 June 2017].

“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.” – John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, (London: Viking-Penguin Group, 1997), pp. 79-80.

The ‘Three Chapters’ Episode - Submission, Excommunication and Brokenness of the Pope

But what is more important is what happened to Pope Vigilius specifically at this time. Emperor Justinian had Vigilius kidnapped and brought to Constantinople. There he was pressed by the Emperor and Empress to put his support by condemning ‘The Three Chapters’ against his will (this was Emperor Justinian’s attempt to resolve a sectarian dispute between the Orthodox bishops and Monophysite bishops by condemning another group, the Nestorians, hoping that both Orthodox and Monophysites would unite against this common ‘enemy’). Vigilius eventually capitulated against his will and was 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.

After subsequently retracting his support, Pope Vigilius was in the end excommunicated by the Emperor:

“On 14 May, the Pope issued a so-called Constitutum, declaring the entire agitation [of the 'Three Chapters'] 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 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.

Pope Vigilius Marks An All-Time Low for Papal Prestige

Hardly being the age of the supremacy for the papacy it was actually the complete opposite - Pope Vigilius' legacy was an utter low point for papal prestige, and this legacy would continue on into 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.” – John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History, (London: Vintage Books, 2012), pp. 35-36.

That is why I believe, and others do too, that both 538 and 1798 do not apply to the 1260-year interpretation of prophecy, because in Pope Vigilius (the pope involved in 538) Papal prestige descended hopelessly into universal disfavor, and in Pope Pius VII (the pope involved in after Pope Pius VI in 1798) Papal prestige ascended into one of its greatest high points, the inverse of what the traditional Adventist position claims. 

I hope that this at least gives you food for thought.

God bless

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

 If these are valid points, then I DON'T have to accept that the papacy is the sole candidate for the beast power or that 1798 has any meaning at all in prophecy to remain an SDA in good standing …

It seems to me, Brother Eastman, that we must hold fast our confidence in the great Adventist movement of 1844, and we should not be easily moved from the positions held by the leaders in that movement and by the pioneers of our own denomination.
At the same time, I believe we should encourage our editors, our ministers, and the teachers in our schools, and the rank and file of our people, as far as they have time and opportunity, to be thorough Bible students and faithful students of history so that they may know for themselves and so that they can prove to people who do not accept our denominational books as authority, the points that we hold as a people. It is my conviction that those who write for our denominational papers regarding prophecy and its fulfillment ought to be encouraged to give deep and faithful study to the subjects about which they write, and to use in their arguments references and quotations from those historians which will be accepted by the readers as authority.W. C. White statement made to W. W. Eastman, [Publishing Department Secretary, Southwestern Union Conference.] November 4, 1912.

I tend to see all the disbelief regarding long time Adventist interpretations to just be more of the becoming chronic pattern of kicking against (kicking against the pricks?) almost every belief of the church. So, I have seen nothing to make me change my viewpoints from pretty much what it has always been.

[Thomas the Doubter]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The descriptors you are making the choice to use here, about me, personally, again, are unwarranted, and a very poor reflection of where I actually do stand.

Where exactly do you stand? You have a lot of opinionated assertions but no evidence. I can't see what kind of stand that is. 

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

All too-often we think we have a slam-dunk case just because we cite a dozen "references;" but if said references are quoted out of the author's intended context, then it is simply pretext.

Where have you demonstrated that I have taken anyone out of context? Another generalized assertion with no backup. Time and again you argue against people citing references as if there is something somehow wrong with it. Why not just address the facts with counter evidence if you have it? 

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The one article you cited, authored by a Roman Catholic, US-based lawyer is a well-done article; lots to learn from in it; yet your post only gave us one quick sentence from it; and thats called "cherry-picking", or lifting out of context

Who exactly are you referring to? US-based lawyer?

How could you know if I were cherry-picking or taken out of context if you didn't read the book - its not an article if you are referring to Saints and Sinners.

One quick sentence? I don't know what you're referring to that was a quick sentence - I've quoted many sentences. By the way, the nature of quoting is selective according to the relevance of the point being made, but as long as it is not a distortion of what the author intended. Would you otherwise want me to quote pages and pages?

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I tend to see all the disbelief regarding long time Adventist interpretations to just be more of the becoming chronic pattern of kicking against (kicking against the pricks?) almost every belief of the church. So, I have seen nothing to make me change my viewpoints from pretty much what it has always been.

Is it not fair to question what we believe and why?  Are we afraid we might find something in our 174 year old fundamental beliefs that may be questionable or need revision?  The apostles Peter and Paul both seemed to believe Jesus' Second Coming would be in their lifetime.  They were truly inspired by God; but on this account they were wrong.  Could we be wrong about some of the things we have believed; or was EGW more inspired than Peter and Paul?

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, Thomas the Doubter said:

Good to hear from you. Some interesting points here and I appreciate you taking the time out to describe it.

Your response to hch was very respectful; and a very detailed and orderly historic response to his message.  Thank you.  Perhaps I can be that way.  I have not been very respectful to hch in the past.

Personally, I don't see the demise of the Roman Empire until the 15th century, when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople (named after King Constantine) and renamed it Istanbul; and the Greek Orthodox equivalent of St. Peter's Basilica was turned into a mosque currently known as the Hagia Sophia.  Constantinople may have been the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire; but to non-Christian people of the region (Muslims), it was still the Roman Empire.

[JoeMo]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

the church is more than willing to refine the beliefs as soon as they see the scriptural case laid out in a sound and reasonable manner. have already done such a number of times over the years.

Can you give me some examples from the past 75 years?

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I dont see anything "wrong" with his post. When it comes to "the little horn" there are literally hundreds of tactics used to try to muddy those waters.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. I also see what B/w is talking about.  My questions are in no way an attack on SDA beliefs.  They are simply questions to beliefs that I have a hard time accepting; where in my view the preponderance of evidence lies elsewhere.

 

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Are we afraid we might find something in our 174 year old fundamental beliefs that may be questionable or need revision?

Actually, it does get revised as people search the Scriptures. The 28th fundamental belief is a relatively new belief. I read a book regarding the 27 fundamental beliefs and then discovered shortly afterward that there was a new one. Sometimes they are just clarifications as I believe the newest one is. It would be interesting to see the original set of beliefs and the additions occurring through the years. Kind of like the original US Constitution and the dates of ammendments.

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

It would be interesting to see the original set of beliefs and the additions occurring through the years. 

Posted some info over here:

https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/74585-historical-revisions-to-sda-beliefs/?tab=comments#comment-785929

 

[hch]

As I continue to read the posts in this thread, I see  the problem is not Bible prophecy. The problem is that man’s prophetic speculations have become more trusted than the prophecies. Instead of teaching Bible Truth, speculation is taught as truth. Because man has taken Bible prophecy out of context, prophetic chains have been forged that is not inspired. Bible study has evolved into a study of man’s speculations and assumptions about what the Bible means instead of letting the Bible explain itself. The problem is not Bible prophecy. The problem is that man’s prophetic speculations have become more trusted than the prophecies. Instead of teaching Bible Truth, speculation is taught as truth. Because man has taken Bible prophecy out of context, prophetic chains have been forged that is not inspired. Bible study has evolved into a study of man’s speculations and assumptions about what the Bible means instead of letting the Bible explain itself.

[Gregory Matthews]

Photodude:  An interesting thing is that the newly added 28th fundamental belief was not added to the end of the 27.  Rather, it was inserted in the middle of the 27.    So, some of the original 27 were renumbered.

 

[B/W Photodude]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:52 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Photodude:  An interesting thing is that the newly added 28th fundamental belief was not added to the end of the 27.  Rather, it was inserted in the middle of the 27.    So, some of the original 27 were renumbered.

In the thread that JoeMo started I posted several links. Of interest is the one from "TruthSeekers." Still reading that one and the whole site to get an idea what their goal is, but the link I post showed a progression in the beliefs thru the years and even the baptism vows. Also is a look at the view of Jesus as our beliefs changed thru the years. 

They do seem to suggest that any new light is is unacceptable as they mention new concepts which occurred after EGW's death. Not sure that we should be frozen in the position the church was in at the time of her death. EGW often supported beliefs which came from the careful study of Scripture by Bible students.

[B/W Photodude]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

 It would be of interest to know their reasoning for that last fundamental they added to the mix.

I have read that the thought was to clarify positions already in the beliefs that seemed to confuse some.

[TrevorL]

Greetings hch,

10 hours ago, hch said:

As I continue to read the posts in this thread, I see  the problem is not Bible prophecy. The problem is that man’s prophetic speculations have become more trusted than the prophecies. Instead of teaching Bible Truth, speculation is taught as truth. Because man has taken Bible prophecy out of context, prophetic chains have been forged that is not inspired. Bible study has evolved into a study of man’s speculations and assumptions about what the Bible means instead of letting the Bible explain itself.

I agree with you, as I am surprised that this thread does not return to a simple explanation that the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy. A proper understanding of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 forms the basis to understand many aspects of the Book of Revelation. On another aspect, I would be interested in how SDAs understand Revelation 17:12-14, as I understand that this speaks about the Papacy and Europe fighting against Christ AFTER Armageddon Revelation 16:16, after Jesus is established upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem. In other words, when will the ten Kings make war with the Lamb, and when will the Lamb overcome them, if the earth is to be burned at the return of Jesus? Revelation 17:12-14 is another perspective of the little horn of Daniel 7 and the ten horns of Daniel 7 and the ten toes of Daniel 2.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[hch]

1 hour ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings hch,

I agree with you, as I am surprised that this thread does not return to a simple explanation that the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy. A proper understanding of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 forms the basis to understand many aspects of the Book of Revelation. On another aspect, I would be interested in how SDAs understand Revelation 17:12-14, as I understand that this speaks about the Papacy and Europe fighting against Christ AFTER Armageddon Revelation 16:16, after Jesus is established upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem. In other words, when will the ten Kings make war with the Lamb, and when will the Lamb overcome them, if the earth is to be burned at the return of Jesus? Revelation 17:12-14 is another perspective of the little horn of Daniel 7 and the ten horns of Daniel 7 and the ten toes of Daniel 2.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Hey TrevorL,

I am not free to discuss your comments in-depth on this forum. When I have something candid to say, I have more liberty on the Hch Henry His child (henry's voice) forum. Adventistan graciously made that area for me (and anyone) to share more candid conversations than is customarily done on this and the other forums. There is a video there that might interest you, if you want to check it out. It might lead into a conversation.

[hch]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

"This thread" meaning what or who?

IDK how in depth you have considered your statement here; but I would like to point out, for now, the fact that scripture, whether in Daniel or Revelation does NOT point out specific names or groups for a reason? Oh dear; could this mean that we should follow the example of scripture here, or the latest diatribe about those "nasty" Catholics?

There is much more to say on this; but in another post.

IMHO, Some Catholic people are of a higher quality than many professed SDA's. Being related to both, and having both as friends and acquaintances, I have some understanding of that matter.

But prophecy is not intended to badmouth people or their beliefs. It is intended to warn us of what is ahead so that we can take the steps necessary to prepare ourselves and others. It would be a sin to keep knowledge to ourselves (to set up roadblocks to prevent prophetic knowledge from getting to those who need to know)  in order to obey God's command "Come out of her My people" if those in the know refused to tell others because of fear on offending them or whatever, Ezekiel tells of the consequences.

Aside: My wife had a Catholic babysitter when she was a youngster. Her dad met the lady at mass. That lady was nothing but kind. I did not particularly like her, perhaps because she was a hard person to get to know (or I was). But because she was my wife's friend, we sent her Signs of the Times Magazine. She read them. She learned things that she had never imagined. And she gave her heart to the Lord completely. The joy in her voice spoke volumes. She died in Christ and we do not regret giving her the right warning at the right time.

[hch]

52 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Who on earth are we, any of us, to judge the "quality" of people? I can scarcely believe what I am reading online these days.

... All I can say is help yourself.

My Dear wanderer,

A suggestion.

Put your computer in the Freezer for 10 days. At the end of which reread what I wrote and your response. 

It is written that the wise will understand... being that I did not understand most of what you wrote, I need to pray for wisdom. 

(I think part of your concern is that you do not like narrated slide shows? And you object to the content of a video I made?)

Thanks for your feedback, Christian regards,

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer and hch,

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would like to point out, for now, the fact that scripture, whether in Daniel or Revelation does NOT point out specific names or groups for a reason

It is your choice whether you identify the little horn of Daniel 7 as the Papacy or not. From my perspective I suggest that this is rather obvious, and much of Daniel 7 was fulfilled in the dominance of the Papacy during the 1260 years.

6 hours ago, hch said:

There is a video there that might interest you, if you want to check it out. It might lead into a conversation.

I have listened to your video, but I support the basic view of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome for the four metals and four beasts. I cannot accept your concept of four future kings based on Daniel 2.  I do not accept that the earth beast has anything to do with the USA, (even though this may be standard SDA teaching ???) and thus do not also agree with your enlargement of this to refer to four Presidents. I need to verify this, but I understand the earth beast speaking more of the "Holy Roman Empire".

Kind regards Trevor

[Thomas the Doubter]

On 12/31/2018 at 7:30 PM, JoeMo said:

Personally, I don't see the demise of the Roman Empire until the 15th century, when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople (named after King Constantine) and renamed it Istanbul; and the Greek Orthodox equivalent of St. Peter's Basilica was turned into a mosque currently known as the Hagia Sophia.  Constantinople may have been the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire; but to non-Christian people of the region (Muslims), it was still the Roman Empire

Thank you for your compliments Joe.

Yes, this is an additionally crucial historical reality in which I wholeheartedly agree with you. And this disrupts the neat chronology (Roman Empire allegedly ending in 476, and the alleged Papal rise and fall between 538-1798) that the traditional Adventist position has established for itself that justifies its assertion of the Papal fulfilment of the Little Horn.

The historical reality as you've pointed out which I support is (of which I am now highlighting to others more generally):

End of the Roman Empire in 1453

Its Successor being the Islamic Ottoman Empire from 1453 to 1924 (post WW1 carve up)

The repercussions of that World War reality and the subsequent World War which was built on the first is the reality of the Middle East today as many historians, political commentators and historical documentaries point out.

Thank you for your comments too :) They are most useful.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

A brief over view of scripture, just in Daniel 7 shows the following identifying marks of "the little horn:"

I appreciate the detail. I accept that items 1-8 fit the Catholic Church. Do you have any other valid suggestion?

Kind regards Trevor

[Thomas the Doubter]

On 12/31/2018 at 10:36 PM, The Wanderer said:

This is one of several examples that could be given in support of what I have been saying. There are differing views about HOW and WHEN things happened. I like to go straight to the source if I am going to talk about the "history" of something, or someone. This is taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia::

In essence; it cannot be correctly stated that what Adventists statements say about 1798 is "wrong" because the events that Adventist publications recount in statements regarding 1798 actually did happen.

Further,  as I mentioned, the 1798 statements are not estimates or fabrications of any kind:

It is well-known that there were a number of historical events where the papacy was in one context or another "defeated" and this topic here is quite literally just a shooting match of whose opinion is "best" regarding which of those experiences were the "worst" for the Catholic Church. The Adventist statements about 1798 do not seem to fit into THAT kind of category. When connected in context to many other Bible facts and historical data, that is one thing Adventists, as well as many others did get it right. I will post more details when I can.

Thank you for your observations, and your citations. They are important contributions to what we are discussing.

I have to be brief since I am not in country, and I am only able to type through my phone so apologies. 

I think it is important however to say that firstly the Catholic Encyclopedia does refute the SDA position regarding the ascendance of the Papacy in 538, which is my point. Both quotes agree on this point. And theye dont differ in detail either. The Emperor Justinian in the 550s is using Pope Vigilius' letter of 547/8. The fundamental is that Pope Vigilius was not a high point of Papal authority but a low point of Papal humiliation, and certainly not an establishment of temporal authority (that was to occur in 756 with the Pepin donation of the Papal States; or Imperial authority for that matter which was to occur later with the coronation of the newly established Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne in 800). This neither of the quotes differ on.

Regarding 1798, yes that did happen. However, as I've tried to carefully point out this was the beginning of a gradual annexation of Papal States territory. This quote does bear this out, that began in 1797 and continued on into 1813 (my quotes) where Pope Pius VII finally but momentarily abdicates the full Papal States. 

1798 thus did not mark the end of Papal rule but rather it marked the beginning of the resurgence and revival of Papal rule, since it neither lost completely or permanently temporal and religious authority. It is more accurate to highlight 1798 as the beginning of a 'chapter' from 1797/8 to 1814 (ending with victory gained at the Congress of Vienna, with the almost full restoration of the Papal States, which was only possible from the widely respected reputation that the Popes earned from their suffering under the Revolution and Napoleon). Here is where the SDA position had divorced the event from the context of wider events, namely the French Revolution as a whole and particularly the tussles between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII. Therefore still neither of the facts surrounding 538 nor 1798 support the traditional SDA claims regarding them in support that of the 1260 year interpretation of Daniel.

I hope that clears that up. 

Happy New Year to you by the way and to All!!!

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

But I dont get why at all there. Are you saying its not possible to prove why said text is talking about Catholics are the "little horn? All I did was start the idea by noting that "the little horn" had those 8 identifying marks amongst others, but where do you recommend that we go to to find evidence in scripture to support this idea of the "Roman Catholic Church ?"  I dont see the phrase Roman Catholic in Dan 7:8 HOW do we prove this by scripture

A few additional details may suffice. The ten horns of the fourth beast represent the subdivision of the former Roman Empire into ten portions, or kingdoms (your items 1 and 2). The Papacy obtained three of these, also known as the Papal States (your item 4). Daniel 7 also describes that this power would persecute the faithful (your item 6). Using the day for a year principle, many have suggested 1260 years, and there were significant events that increased the power of the RCC, dates such as AD 529-533 Justinian and AD 608-610 Phocas are perhaps only two of many, and 1260 years later saw a significant decline in the power of the Papacy. Possibly you are objecting to the fact that the title “Roman Catholic Church” is not directly mentioned in the Bible, but prophecy and the history that relates to the fulfilled prophecy go hand in hand, usually giving greater understanding of the prophecies after the event has occurred. For example Micah's prophecy of a birth in Bethlehem, and Micah only hints that this would be in humble circumstances.  

 

I asked if you have another suggestion of a power that fulfils the details of Daniel 7. Also would you like to identify when the ten kings will fight against the Lamb Revelation 17:12-14? Is this before, during or after Armageddon?

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[hch]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

When we realize that we are becoming exactly like those we think we oppose, shouldn't that be reason enough for us to stop opposing them and get back to the gospel?    

Part of the gospel message is that Jesus is coming again.

For those who are awaiting His coming with anticipation, that is GREAT NEWS.

For those who are out of sync with God's will, it is a dreadful message.

The warning of the nearness of Christ's coming is a call to get right with God so that we may avail ourselves of His forgiveness and avoid His wrath. Thus the gospel is like a two edged sword (love joy peace defense to some... death destruction and misery to others).

It is a satanic deception to believe that God is so merciful that He will only give blessings in spite of blatant rebellion against Him.