brakelite

Such a perspective would have been news to Daniel and friends, all of whom benefited directly physically, and intellectually, from not 'defiling' themselves with the king's food. Such health benefits therefore in your eyes are merely an accidental spin-off? The real purpose in God advising mankind what is and what isn't food was therefore......what? Just an arbitrary rule in order to confirm and strengthen His authority?

I suggest you do your own research. There are many many very well attested historians who have written volumes on the history of Christianity outside of the church of Rome. The Celtic church in Britain is just one example. Catholic monks, such as Augustine did not arrive in Britain for hindreds of years after the Christian faith was established there...Patrick himself, a 3rd century evangelist and missionary, was the son of a Christian presbyter. This faith of theirs did not come from Rome. It came from Galatia, through other Celtic communities in southern France and northern Italy. There were also Christian communitiies through the far east right up to the 13th century at which time many were destroyed by Tammerlane. Even the Mongols themselves had Christian princes and princesses among their royal families. None of these had anything whatsoever to do with Rome. The Roman church had influence, yes, but only in those places in which she managed to weild political and as well as ecclesiiastical power....with war mostly being the inevitable result. But like I said, do your own research.

That is a typical Roman oversimplification of the truth. Luther's theology was certainly heretical, but it wasn't a deviation from truth, it was merely a deviation from an apostatized faith that itself had deviated from scriptural truth. Luther's theology that exalted justification by faith alone through grace alone was truth. Now modern Catholicism, in order to suck in the more ignorant of compromised Protestantism back into ecumenicism, may claim they also believe in justification by faith and grace alone. However, a close scrutiny of true Catholic teaching reveals this to be a lie. Catholicism is a religion of sacraments. A religion of works. Period. Also, Jesus's promise that He would remain with the church and guarantee the church's survival, still holds true. That one Roman section left its former position and apostatised into a meaningless morass of superstition and tradition and then took upon itself to persecute those who chose not to go in that direction, such as the Waldenses, does not mean Jesus abandoned the many who in other lands outside of Roman juriisdiction, such as the early Celtic church in Britain, the church in Ethiopia, and the millions of faithful Christians who populated lands from India to the far east, chose to cleave to the truth.

There are going to be consequences to those who today have no self control in diet, or have no recognition of God's will and purpose in clearly stipulating what is good or not good for our bodies. We are living in the last days. I would strongly suggest that if one can be so deceived into believing he/she can eat anything (even though nowhere in scripture is it designated 'food'), without suffering any physical consequences, these are in even more danger of eating any 'spiritual food' without discernment and suffering eternal repercussions as a result. Physical weakness as a result of poor choices in diet affects our spiritual strength also, and last-day pressures in the spiritual realm demand we keep ourselves as physically well tuned as we can. Ignoring the Manufacturer's instructions is simply suicidal.

I have no intention of bringing anyone into submission to what I believe. It is not my teaching that is of any importance here What I feel is of profound and utmost importance is that we cleave to scripture. Piecing together bits and pieces of textual evidence and assuming a doctrinal position on that basis is akin to using circumstantial evidence in a court case. Assumed doctrines based on a few texts is not a good sound basis for establishing Bible truth. Particularly when there are literally dozens of scriptures which directly contradict those assumptions. The truth is that nowhere in scripture is there any text which clearly and succinctly teaches there are three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial, co-lateral, coordinate and self-originated principles being ascribed to each one, which is the common trinity teaching of the modern church. This is merely assumed, and there are many scriptures which contradict this. Jesus' own words of John 17:3 define eternal life, and yet deny the trinity. Who was Jesus speaking to in John 17:3? A trinity, or His Father? So therefore, who is the only true God? If you believe and accept the assumed doctrine of the trinity as I describe above, then you deny the personality of the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22 And the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 succinctly defines the nature of God, identifying and clearly delineating the essence of the Godhead in a few profound phrases, completely negating any pretensions to any knowledge of multiple gods or multiple beings forming a god. It is high time that Christians, if they have any regard for truth or any claims to desiring to know God, dealt with this one scripture. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1500 years ago, by 476AD, the Roman empire had been divided up by Barbarian tribes which evolved over time into the modern nations of Europe. There were ten in the beginning, but through the influence and politicking of the then quickly apostatizing and growing Roman church, 3 of them were destroyed. This is history. The ten horns grew out of the former Roman empire, and 3 of them were plucked up by the roots before the presence of the little horn, the papacy. Again, history, and prophecy, perfectly aligned. Dan. 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.... Now the ten kings you speak of which hold power one hour with the beast, are indeed yet future, thus are an entirely different set of rulers. The initial ten were local tribal powers which grew from the decaying empire, eg, Suevi, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Francs etc. The future ten kings you speak of are global. There are indications that the world even today is being divided into ten distinct regional administrative powers...I see the nations of today still being relatively independent, but aligned with others in blocs, such as espoused with Canada, the US, and Mexico. The leaders of these ten blocs could well be described as kings, and together surrender their sovereignty in some respects, to Rome, for a short time. I see no evidence in Revelation or Daniel of a world political superpower, so this one hour of power with the beast is not a political decision, but a religious one.....so I do see a single world religion...Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots. This is Satan's final counterfeit religious super-power set up for the final confrontation against God's people, His church. NOT the nation of Israel. Christians really do need to get that idea out of their heads, for it is completely obscuring the reality of current events, and the purposes for which Satan is developing his final Antichrist power. History has revealed the development of the Antichrist. First as pagan empires opposing Israel with the sole purpose of destroying the Messianic lines. Failing that, Satan's now object is to destroy the church. First, if he cannot destroy it through persecution, he will do so through deception. Read again the warnings of Jesus. Read again Revelation 13. It isn't about the nation of Israel, it is about deceiving God's people into worshiping falsely. And you are playing into his hands by calmly laying aside the Vatican as having no relevance to Bible prophecy. What do we see today? Almost the entire Protestant world fawning at the feet of the papacy, and willing to "come home to mama". At a time when the prophetic message for these last days from God's people should be calling people out of Babylon, they are instead joining again with Babylon. Modern Protestantism has forgotten her forefathers, and the blood bought truths that the reformers taught and died for. The reformers may have differed on some aspects of theology as they were coming out of the old traditions and superstitions of Rome, and learning in what directions Bible truth was leading them, but one thing they all had in common. From Wycliffe to Cranmer, from Luther and Calvin to John Smith and Roger Williams, and dozens in between, they were all in agreement that either the office of papal power in general or the popes in particular, were the very Antichrist of scripture. Sad, even devastating, that in forgetting this truth, they are now falling over one another in order to curry favor with the very same Antichrist that seeks their ultimate destruction. As a student of prophecy, Revelation Man, you should know better.

I will not answer ever point you make, mainly because they all derive from once divergence of opinion we have re history, and re interpretation of the beast symbol. First, I do not see the beasts per se as being specifically defined as conquerers of Israel, but rather as persecutors of God's people. Thus in the OT it was the faithful of Israel, (NOT necessarily the nation as such) and in the NT, the true church. Second point, Rome remained a kingdom, but altered its character when it became a "Holy Roman Empire" in the guise of the RCC. The RCC is a mere continuation of the rule of the Caesars...they have encapsulated within their rituals, their hierarchy, their traditions, much of ancient pagan Rome, AND, continue the persecuting practices of that ancient empire.

Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. Daniel 8: 8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. So we see here four notable horns rising up, growing out of the goat. The following little horn simply grew out of "one of them". Syntax and grammar would strongly suggest that the horn grew out of one of the winds, or from one particular direction, and because it grew and expanded to the south, east, and toward Israel, (and exceedingly great westward also), then Rome remains as the obvious answer. Thus is required a revision of my former declaration that there were six horns growing from the goat. The historicist hermeneutic demands a continuing historical panorama and cannot entertain the idea of a gap in which God appears to have no knowledge. 2000 years of ecclesiastical history in which the greatest apostasy occurred, the most vile persecutions, and God forgot to mention it? Futurism actually disguises all of this, and futurism itself was invented by the very power that orchestrated it. To leave Rome, both in its pagan and papal forms, out of prophecy is playing right into the hands of the Antichrist, hiding him from prophetic view, and placing instead a future imaginary monster totally unrelated to scripture. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. 10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. 11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. The little horn in Daniel 8:9 is different from the little horn of Daniel 7:8. The one in Daniel 8:9 represents the empire of pagan Rome. It is the parallel symbol of the dragon beast with the ten horns and iron teeth that rises from the sea. However, in Daniel 8:10 can be seen a change in the practice of the little horn from being one that “waxed exceeding great” on a horizontal plane to one that then “waxed great” on a vertical plane. Rome at first operated as a secular pagan entity. But here we see a change in her nature to a religious entity in that she began to attack the things of God and spiritual truths that pertain to heaven. The little horn of Daniel 7:8, which grows out of the Roman empire amongst the former ten horns and uproots 3 of them, is also an entity which has aspirations of a more heavenly nature. Thus the little horn of Daniel 7 is the same as the little horn of Daniel 8 in its second phase as a religious power. Daniel 7:9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. 11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. We see here that the duration of this little horn does not end until the judgment. So it endures right up to the second coming, therefore is with us today. There are also much more written on this little horn. There is in fact more detail given concerning this horn than on any of the other beasts together. Thus it is abundantly clear that in His love and mercy God desires that we know who and what this entity is for it is clearly a threat to our spiritual welfare. Daniel 7:15 ¶ I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. 17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. 19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; 20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. 21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Again we see that this horn endures until the second coming, but we also see more detail of it’s character and practice. Daniel was greatly concerned and approached the accompanying angel to inquire regarding the vision, particularly the little horn. Here is the angel’s reply. 23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. So here is a summary of the characteristics that pertain specifically to the little horn. 1. The little horn arises from the fourth beast (7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, so the little horn must be a Roman power. 2. The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe. 3.The little horn rises after the ten horns (7:24). According to historians, the ten horns were complete in the year 476 A. D., so this must mean that the little horn was to arise to power sometime after 476 A. D. 4. The little horn was to pluck up three of the first [ten] horns by the roots (7:8). This means that these three nations would be uprooted from history. Daniel 7:20-21 explains that three of the first horns would fall before the little horn, and Daniel 7:24 tells us that the little horn would subdue three horns. In other words, three of the first ten nations would disappear from history!! 5. The little horn was to speak great words against the Most High (7:21, 25). Revelation 13:5 explains what these words would be, namely, blasphemy. And, What is blasphemy according to the Bible? It is when a merely human power claims to be God on earth and when it thinks it can exercise the prerogatives and functions of God (see, John 10:30-33; Mark 2:7). 6. The little horn was to be a persecuting power. This is stated in Daniel 7:21 and repeated in verse 25. 7. The little horn would think it could change God’s “times”, that is to say, God’s timetable of prophetic events. (Daniel 2:21). We shall see that the little horn invented a false system of prophetic interpretation to rival historicism. 8. The little horn would even have the audacity to THINK that it could change God’s holy law. (7:25). 9. The little horn would be different than the ten horns. It would be an amalgamation of church and state (7:24) 10. This power would govern for a time, times and half a time (7:25). This comes out to 42 months or 1260 days (see, Revelation 13:5-6; 12:6, 13-15). In Bible prophecy, literal days are symbolic of years, so this power was to govern for 1260 years . 11. The little horn had eyes like a man. In Bible Prophecy, eyes are a symbol of wisdom (see, Ephesians 1:18; Revelation 5:6). Even today, an owl is a symbol of wisdom because of its large eyes. In other words, this power was to depend on human wisdom. It is commonly and correctly asserted that the “man of sin” and “son of perdition” spoken of in the NT are names given for this same entity. We are admonished by Paul regarding this entity: 2 Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. In order to deceive the very elect and stand in Gods Temple ,he needs to rise out of the Church. What is the temple in the NT? There are actually 3. 1. God’s own sanctuary or temple in heaven. 2. The church corporate. 3. The individual Christian The little horn cannot obviously get to heaven to stand there. Nor can he invade our own bodies. But he can invade the church. And if he is to deceive believers in the church, he must appear stealthily, acting as one of us. Professing truth, dressed in sheep’s clothing but inwardly a ravening wolf. 2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Here we see what was originally a true Christian. In the Greek the ‘falling away’ has connotations of divorce, apostasy. There is no falling away unless at first there was a right relationship. Therefore he doesn’t actually come from without the church, but from within. John also hints at this when he says : 1 John 2:18 ¶ Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. The only other time the ‘son of perdition’ is mentioned in scripture is in reference to Judas. Judas was one of the elect. He was one of the closest select disciples who was with Jesus every day. One of the inner circle, even the treasurer. So also is the antichrist. He is presumed to be Christian. One of the closest to the Lord. In looks, in profession, in outward appearance everything suggests that he is above reproach. Let us not be deceived into believing that he is an outright outspoken sword wielding gun-toting bigoted irreligious enemy of Christ. Then where would be the deception? Nor should we presume that the little horn represents just one man. The other horns represented kingdoms and lines of successive kings. So also does this little horn. Prophecy if anything is consistent. The word ‘antichrist’ does not mean openly against Christ as in open warfare. The Greek word ‘anti’ means in many instances ‘in place of’ or ‘instead of’. So the apostate church establishes itself, or its leader, as a replacement of Christ in the minds and hearts of its followers. 2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High Re 13:1,4. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy…. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Satan can no longer ascend to the heights he lusted for in heaven in person as he has no further access to heaven, yet he can still, through a front-man or proxy, receive the worship and honor he feels he deserves and craves. Antichrist is his masterpiece. Because it is all about worship. Revelation 13, and Jesus Himself in the gospels, repeats the word worship and deceive many times. A form of worship whereby Christians are deceived and are worshiping Satan instead of Christ, through the apostate church, the ‘antichrist’, who is set up ‘in place of Christ’. “Lord, Lord, didn’t we do many wonderful works in your name? Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you.”

It's all in the detail..... Daniel 8:20 identifies the ram as being Medo-Persia, thus the ram and the bear represent the same power. The bear raised itself up on one side – indicating the more prominent role of the Medes at the beginning of their rise to power, the individual kings being Ahasuerus and his son, Darius.This is also represented by the two horns, with one coming up higher last. Just as silver is inferior to gold, and the bear inferior to the lion, so was Medo-Persia inferior to Babylon in regards to wealth and brilliance of career. However, the area of conquest was greater than Babylon. The ribs in the bear’s mouth represent the 3 provinces of Babylon that the Medes and Persians conquered: Lydia, Egypt, and Babylon. The ram pushed west, north, and south, precisely where the 3 above provinces were. Cyrus was the Persian king that rose to prominence represented by the horn that rose up higher. It was Cyrus spoken of and named 150 years previously by Isaiah as the leader that would overthrow Babylon. (There are many parallels with Revelation and the drying up of the Euphrates thus cutting off Babylon’s support in the last days, just as Cyrus did to the literal city. This is spiritual Babylon, and the Euphrates is also figurative for the means of support that the people of the earth withhold (Rev.18)when made aware of her corruption.Rev. 16:12 . As Cyrus came from the east to conquer Babylon, so also will Christ come from the east as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.) Daniel 7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. Daniel 8:5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. 6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. 7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. The leopard represents Greece, and Alexander the Great is the first king, the ‘notable’ horn between the goat’s eyes. As Babylon was noted for her speed of conquest, so Alexander even more so, hence the 4 wings. At the height of his power Alexander died, some say of alcohol poisoning, at the young age of about 30. The Grecian kingdom was then ruled briefly by Alexander’s brother and his 2 infant sons, but they were all soon murdered and after 22 years of warring and infighting among a number of generals who had all dispersed to various parts of the empire and assumed authority and declared themselves kings, the number was reduced to just 4, as depicted by the 4 heads of the leopard and the four horns of the goat. The generals were Cassander, Seleucus, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus. It will be noted that as the ram (Medo-Persia) in Daniel 8:4 is shown to have become great, so the goat (Greece) in Daniel 8:8 ‘waxed very great’. In area conquered this was very true; Greece had overcome vastly more area than had the previous empire, however, just as the leopard is inferior to the bear, and bronze is inferior to silver, so the character of the empire was inferior to Medo-Persia. Paganism was developing among these empires and growing as they grew. Each empire also inherited certain traits, traditions, and practices from it’s predecessors. Thus each kingdom grew progressively worse morally and spiritually. Before I deal with the horn of the goat, I’d like to briefly recap on something from the image of Daniel 2 and stress something that is very important. What we know of the image is that there are just 4 kingdoms or empires from the beginning of Babylon to the second coming. These four are destroyed by the rock of Christ at His coming. That means 2 things. 1. That in some form or another they are in existence today (all four!), and will be until Jesus comes. How do I know this? By the beast that rises from the sea in Revelation 13. (And remember beasts are kingdoms). In this beast there is a remnant of each of the 4 beasts we see here in Daniel. And it is that particular beast that is destroyed and thrown into the lake of fire. This can be easily explained by the fact that the pagan belief system of Babylon was inherited by all the following powers, was developed further and will be perfected into a Christian counterfeit at the end that will deceive most of the world. But more on that later. 2. The iron begins from the victory over the Greeks, and continues unbroken (albeit in another form) right to the end. In other words, there is no gap in history- no “revived” Roman empire that is yet to come. Rome is still with us today, there has never been any full or conclusive end to the Roman empire as yet. To continue with the goat of Daniel 8. We have discovered that the goat represented Greece, that the great horn was it’s first king, Alexander, and that when he died , after some conflict and debate, 4 kings ruled in his stead. 8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. There are however a total of six horns that grow out of the he-goat , and it is to the 6th that we will now focus our attention. This ‘little horn’ was to exceed the greatness of all the preceding horns. Media/Persia “became great” (Daniel 8:4); The he-goat itself was to wax “very great”, (Daniel 8:8), but this little horn was to grow and become “exceeding great”.( Daniel 8:9). It is claimed by many, in fact it has almost become standard belief in modern Christian thought, that Antiochus Epiphanes is represented by this little horn. This is based solely on his persecution of the Jews and the desecration of the temple, as is presumed to have taken place upon a reading of the ensuing verses. The problem however is that Antiochus does not meet the requirements of any other specific in the prophecy. (Some refer to him as being the fulfilment of the little horn that grows out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 also.) This is particularly popular with the preterist position, but to insist upon this understanding is to wrest the scripture from it’s historical setting, for an important point to note is that the 4th beast reaches to the end of time, and is destroyed at the second coming. The view that Antiochus is the little horn restricts the entire book of Daniel to the period of time before Christianity was established. Let me in detail give my reasons why I believe Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7. a. Antiochus does not rise after 10 kings. He was the 8th king in the Syrian line of Seleucid kings. Besides, the prophecy calls for 10 kingdoms to exist contemporaneously, not successively. b. Antiochus belonged to the 3rd empire (Greece) in actual historical sequence from Daniel’s time. c. He was not ‘diverse’ from any other king. d. He did not ‘pluck up’ 3 other kings. e. He was not ‘stouter’ than his fellows. His father was known as Antiochus the Great, not Epiphanes. f. He did not prevail until the end of time, the judgment. g. The kingdom following was Rome, not the kingdom of the saints. Reasons why Antiochus cannot be the little horn of Daniel 8. a. Antiochus was not a horn in his own right. He was of the Seleucid line therefore was a part of one of the four. b. He did not wax exceeding great. In fact his father was greater, but neither was as great as even Babylon or Media Persia, certainly no greater than Alexander. Yet the prophecy demands that the little horn be greater than any empire before it. c. He does not fit the time periods. According to Maccabees 1:54,59, and 4:52 Antiochus suppressed the sacrifices exactly 3 years. This fits neither the 1260 days , (times time and half a time,) nor the 2300 days (evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14). These figures do not compliment one another NOR do they meet the reign of Antiochus. d. The 2300 days is prophetic. Using the day/year principle established elsewhere as being the standard and norm for interpreting prophetic time periods, it is a literal 2300 years. Therefore, And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. can only refer to the empire of Rome, and thus is the Daniel 8 parallel to not just the 4th beast of Daniel 7… 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. … but also the iron legs of the statue of Daniel 2. See how each prophecy repeats and enlarges upon the preceding prophecy? The dragon beast represents the Roman empire (168 B. C. – 476 A. D.). This empire came to be known as the “iron monarchy of Rome” (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4, p. 161). The ten horns represent the ten kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided when it fell apart. These ten kingdoms, according to Edward Gibbon, were: The Alemanni, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards and the Heruli (see, M. H. Brown, The Sure Word of Prophecy, pp. 54, 55). “The historian Machiavel, without the slightest reference to this prophecy, gives the following list of the nations which occupied the territory of the Western Empire at the time of the fall of Romulus Augustulus [476 A. D], the last emperor of Rome: The Lombards, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, the Sueves, the Huns, and the Saxons: ten in all.” (H. Grattan Guinness, The Divine Program of the World’s History, p. 318). Already in the fourth century, Jerome had spoken of the fragmentation of the Roman Empire in the following terms: “Moreover the fourth kingdom, which plainly pertains to the Romans, is the iron which breaks in pieces and subdues all things. But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of clay, which at this time [note that Jerome was living when this was happening] is most plainly attested. For just as in its beginning nothing was stronger and more unyielding than the Roman Empire, so at the end of its affairs nothing is weaker.” (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, comments on 2:40, column 504). In the days when Jerome lived, the Roman Empire was coming apart. The barbarian tribes from the north had descended upon the empire with a vengeance and broke it up into the nations which today constitute western Europe.

It saddens me that so many Christians are so desperate to justify disobedience. Rather we should be falling over ourselves searching for reasons to obey. Not to gain brownie points with the Boss, but out of simple desire to love and serve.

John, one of your very own correct statements, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, is the most powerful argument against the modern church's teaching on the trinity. Now don't get me wrong, I am not denying the existence of 3 manifestations of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What I do deny is the co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial, co-lateral, coordinate and self-originated principles ascribed to each one, which turns the whole concept to a proper notion of 3 gods. Now why is the fact readily and freely confessed by all, the Sonship of Jesus, an argument against the trinity? Simple. Because if you believe in the trinity as I described above, the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of Christ is relegated to nothing more than a metaphor. A metaphorical Father did not send a metaphorical Son to die for me. As for the holy Spirit being a third co-equal entity in a trinity, the fact that it is described as the Spirit OF God or the Spirit OF Christ (see Romans 8:9 as an example) throughout scripture, renders the nature of the Spirit as being posesssed by God, and when we consider that the Spirit was sent by God to us as a gift, and given to Jesus (John 3:34) , is indicative that the Spirit is under the authority of the Father, as was His Son and will be throughout eternity. (1 Cor. 15:28). Texts such as the following can only be understood in the context I have just described above. John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, (the first Comforter being the Father 2 Cor. 1:3) that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; ("I am the Way, the Truth....)whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, (present tense Jesus speaking of Himself spiritually and physically present with them) and shall (future tense) be in you. (by His Spirit only, due to restrictions He is now encumbered with being a man and able only to be present physically in one place at one time). 18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (Not a third being, but Christ, but Christ in Spirit form.) See also Galatians 2:20; John 14:20; John 17:21; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph 3:17; Col. 1:27; and 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ......among many others. Is it Christ in us, the hope of glory? ....or someone else? Is it a literal Son of the Father?...or an idea...a metaphor?

Why would I need to address that Hebrews text at all when I have no issue with it? I have already stated many times that Jesus is God...as God's Son how could He not be? I also addressed the concept of Jesus not being entirely equal to His Father...understandable considering the fact as that Hebrews text emphasizes, the Father Himself declares that He is Jesus's God. Confirmed also by several other texts I posted above previously.

Trinitarians pick and choose scriptures to support their doctrine, in fact there are only two texts in scripture which imply a trinity, 1 John 5:7 and Math 28:19, both of which though do not support all the conjecture and assumptions contained in trinitarian theology. I agree that Jesus cannot be inferior to the Father. He inherited all the same attributes of deity...like Father like Son...however Jesus's submission to His Father as Son is explicit before the incarnation, after the ascension, and throughout all eternity. "God sent His Son" (John 3:16, and others)denotes authority over His Son before the incarnation. ..."the head of Christ is God" denotes present tense submission of the Son to the Father's authority and headship... while 1 Cor 15:24-28 denotes submission into the future. So while Jesus can rightly be called 'God' in that He possesses all the attributes of deity, the fact that these were given and sourced from His Father means we cannot give Jesus complete equality as taught in current trinitarian circles, and as taught in the creeds of the early church. You said there is only one true God, and rightly so. The Bible tells us who that one true God is. John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 tells us clearly that the one true God is the Father, and both texts explicitly leave aside the Son from that exalted position. Hence Jesus calling the Father "His God." (Revelation 3:12).

...and from another page I said, Literal Father, literal Son, with a Spirit shared by both...the Father and Son being equal in character and nature, but not in authority or age. The Son, being begotten, had a beginning. The Father had no beginning. Because the Son came forth from the Father, the Son inherited all His Father's character and Spirit, 'for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell' (Col. 1:9) As the Rock hewn from the mountain, (Daniel 2:34) so that Rock shares the same characteristics as the mountain from which it was cut. Same material, even same age, yet as a personal individual, had a beginning. Such is Jesus. Having the same eternal self-existent life as the Father, (John 5:26) means we may rightly and justifiably name Jesus God. Thus the Father is the God of our God. Less mystery, less perplexity, and still Biblical. Just a different perspective, and the only reason so many claim it heresy is because the creeds say so. The weight of evidence is against the trinity. How much clearer can I get? I know you ask for me to be concise, but we are speaking of the nature of God and Christ, thus we are walking on holy ground, so I must speak clearly, so as not to confuse, but not so concise that I leave out essential thoughts. Where I said above that the weight of evidence is against the trinity, I could be clearer on that. I believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A trinity if you must call it that. I prefer the Biblical term, Godhead, which to my mind are not one and the same thing. But what I do not and cannot accept is the inferences and conclusions made by most people, and the creeds of the early churches, that make the Father and the Son equal in all respects, and the Holy Spirit as a third separate individual entity of equal standing as the other Two. There are two principle reasons apart from the age/begotten thing, that leads me to conclude the submissive and unequal nature of Christ. Two texts, both in agreement, both written after the ascension, (thus not in the context of the earthly life of Jesus) one present tense one future. They are 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:24-28. We have one sole mediator, Christ. The Bible does speak of the intercession of the Holy Spirit, yes, but let us not leap to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is also a mediator separate and apart from Christ...the Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF Christ. When we speak of the Holy Spirit's work among men, we are speaking of Christ. That is true of the OT, the NT, and today. Thus Christ is, and always will be, until He comes, the sole Mediator between God and man. To claim the Holy Spirit is a third entity apart from Christ and independent thereof, creates a mediator that displaces Jesus as the only one.

Read the last paragraph of my post at the top of the page. Then read again my post above, for it seems you misunderstand what I am saying.

According to the trinitarian model, where the Son had no beginning, the son can only be metaphorical. The Father did not send a metaphorical Son to die for us.

By the way, I also believe Jesus existed as God before creation. Consider the following. If we could travel at a septuagintacentillion (10513) times the speed of light in any one direction, would we ever find the end of the universe, like perhaps a wall with a sign saying this is the end? And if so, what would be on the other side of that wall? And what existed before God created all things through His Son? Was it nothing? And how long did nothing exist for if that was the case? It would have to be forever! And what about God, when did He begin to exist and who created Him? The answer is that there was never a time He did not exist and hence could never have been created. He is God and has always been and so is without beginning! And what about the Son of God who was born of the same substance of God? The same applies. Since Christ is the same substance of His Father, then everything He consists of had no beginning. So His divinity had no beginning, His makeup; His nature had no beginning as it all came from the Father. So in principle, everything Christ is had no beginning. If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning. But His personality as the Son of God began when He was brought forth by His Father. So in effect it was only the personality of Christ that had a beginning. These are the mysteries of God and things our mind cannot possibly comprehend. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, WHILE CHRIST'S PERSONALITY HAD A BEGINNING...if Christ had no beginning then He was not begotten.

You do not understand what the 'trinity' actually teaches. According to tradition and the creeds the trinity refers to 3 co-equal co-eternal consubstantial Gods (God the Father...one God; God the Son...two Gods; God the Holy Spirit...three Gods) which equal one God. Yet scripture clearly and unequivocally states that the head of the church is Christ and the head of Christ is God. The trinity is not only a mystery, it is utterly contradictory to any plain reading of scripture.

Trinitarians often claim Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 supports their belief in a Trinity. But this verse in no way affirms the Trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make up one God. Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This verse refers to three powers but never says they are one in essence and says nothing about their personality. It does not say they are three beings, it does not say they are three in one or one in three, it does not say these three are the Godhead, it does not say these three are a Trinity, it does not say these three are co-equal or co-eternal beings, it does not say that these three are all God. And yet some wrongly draw the conclusion that this supports their belief in the Trinity or that the Holy Spirit is another being which is clearly not so.

So the Spirit of God that you claim was involved in creation...was that the Father, who is Spirit...or the Son who was Spirit pre-incarnation...or a third spirit independent of them...thus there are 3 spirits in heaven? Or should we simply accept what scripture says...the Spirit OF God? Meaning the Spirit that belongs to the Father which He gave to His Son 'without measure' (John 3:34). Creating a third person is unnecessary and superfluous to theologically understanding the nature of God. We as people have spirits, but we do not understand our spirits as being a separate individual person apart and independent of ourselves...we understand that our spirit is intrinsically who we really are; our character, personality, our essential self, is part and parcel of our spirit...so why should we claim God is different? When we speak of the Spirit OF God, as it is described repeatedly throughout all scripture, we know it as the character and mind and power of God do we not? Peter himself spoke of the Spirit that inspired the OT prophets as being the Spirit OF Christ. Does the so-called third person of the trinity belong to Christ? Does the 'third person' belong to the Father, being described often as the Spirit OF God? God is impossible enough to understand without creating unnecessary mysteries with a trinity and making Him even more distant. Literal Father, literal Son, with a Spirit shared by both...the Father and Son being equal in character and nature, but not in authority or age. The Son, being begotten, had a beginning. The Father had no beginning. Because the Son came forth from the Father, the Son inherited all His Father's character and Spirit, 'for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell' (Col. 1:9) As the Rock hewn from the mountain, (Daniel 2:34) so that Rock shares the same characteristics as the mountain from which it was cut. Same material, even same age, yet as a personal individual, had a beginning. Such is Jesus. Having the same eternal self-existent life as the Father, (John 5:26) means we may rightly and justifiably name Jesus God. Thus the Father is the God of our God. Less mystery, less perplexity, and still Biblical. Just a different perspective, and the only reason so many claim it heresy is because the creeds say so. The weight of evidence is against the trinity.

Perhaps you don't want to see any parallels with Constantine either do you? Like I said in my former post, many evangelical and charismatic leaders have already led their people several hundred miles toward Rome, where only one small step is a giant leap into apostasy. Were you at the meeting with the late bishop Tony Palmer where he declared that the protest is over and all Protestants should return to Rome and the entire room full of Protestant leaders stood and cheered? Were you at Washington memorial a few months ago where thousands cheered at the video of Francis calling all to unite again with him? Are you not aware of the massive modern movement of the Protestant church toward Rome as expressed by the Lutherans to be confirmed later this year in Denmark? Are you not aware of Trumps promise to tear up the Johnson amendment that will be the motivating factor behind the church lobbying and promoting Christian morality including Sunday laws? Are you not aware that in the late 1800s such a move failed only by the narrowest of margins due principally to objections from some very eloquent men espousing religious liberty for Sabbath keepers and atheists? With a vice-president who is openly and staunchly Catholic how can the white house be anything other than pro-Vatican, particularly in the light of recent history, where every President since Reagan has accelerated Rome/Washington relations, and where Francis addressed the crowd on his last visit from a balcony a step higher than any President in history? All these are but the tip of the ice-berg , and just these are significant enough to have your pioneers turning over in their graves.

So the Father said to His Son, "let us make man in our image, in our likeness."

Good grief, where did I suggest he was leading the US into a theocracy? Unless you equate one with the other, I said he had the 'potential' to lead an historically Protestant nation into apostasy through surrendering the nation into the arms of a coming global papal dictatorship. The uniting of church and state is precisely what such a situation requires, and the re-establishing of Sunday blue laws as a nationwide obligation will seal the deal. Current events clearly reveal that these two things, the latter dependent upon the former, could very well be taking place. To declare otherwise, is to view current events through very Trump tinted glasses. The Constitution and the principles enshrined therein, if protected, was designed to forestall such an event. The lessons of European history taught the forbears of your great nation that any future union of church and state, be it RCC or Protestant, would spell disaster for religious freedom, both RCC and Protestant. Prophecy screams from the rooftops however that such a union will once again be established in the earth, globally, and that the US will be at the forefront of such a move. The popularity of Trump within the Christian community is a very blind faith. That some things he is doing may well be good, that he is honoring his campaign promises revolutionary, but what he is doing if he goes too far has the 'potential' for disaster. The parallels with Constantine are marked. But hey, most Christians don't even recognize the US in prophecy, much less the papacy. And those who see neither, are caught up in ecumenism big time...just look at the names on Trumps 'best friend' list...either Catholic or very pro-Catholic Protestants ( a misnomer actually as they no longer protest) many proclaiming the protest over. How many stood and cheered along with the late bishop Tony Palmer and Kenneth Copeland at the Popes plea for unity and today have found favor with the White House? Revelation 13 demands a union of church and state. It is the people who in the final analysis actually call for it. This can only take place in a Christian democratic nation with global influence. The USA.

Why is it so awful to ask if Satan has blinded you? People have been openly called me a heretic, or a member of a cult for years. In this short thread it has been intimated several times, and explicitly stated once. Such charges are to be expected as a Christian. They called Jesus worse. But to be asked, has Satan blinded you? There is no accusation there, and if you are offended by that, you are being too sensitive. It is a question more people on these forums should be asking themselves everyday; particularly in light of the topic of this current thread.

In the early 4th century Constantine the Great, claiming a personal Christian faith, became Emperor of the western Roman Empire. After the previous Emperor Galerius had declared persecution to cease, Constantine officially restoring rights and privileges to Christians, promoting Christians to public office, and favoring the church with legislation in their favor, exemptions from taxes in some cases, turned the whole Christian landscape on its head, yet was the catalyst for the establishment of the greatest apostasy in Christian history, the RCC. Today, we have a new emperor on the throne of western civilization, Donald Trump. He also has turned the tide of anti-Christian political leanings into a positive favortism, promising to restore the rights of free speech, re-establish Christian privileges which of recent times been eroded away by political correctness and liberalism, Trump and Constantine seem to be sharing a number of parallels. Constantine's Edict of Milan was particularly interesting, restoring officially religious freedom, even to returning property previously confiscated. Constantine also ordered the publication of Bibles, and officially established Sunday as a day of rest, closing businesses and shutting down commerce, except for agricultural work. I can imagine how joyous the church must have been at these announcements, except among the more discerning. Many however would have been openly celebrating Constantine's rise to power, and thanking God for His great mercies in sending the church such a wonderful savior. Does this remind you of anything happening today? For over 120 years the Seventh Day Adventist church has been teaching that before the second coming, a Sunday law will be established in America and the world, directly undermining God's 4th commandment. This Sunday law will be in conjunction with the re-establishment of the Roman Papacy as a world dictatorial superpower, with its Pope at its head. Trump has sworn to tear up the Johnson Amendment, which in the 1950s curtailed the preaching of politics from the pulpit, on pain of incurring tax penalties. Trump has promoted many professing Christians to his cabinet, the Catholic Mike Pence being the most prominent, but a council of advisors made up of many church leaders has been announced also. So while you Christians are celebrating that Trump is somehow God's man and the church's future secured due to his rising to power, think on the parallels, and what became of the church under Constantine's aegis. The separation of church and state disappeared. Roman Catholicism soon became the state religion, to the exclusion of all others. Paganism officially entered the church by way of Sunday, among other heresies....persecution ceased to be implemented by the state, but was then undertaken by the church...force was used to compel worship and submission to the Popes. All these things our church has been teaching for 120 years to be repeated but on a global scale. Far from leading the church into freedom, Trump has the potential for leading the church into its greatest apostasy.