brakelite

One of the most intuitive descriptions of the human condition I have read went along these lines...We are self replicating moral viruses who occasionally get things right. Sin is a cancer, a fatal illness with which we are all infected. We were originally created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), and God is love. However, when man rebelled he lost that image, and from that time on we were born in the image of fallen Adam (Gen. 5:3). Unless were are born again and recreated in the image of He who made us (John 3:3,5; Rom. 8:29), we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The cancer of sin must be destroyed. We cannot expect to be allowed access to heaven if our characters are corrupted by a virus that brings death to whomsoever it touches. This is where sanctification comes in. The working of the Spirit in us to free us from sin, to recreate in us the image of Christ, to instill in us the principles of heaven, which are love for God, and love for our neighbor. How do you know that the form of belief and faith you cling to is actually curing the disease and not just the symptoms? Is that which you cherish as ‘church’, faith or whatever simply providing anti-inflammatory solutions to the consequences of sin, or is it dealing with the root cause – a very much alive and perfectly well ‘self’. Sin is a terminal disease for which there is only one sure remedy. This remedy must be taken daily, and in large doses. Sin is a rampant virulent poison that grows without restraint if given license, and destroys all whose paths it crosses. And the only remedy, the only cure, is death to self. Anything else in the Christian life touches only the symptoms. The joy of fellowship, without death to self affects only that innate loneliness that comes from estrangement from God through sin. Any peace we may experience as a result of knowledge or even faith in the scriptures, without death to self, is merely a short-term appeasement to the conscience. Death to self or the carnal nature or the flesh, must come before being born again. Death to self must come before baptism. Death to self must come before the infilling of the Holy Spirit. How do we know that the faith/religion/Christianity we hold to is curing the disease? By the fruits that grow as a result of the characters we feed. If we are feeding the carnal nature, then the carnal nature is going to flourish and live, and the fruits of that nature will be manifest in sin, worldliness, and compromise. If we are however putting to death the carnal nature through faith in the power of Christ, then we starve it. We refuse to feed that nature. We instead feed the spirit. And the fruit of the spirit will be found in holiness and righteousness expressed through love that is implanted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Mathew 16:24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. Throughout the NT Jesus likened the kingdom of heaven to a seed. We, like the seed, must die, be buried, and be raised up into a new life. Death is the only remedy to sin. There is a further aspect to this. Throughout Revelation we are promised great things if we would but ‘overcome’. Jesus said to the Laodiceans that should we overcome, we will sit with Him on His throne, just as He overcame and sat down on His Father’s throne. So that strongly implies to me that we are to overcome in the same precise way that Jesus did. How did Jesus overcome? John was invited to see who had the right to open the seals of the book. Who had the power and authority to reveal the future? Who was He? 5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Ahhh! A Lion!!! A ferocious Lion who by great strength and power has prevailed!!! Is that what John saw??? 6 ¶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain A Lamb!!! Yes, a Lamb as it had been slain. How did Jesus overcome? Through self sacrifice!!! And that my friends is how we are to overcome. Not by strength or power or force of arms, but by surrender! Complete self sacrificial surrender to God and our fellow man. Re 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. We overcome by loving our enemies. We overcome by praying for those who persecute us. We overcome by feeding the hungry. We overcome by clothing the naked. We overcome by visiting those in prison. My favourite chapter in the entire OT is Isaiah 58. He tells it like it is. We overcome… 6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? 8 ¶ Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. 9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; 10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: 11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. 12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in. 13 ¶ If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. All the above cannot be accomplished without sacrificing self. Joh 15:5 And we cannot hope to overcome as Christ did except we take up our own cross and follow Him. We cannot hope to overcome and share in His victory over sin, the devil, and the world, until we die to self and surrender to Him. Rom 12:1 This is how we gain eternal life. By so identifying ourselves with Christ’s death that we partake of the same. Rom 6:1-7 Sin becomes anathema to us. The more we associate ourselves and integrate ourselves with the cross of Calvary, the more abhorrent sin becomes to us. Conversely, the more sacred and the more precious will the laws of God become, and the more joy we obtain in surrendered obedience to them. Rom. 6:8-14. We become instruments of righteousness by our self sacrificial surrendering to the grace and life that God will impart to us, and we become overcomers. This is the only way to eternal life. Only through partaking of Christ’s death, and assimilating His life, can we have any hope for heaven. This is the only solution to the virus which affects us all. God Bless

I agree with this. Probably my favorite preacher outside my own denomination is Paul Washer. People need a straight message today for there is no time now for sleeping in church. It is time now too trim the lamps and ensure we have God's Spirit abiding in us, and the ONLY evidence fr the presence of the Spirit of God is a life lived in harmony with God's, not man's, standards. And yes, the scriptures are the only basis for faith and practice. But a pope? No thanks. I can listen all day to a preacher who will encourage and direct us to the Bible and to live in accordance to holiness and the righteousness of Christ. I can not abide one who instructs or teaches according to the commandments and doctrines of man. The former is directing man to live in surrender to the chastisement of a loving Father. The latter directing us to live under the slavish control of man's philosophy and vain deceit. After the rudiments of man, and not God.

I would like to here reveal where the futurit hermeneutic, so popular today within Christianity, came from. Jesuit scholar: Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), from Salamanca, Spain. Ribera was a brilliant student who specialized in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He received a doctorate in theology from the University of Salamanca and joined the Jesuit Order in 1570 when he was just 33 years old. Before we analyze Ribera’s methods of prophetic interpretation we must underline that the Early Church fathers (not the New Testament writers!!) had certain futuristic elements in their eschatology. They almost unanimously believed that the “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 was the Roman Empire. They also believed that as soon as the Empire fell apart, a literal evil individual would arise to rule the world for three and a half literal years. (See, George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope, pp. 28-31 where he presents, for example, the views of Lactantius and Hippolytus). In all fairness to these Church Fathers, we must remember two things: 1) They did not expect the history of the world to last another 2000 years. They believed that the coming of Christ was in the foreseeable future. 2) Prophecy is usually not understood in its fulness until the times of fulfillment. Jesus Himself explained to the disciples: “And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.” (John 14:29). The Gospels reveal that the disciples of Jesus totally misunderstood and misapplied Bible prophecy before the resurrection. It was not until after the fulfillment of these prophecies that their hearts burned within them as Jesus opened unto them the Scriptures (Luke 24:32). History proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the meaning of the prophecies becomes clearer and clearer as the time of fulfillment draws near (see, II Peter 1:19). The Early Church Fathers lived in the time of the fourth beast (Rome). The Empire had not yet crumbled into ten kingdoms. The little horn had not yet risen. The best they could do was guess about the identity of the Antichrist. But the Protestant Reformers did not need to guess. They had the benefit of looking back at over one thousand years of church history and saw, with their own eyes, what the Early Church fathers could not have foreseen. By the time of the Reformers, the Roman Empire had crumbled into ten kingdoms and an evil spiritual empire (Papal Rome) had risen among these kingdoms to rule over them. Thus, the Reformers had the benefit of history to help them identify the little horn, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Harlot and the abomination of desolation. Now, back to Ribera. This Jesuit scholar capitalized on the incomplete views of the Early Church fathers. In 1590 he published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse where he expounded the prophecies of Revelation using the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism. The main tenets of his eschatology are described by Froom: “Ribera assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world–and all in this brief space of three and onehalf years!” (Froom, PFF, II, pp. 489-490, ). Ribera was more of a writer than a lecturer. He also died at the early age of 54. For these reasons, Ribera’s views needed a shrewd and articulate champion to carry his message far and wide. The champion was found and his name was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). Bellarmine was an Italian cardinal and also one of the ablest Jesuit controversialists. He was a powerful speaker and lectured to large audiences. Bellarmine picked up where Ribera left off. In fact, Bellarmine made it his special project to spread the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism with unabated passion. “He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul, and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos [Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time], published between 1581 and 1593. This was the most detailed apology of the Catholic faith ever produced, and became the arsenal for all future defenders and expositors. It called forth a host of counter-writings from Protestant leaders, who considered him their greatest adversary.” (Froom, PFF, II, p. 495). Though the basics of Bellarmine’s prophetic views were identical to Ribera’s, he “perfected”, “refined” and amplified many of the details. And he crusaded in favor of the literalistic futurist view and against the Protestants with an evangelistic zeal worthy of admiration! Bellarmine was an expert at turning the Reformers against themselves. For example, he wondered why Luther, who taught that his views were based on Scripture alone, doubted the canonicity of the book of Revelation. In contrast, Bellarmine appeared to be the defender of the book of Revelation as part of the New Testament canon. He also took painstaking efforts to document the fact that the Reformers could not even agree among themselves as to when the prophetic periods began and ended. For example, some Protestants dated the beginning of the dominion of the Antichrist from the fall of Rome (400 A. D.). Others dated it to 600 A. D., when Pope Gregory the Great took the papal throne, and still others dated it to somewhere between 200 and 773, 1,000, or even 1,200. Bellarmine contended that if the Reformers could not agree on the time period of Antichrist’s dominion, neither could they be trusted to identify who he was. Bellarmine also documented that the Early Church fathers (not the New Testament writers!!) taught an individual Antichrist who would rule for a literal three and a half year period. In this way he tried to prove that his view was the original belief of the Early Church. He also showed that each of the Reformers interpreted Daniel and Revelation’s symbols differently. In this way he worked to undermine their views regarding the identity of the Antichrist. In chapter five of his work, Bellarmine employed an argument which would later be picked up by Protestants. There, Bellarmine rewrote history, saying that the Roman Empire had never been divided according to the specifications of the prophecy and therefore, Antichrist could not have come yet. According to Bellarmine, the complete desolation of the Roman Empire must come before the advent of the Antichrist, and this had not yet taken place. Later on we will see that a host of Protestant writers picked up this argument and “ran with it”. The essence of Bellarmine’s argument is that the Papacy cannot be the Antichrist for three reasons: The Antichrist prophecies call for an individual but the Papacy is a system. The Antichrist time periods demand a literal three and one half years, but the Papacy has existed for centuries. Antichrist is to sit in the Jerusalem Temple, but the popes are ruling in Rome. Let’s allow Bellarmine to tell us these things in his own words: “For all Catholics think thus that the Antichrist will be one certain man; but all heretics teach. . . that Antichrist is expressly declared to be not a single person, but an individual throne or absolute kingdom, and apostate seat of those who rule over the church.” (Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 500). “Antichrist will not reign except for three years and a half. But the Pope has now reigned spiritually in the church more than 1500 years; nor can anyone be pointed out who has been accepted for Antichrist, who has ruled exactly three and one-half years; therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come. (Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502). “The Pope is not antichrist since indeed his throne is not in Jerusalem, nor in the temple of Solomon; surely it is credible that from the year 600, no Roman pontiff has ever been in Jerusalem.” (Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502). It is abundantly clear that Bellarmine applied the hermeneutic of a stringent literalism in his exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. As we shall see later, this literalistic hermeneutic was picked up by conservative Protestants and taken to ridiculous extremes. But now we must get back to our story of futurism’s “incredible journey.” For over 150 years after Ribera and Bellarmine, Protestantism remained true to its prophetic principles. But then there was a shift, gentle at first and then with a vengeance!! In the early 19th century some Protestant expositors began to make overtures to Rome. This can be seen most clearly in the Oxford Tractarian Movement of the Anglican Church in England. Let’s allow Froom to describe the movement toward Rome: “But now, in the nineteenth century in Britain, the Futurist concept was again revived, by Samuel Maitland, James Todd, William Burgh, John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, and the renowned John Henry Newman.” (Froom, PFF, III, p. 656). It all started with Samuel Maitland who in 1826 published a series of pamphlets entitled, Enquiries. Froom states that “In these Maitland had militantly assailed the whole Protestant application to the Roman Papacy of the symbols of the little horn, Daniel’s fourth beast, the Apocalyptic Beast, and Babylon–holding that a personal and avowedly infidel antichrist was meant, and asserting that the prophetic days of its dominance were simply literal days.” (Froom, PFF, III, p. 657). Maitland’s views were shared by James Todd (1805-1869) and William Burgh (1800-1866)[both were clergymen in the Church of England]. These views would eventually form the foundation for John Henry Newman’s return to Rome. Notice the following words from William Burgh: “First that ‘THE MAN OF SIN’ is not popery appears from the necessity that this chapter be understood of an individual, and not of a power or office vested in numbers or held by succession.” (William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent [second edition], p. 63). “I would say that an individual is intended–one person whose pretensions live and die with himself. . .” [don’t forget these last words which will later be picked up verbatim by Dave Hunt] (William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent, pp. 64, 65). “Secondly, the nature of these same acts and pretensions prove that the ‘man of sin’ is not the Pope.” (William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent, p. 65). James H. Todd was likewise categorical in his denial of the Papacy as the Antichrist. His lectures for 1838 were later published as Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul. The book was dedicated to Samuel Maitland. The basic tenets of Todd’s concept are: Antichrist will be an individual who will appear at the end of the world just before the second coming of Christ. The evil deeds of the Antichrist will be connected with the Jews rather than the Gentiles. In fact, the Antichrist will sit in a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple. His period of rule will be for 1260 literal days. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 is not the Roman Empire and the horns are not fulfilled in the Roman Empire. In other words, the fourth kingdom will at some future period be established upon the earth. (Froom, PFF, III, p. 661). Todd went so far as to say that “Romanism [is] not properly an apostacy from the faith”. He also states: “. . . the Errors of Romanism do not amount to Apostasy.” And amazingly, he affirms: “The Church of Rome [is] a true Christian Church.” (James H. Todd, Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul, pp. xv, 259-267, 320-321, 322-323). Protestants of the Church of England were now applying the futuristic and literalistic hermeneutic they had acquired from the Society of Jesus!! No wonder they could no longer detect the Papacy as the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy. The concepts of Todd and Burgh were foundational to what has become known as the Oxford Tractarian Movement. To make a long story short, this movement lasted from 1833-1845. [Don’t let the dates pass you by. During the identical time frame but on the other side of the Atlantic, the Millerite Movement was going full steam ahead]. During this period a series of ninety Tracts for the Times were prepared with the express purpose of “deprotestantizing” the Church of England. The principal writers were Newman, Pusey, Keble, Froude and Williams. These men seized upon the writings of Maitland, Burgh and Todd to absolve the Papacy from the stigma of being called the Antichrist. Protestants were openly encouraged to return to Catholicism and to accept the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate leader of the Christian world. The movement toward Rome was driven by the literalistic prophetic principles of futurism. If the Papacy was not the predicted Antichrist, then what was to keep Protestantism from reuniting with Rome? It was in this way that the counterfeit hermeneutic of literalistic futurism led to an ecumenical spirit [as will happen at the end as well]. As the historicist hermeneutic had given Protestantism its driving force and the courage to separate from Rome, so futurism stalled the progress of Protestantism and led it to seek a reunion with Rome. And this is rapidly accelerating as we speak. The climax of the Oxford Movement came when John Henry Newman (1801-1890) defected from the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He had been one of the prime movers of this movement. Twenty nine of the 90 tracts were composed by Newman. Though he had previously spoken harsh words against the Papacy, in 1843 he “published a retraction of all the hard sayings he had formerly said against Rome.” Finally, in 1845 he was received into the Roman communion, leaving Oxford for Rome where, in 1846, he was ordained a priest and later given a D. D. degree by the pope. In 1847 he returned to England, where he continued to reside. In 1854 Newman was called to Dublin as rector of the newly established Catholic University, and in 1879 he was given the cardinal’s hat. Thus todays futurist hermeneutic which in the 16th century absolved the Papacy of its Antichrist title through the work of her Jesuits, is accomplshing more than thier wildest dreams could have imagined by being the catalyst for the return of Protestants to Rome. Remember recently the cheers that went up as the late Anglican Bishop and friend of Francis declared to many Protestant pentecostals, "the protest is over"? If those church leaders had believed and understood scripture as the reformers believed and taught, they would not have cheered, and they, and you, would not be as deceived as you are.

Sister, and once again you are leap frogging over nearly 2000 years of critical prophetic church history, involving both the persecuting power of the middle ages and the persecuted church of the wilderness of that same period, as if that whole history took God by surprise and didn't know it was going to happen, so was unprepared to warn His people about it. Futurism is blinding you to reality. I have said it before, I will say it again. The Antichrist is the Roman Catholic Church system. It is that church/state union that arose from the 4th beast, pagan Rome, was given its seat, power, and authority from that same power , inherited the same characteristics as those pagan empires that preceded her, and in its first phase lived for 1260 years...from 538AD (when the last of the 3 horns, the Ostrogoths, were defeated and thrown out of Rome giving the Bishops the right for the first time to vote independently a Pope) to 1798 AD. Her head wound was inflicted by General Berthier of Napoleon's republican army when he entered Rome, took the Pope captive, disbanded the college of Cardinals, and declared the papal states a republic. The church/secular state union that had dominated Europe for 1260 years died. The religious aspect continued of course, and that 'head wound' was healed in 1929 when Mussolini restored the Vatican giving back civil authority to the bishops of Rome. And that wound has been healing steadily ever since, to the point where today all national leaders throughout the world with few exceptions, visit the Pope regularly and have diplomatic relations with her....the apostate harlot committing adultery with the kings of the earth. To ignore those events in history and prognosticate over some future individual 'antichrist' to come is to be so deceived as to blindly lead people into ignoring from whence their real enemy is coming from. Again, futurism, your prophetic perspective, was invented by Catholic Jesuits for the very purpose of blinding the Protestant world to the truth. And you are perpetuating that lie.

I have been frequenting forums for many years, and have not been shy in revealing these things. It has not always been met with enthusiasm to say the least. The reformers unanimously agreed to the Papal system as being the Antichrist of scripture. The Jesuits were the single most influential group through the fabrication of the futurist hermeneutic, to turn that accusing finger away from Rome, and divert it into some unknown and unknowable future individual. The Protestant world is today grossly deceived, now evidenced by their flocking back into the arms of "Mother". I have found that staunch defenders of Rome have a peculiar way of debating topics, unique to their faith. Using strawmen and logical fallacies they constantly fail to address topics directly, and often manage to confuse the debate turning it into a range of irrelevant unrelated subjects. Also there is a tendency with some to make the debate personal. While the subject may be doctrinal, I have observed frequently that when Biblical support for their stance is wanting, they make it personal, accusing their detractors of 'hate speech', and 'Catholic bashing'. This tactic among Catholic apologists seems to be quite unique to them , to the point where it seems that the better accomplished ones at this are trained that way for that very purpose. Jesuits themselves? Perhaps, who would know? But it is a curious trait, and not uncommon.

To be taught by Jesuits is to endanger oneself to their philosophies and objectives. Loyola himself taught that a true Jesuit will be able to lie with his hand on the Bible swearing he is telling the truth, yet if it to the cause of the faith or to the aspirations of the society, then God looks over it. So if you have a degree from a Jesuit University, who is to know whether you are here to destroy the Protestant faith of those here, because by their own tenets, lying is of no consequence if it accomplishes its goals. I am not accusing you of being either a liar, or a Jesuit, but how would we know? If indeed what you tell us is the truth, and that you have not taken upon yourself the Jesuit mindset, then ySearchou would be a rare specimen indeed, and evidence that their time educating you was a failure, at least from their standpoint. I agree with Shiloh. The Jesuits are the worst enemy to Christianity, and democracy. Their intimate involvement in assassinations and plots against governments is well documented, and their fame as having been banned from nearly every nation on the planet, including Catholic ones, is well known. If you do not understand what they are truly all about, I recommend Hector Macphersons book, The Jesuits in History. At least for starters; its readily available free online in PDF form. May I inquire as to the nature of the degree you earned?

If you are willing to fight the globalist political aspirations of the Vatican, good for you. If you are willing to oppose Francis' current electioneering campaign for the top job as head of the coming NWO, great. But is this aspiration and goal of Vatican geopolitics really "radical"? Or is it in truth what Catholic policy has been all along...first during the dark ages throughout Europe, and soon to be global across the whole planet? Who really is the radical Catholic? The one who sides with religious liberty, or the one who joins with the "protests" against Catholic hegemony, is going to make himself an enemy/heretic of the "true faith". You ready for that?

I remember those too. One particular Saturday afternoon movie (I'm talking 55 or more years ago lol) there was a lone wagon being chased by about thirty screaming Indians intent on killing and mayhem. The driver of this lone wagon, his face filled with fear and dread, drove the horses as fast as they could go, his terrified wife and children bouncing around in the back. They had travelled for several miles and the chasing group growing steadily closer with the tension mounting and the music rising to a crescendo, when someone in the theater called out, "Form a circle!!!!". The entire audience ended up laughing so much I can't remember noticing what actually happened to the wagon.

Then may I respectfully suggest you neither understand or appreciate the power and purpose behind Jesuit education, and the goals and aspirations of the Society of Jesus to which they have dedicated their whole lives...and that is the destruction of Protestantism and American democracy and independence.

Lincoln also repeated the tenor of Washington's thoughts. Lincoln was more bold however, and lost his life as a result. He pinpointed the power that was already working in his day to overthrow the US, and it wasn't a future UN. It was the Jesuits, who have infiltrated the UN, and every Protestant denomination in America, including their universities and Bible colleges, all secret societies, and government. It is a fact that anyone who is Jesuit educated takes on the mind and goals of his teachers. That is the way of their education. Today out of some 350 odd congressmen, 1/3 are Catholic. Of that 1/3, 50 are either Jesuits, or Jesuit trained. Bill Clinton is Jesuit trained. (Georgetown). Hilary is therefore by proxy. Trump is Jesuit trained. (Fordham). So whatever happens, Jesuit principles will lead to a UN takeover (Roman Catholic/Luciferian led NWO) of America, and the world.

Hi Sis. You're not doing my head in, no worries. I am enjoying this discussion. There were ten horns that grew from the 4th beast, right? Most historians agree that there were ten Barbarian tribes that invaded the territories vacated by Rome from the 4th to the 5th centuries. They were very confusing times, and for decades there was no way to fix any boundaries or national distinctions, such was Europe in those hectic and turbulent times...a state of flux. Historians do settle though on a date that the western empire as far as pagan empirical Rome is concerned, came to a close. 476AD. At that time, there were 10 kingdoms prior to the 3 horns being uprooted. Among those 10 were the Anglo-Saxons who had settled Britain, though the Celts remained strongly independent in Ireland and Scotland. Thus Great Britain was one of the ten...they could not be the little horn which was separate, and independent of the ten. The little horn was the eleventh horn...it rose up after 476, and witnessed, even assisted, in the uprooting of the 3 nations/tribes which today can be found no trace...the Ostrogoths, the Heruli, and the Vandals. One more point. Prophecy in the OT centered upon national Israel. Not because they were a nation, but because of those faithful few within that nation who were but a remnant and were fulfilling God's purpose. Israel was Satan's most hated entity, the single most despised people because it was from Israel that the promised Messiah would come who Satan knew would in some way defeat him. It was Satan's sole purpose in his warfare against Israel to hinder, even stop if possible, the coming of the Messiah. He knew prophecy as well as any Pharisee. That is why he focused his attentions upon Israel, even more specifically the house of David. He failed. When Jesus finally was born in Bethlehem, Satan was there. He knew. He couldn't do anything personally, but he tried by instigating Herod to attempt to murder Jesus while still an infant. He failed there too. Then throughout Jesus' life, Satan did all he could to dissuade, tempt, challenge, anything he could think of that would induce Jesus to either give up, get impatient, use His powers for selfish purposes, lash out and avenge His honor, anything that would incite Jesus to sin. He failed in that as well. Praise God!! So what does the scripture tell us of Satan's warfare after Jesus returned to heaven to intercede on behalf of His people? Who was Satan's target then? Who was it that was the apple of God's eye? Who is it that today is heavens focus? Who is it that Jesus is mediating for? Israel? No. No! The church is now the focus of all heavens attention, and so is it the focus of Satan's attacks and hatred. Read the following very carefully. Ask yourself, who is this about? Who is the woman who was being protected by God in the wilderness? Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12 ¶ Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. In Revelation 14:12 we see this description repeated..... Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. This remnant people are set in distinction to those who accept the mark of the beast. A remnant of whose seed? The woman. Who is the woman in NT prophecy ? Who is the bride of Christ? Who is the 'chaste virgin ' being now prepared for her Husband? Who is Jesus coming back for and is thus the prime target of all of Satan's attacks? Israel? No! It is true that various nations/kingdoms are mentioned in prophecy, but not for their own sake, but because they would prove to be a threat to God's people. That is why the Chinese dynasties, though great, are not mentioned. Same for the great Central and South American nations of the Mayan and Aztec peoples. But Babylon, Media/Persia, Greece, and pagan Rome are mentioned, described, and prophesied of because they directly affected the people of God. And in the NT, be honest Sister, what specific entity from history was it that proved to be the single greatest threat against the people of God, and which grew from among the ten horns after 476 AD? There can be only one answer. It is the very power that helped uproot the three tribes...the very power that still calls its leader by the same title as the Caesars, (pontifex maximus).... the very same that inherited and received its civil power from the 4th beast, pagan Rome thus becoming a church state union and rightly designated a kingdom....and the very same power that would speak great words against the Most High and persecute the saints of the Most High...yes, the RCC was the true church's most bitter enemy for over 1000 years, and as prophecy indicates, will still be there right up to the second coming. The OT prophecies centered on literal kingdoms. NT prophecies center and focus on spiritual kingdoms. In the OT, literal Babylon and literal Israel In the NT spiritual Babylon and spiritual Israel.

Okay, when I began this topic, it was with the purpose of revealing the identity of the little horn, otherwise known as the 'man of sin', 'son of perdition', or Antichrist', and why those titles are of the same entity, and the characteristics of that entity. It didn't imagine that anyone would argue against Rome being the 4th kingdom, I always thought that was a given. After all, the early church understood that, as did the reformers. And history attests to it. But here we are, someone opining that it be Islam, another Great Britain. Oh well, here we are then, here is why I believe it is Rome, and no other. This is long, and somewhat off topic, but please bear with me as I go into detail. A principle of understanding prophecy, particularly those of Daniel's is that later prophecies are repeats of earlier ones, but magnified and inclusive of much more detail. With that in mind, we shall begin in chapter 2 with the vision King Nebuchadnezzar had of the great statue, and Daniel's inspired interpretation of it. Daniel 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; "In the latter days" is an idiomatic phrase meaning 'in the future'. It is used in different contexts in Deut. 4:30, Gen.49:1, Num.24:14, Isa.2:2, Hos. 3:5, Ezek. 38:16. Most modern versions therefore translate the phrase as "in time to come", or "in days to come", or in later days". From the historicist perspective, it can be concluded that the vision reaches from the time of Daniel and stretches far off into the future to the second advent of Christ symbolised by the stone kingdom when all previous kingdoms are destroyed and never again to be found . Before we begin to focus on the prophecy itself of Daniel 2, I think now would be a good time to put my plug in for historicism, as opposed to futurism and preterism. John 13:19; Matt. 24:33 and Luke 21:28 provides the precedent and direction we must take to interpreting prophecy. We may look back into history, and it is there we see the rock-solid incontrovertible evidence that gives our faith and hopes a sure foundation. Thus the teachings of Jesus Himself supports a continuous view of prophecy. The church age isn't a gap inserted in between two separate Jewish ages, nor is it a gap in prophecy. Just as the metals are joined together and the 4th kingdom is still present at the time of the second coming, so does history verify. There are a number of historicist scholars and expositors about, but futurism has become fashionable, and has the unqualified support of most churches, and will find no opposition particularly from the one Roman church which manages to hide itself within its folds. The main proponents of historicism are Seventh Day Adventists. Did they invent this approach to sustain certain prophetic interpretations that popular theology rejected? No. Most commentators right from the early church recognized the 7 churches of Revelation 2 and 3 as successive phases of Christianity from the time of John to the consummation of all things. The 7 seals also were recognized as reflecting successive phases of Christianity from John to the second coming. For example, Ambrose, Bishop of Havilburg writing in the 12 century said, "The white horse typifies the earliest state of spiritual gifts and the rider, Christ, with the bow of evangelical doctrine...the red horse is the next state of the church, red with the blood of martyrdom; from Stephen the protomartyr to the martyrs under Diocletian...the black horse depicts the church's 3rd state, blackened after Constantine's time with heresies...the pale horse signified the church's 4th state; colored with the hue of hypocrisy." He said this state commenced from the beginning of the 5th century. This historicist view of the seals was the usual view of expositors down through the centuries. The trumpets also were considered an historical overview of the rise and fall of secular kingdoms from the time of Christ to the future second advent. Scholars such as Daubuz, Mede, Jurieu, along with most all reformation protestants saw the trumpets 1-6 as depicting the desolations and fall of first the western empire of Rome and then the eastern. In 1802 Gulloway, in harmony with many others, viewed the first 4 trumpets as a picture of the Gothic invasions of the west, the 5th and 6th trumpets or the first 2 of the 3 'woes', as depicting the invasions of the Saracens and the Turks in the east. The prophecies of Daniel can be readily understood by using the historicist approach. Futurism and preterism both leave many unanswered questions, many unfulfilled details, and tend to make prophetic interpretation look more like guesswork and wishful thinking rather than the accurate study and strengthening of faith that it can be. The image of Daniel 2 sets the foundation for every subsequent vision and prophecy from Daniel to Revelation. What God has set down as His word in Daniel 2 cannot be altered to suit one's false theories when it comes to studying Revelation. All subsequent prophecies are to be studied on the principle of 'repeat and enlarge'. That is, once Daniel 2 is understood, any further consideration of later visions must be based on Daniel 2, only with the addition of further detail. Daniel 2 sets the scene, everything else must fit into what Daniel 2 has laid down as the bottom line. That said, let us settle on what nearly all Bible scholars agree as to what Daniel 2 represents. Daniel 2:30-45.d5dd4321` The head of gold is clearly identified as the kingdom of Babylon (626-539BC) in verse 38. From history we know that the other 3 kingdoms following Babylon were Media-Persia (539-331BC), Greece (331-168BC) , and Rome (168BC-476AD). Although the Roman empire ruled longer than the other 3 kingdoms put together, it was not succeeded by a fifth world power but was divided up into kingdoms of varying strength, symbolized by the feet of iron and clay, just as the prophecy predicted. These are the nations that make up modern Europe, nations that, to this day, exist as separate national political entities. The Bible makes it plain that the stone represents Jesus Christ (Isa. 28:16; 1 Cor. 10:4; Luke 20:17,18.) Who at His second advent will destroy all the other kingdoms and establish an everlasting kingdom. Daniel 7 and 8 compliment one another, and give added impetus and detail to Daniel 2. I will deal with both 7 and 8 together, in order to make it easier to see the parallels. Daniel 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. 4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings:.... Here is the first beast representing the first of 4 world empires, Babylon, as also revealed as the head of gold in Daniel 2. Another very sound principle when interpreting scripture, is to take all scripture language literally, unless there exists some good reason for supposing it to be figurative; and all that is figurative is to be interpreted by that which is literal. That the language here is symbolic is evident when considering verse 17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. That the intention is to show kingdoms and not just individual kings is also evident by the appearance of beasts. Though Daniel declared to Nebuchadnezzar "thou art that head of gold" , we fully understand that Babylon did not end with the reign of that one particular king. The wings were not plucked during Nebuchadnezzars reign, but during his grandson's reign. Nor were any of the subsequent kingdoms ruled by just one king, but a succession of kings, particularly Rome, which governed its vast territory longer than the other kingdoms combined. Much as modern nations do today, U.S. the eagle; Russia the bear; N.Z. the Kiwi; Aust. the wallaby.etc. Verses 38 and 39 reveal that the first kingdom is Babylon, which rose to power through war and conquest. When Daniel mentioned in verse 2 the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea, this is symbolic language representing war and strife among nations. (Rev.17:15; Isaiah 17:12,13; Jer. 51:1; Jer. 25:32,33.) It is to be noted that all the beasts are predatory, in keeping with the above symbolism. Thus each one preyed upon other beasts. And the wings it can be assumed represent speed. (Deut. 28:49; Jer. 4:13; Habakkuk 1:6-9). The wings were plucked from the lion, thus no longer was it the threat it formerly offered to her enemies. A man's heart was given to it. Babylon in later years had become timorous, effeminate, and a pleasure seeking society without discipline. Daniel 7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. Daniel 8:3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. 4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great. 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. 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 8:9 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. Remember, that the little horn in Daniel 8:9 is different from the little horn of Daniel 7:8. The horn of Daniel 8 grows out of Greece, whereas the horn of Daniel 7 grows from one of the Greek divisions. 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. As the dragon beast supercedes Greece, so this horn grows and supercedes the kingdom from which it grew. 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. It 'waxed exceeding great' in its land-based conquests, greater than any that had gone before militarily, but as iron is stronger than gold, yet its value is far less, signifying the greatness of Rome's military, but the weakness of its moral and ethical standard. But we do see here also 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 among the former ten horns and uproots 3 of them, is also an entity which has aspirations of a more heavenly nature. 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. What Daniel witnessed in vision here was the time of judgement; and in verse 11 we see that Daniel's attention was diverted from that scene of judgement, because of the words being spoken by the little horn! Pompous words indeed! One could even argue that the judgement was set because of the words of the little horn. 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 well being. 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. That Rome was/is the 4th beast of Daniel 7 is attested to by Bible scholars throughout history. 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 / a 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 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."

Do you understand Sister that the futurist concept that you are promoting here is nothing more nor less than a slight variation on a similar line of reasoning and prophetic interpretation espoused by the Jesuits in response to the Biblical accusations of the reformers as they pointed their collective fingers at the papacy accusing that system as being the Antichrist? The futurist hermenuetic is a relatively new concept, and lets the papacy completely off the hook. One designed by Jesuits, promoted by Jesuits, taken up by Protestants, who are now completely deceived and as a direct result of that deception are now turning back to "Mother" having been totally spiritually neutered. You are promoting a Catholic lie. You need to rethink your eschatological stance, and study the Bible and not your "Left Behind"novels. God is not going to pour out His most terrible judgements because people accept a micro-chip implant. The coming crisis is NOT about financial obligations or banking systems. It is about worship, and its about deception. Receiving an implant has nothing to do with either. I would like to clarify a couple of things about the meaning of ‘Antichrist’. Before we look at the antichrist, I want to look at the real Christ. Who is He? Let us go to the scriptures to find out what and Who He claimed to be. Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words. Greater even than the very law of God enshrined within. (Or at least it used to be). Only one person can be greater than any law of God, and that is the lawgiver. 38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted an entire city of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. Nineveh. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah. 42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon. In the three startling claims as shown above, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus. Priest, prophet, and King. It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”. In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many would claim the ‘antichrist’ will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be deceived by such a tactic as this? In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce. Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a ‘son of perdition’ is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betrayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle imposter. A counterfeit. An imposter of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true. Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God. Satan has many counterfeits. Now counterfeits are almost identical to the true. You do not get counterfeit 99$ notes. You get counterfeit 100$ notes. And unless you get trained and disciplined to know intimately the true 100$ note, you will not recognise the false. It has been estimated that every person in America who has regularly handled 100$ notes, has had pass through their hands a counterfeit at least 4 times a year! And not known it!!!! Unless you are intimately acquainted with the true Jesus, how will you recognise the counterfeit? So how does Antichrist counterfeit the threefold ministry of the true Christ, as Priest, Prophet and King? Is there an entity in the world today who claims to do just this? Is there one like Judas who is betraying the Master with a kiss, all the while claiming to be a friend? Is there in the world today a religious system or religious ruler who claims to be the earthly representative of Christ as His priest, claiming to be a mediator between God and man? Claiming to forgive sin even? Does this entity also claim the prerogatives of a prophet? Does it claim to speak for God in spiritual matters? Does it claim to stand as Gods spokesman on earth and claim that only through it’s authority can salvation be found? And finally, does this entity also claim to be a king? Does it claim authority as a secular power? Does it exercise authority and power within the auspices of a church/state relationship? I think you all know the answer is yes.There is an entity in the world today who claims all the above Godly prerogatives which belong only to Jesus Christ. Priest, prophet and king.This entity has set itself up as counterfeit and thus can be affirmatively identified as the antichrist, the impostor and impersonator of the true. And this entity can be found in the Roman Catholic church system. In Roman Catholic theology is also the embedded principle of ‘replacement’ or ‘displacement’ of Jesus.The entire sacramental system is based on the premise that only through participation in the sacraments as administered by Rome, can anyone hope for eternal life. Rome does not recognise any path to eternity apart from that which she has ordained through the priesthood under the headship of the Roman bishop. Thus Rome has implemented a system of works that men must do, or tasks that men must accomplish, be it confession to a priest, penance, participation in mass, partaking of the Eucharist, pilgrimages to shrines or basilicas, recitation of the rosary, or prayers to Mary or the saints and many other ‘religious’ acts, all for the purpose of salvation. The Protestant principle of ‘sola fide’, faith only, is anathema to Rome. The Antichrist is not an open enemy about to attack the church and all things Christian, but is a deceitful wolf in sheeps clothing already in the "temple of God", the church, deceiving it.

Characteristic 6. This topic is based upon Daniel 7:21, and the persecution of God's people. Verse 21 echoes other similar references to this persecuting power, such as Dan.7:8, 25. Revel. 13:7,15; 17:6;18:24. It is impossible for me in this short post to do this topic the justice it so very much deserves. There is much written over the centuries corroborating the evidence I have here, many historical reference books can be read giving so much detail to what I offer here in a general sense. The History of Protestantism and the History of the Waldenses by J A Wylie, are good. The very well known Foxe's Book of Martyrs is another. Yet another is the History of the Reformation by R C Sproul. And there are many many more. All of the above are freely available online in PDF form for anyone interested. Persecution by the church of Rome wasn’t just a few incidental instances over a period of a couple of years by a few misguided zealots, as has been relentlessly suggested by Catholic apologists over the years. It was a matter of established policy. Let us look for example at the Holy Office of the Inquisition. An office by the way that still exists today albeit, unsurprisingly, under a different name. The former Pope Benedict being the former head of that esteemed office. The origins of this organism can be clearly traced to 1227-1233 A. D., during the pontificate of Gregory IX. In 1229 the church council of Tolouse condemned the Albigenses in France and gave orders to exterminate them. In 1231 Gregory IX in his bull, Excommunicamus, condemned all heretics and proclaimed specific laws on how to deal with them. Among the provisions were the following: 1. Delivery of heretics to the civil power. 2. Excommunication of all heretics as well as their defenders, followers, friends, and even those who failed to turn them in. 3. Life imprisonment for all impenitent heretics. 4. Heretics were denied the right to appeal their sentence. 5. Those suspected of heresy had no right to be defended by counsel. 6. Children of heretics were disqualified from holding a church office until the second generation. 7. Heretics who had died without being punished were to be exhumed and their bodies burned. 8. The homes of convicted heretics were to be demolished. (See, G. Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy, London, 1968, edited by Thames and Hudson, p. 128; and R. I Moore, “The Origins of Medieval Heresy”, in History, vol. 55 (1970), pp. 21-36). In The Decretals of Gregory IX we find the following: “Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if need be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions; and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defense of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the church; so that when any one is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith.” (The Decretals of Gregory IX, book 5, title 7, chapter 13). During the pontificate of Innocent IV (1241-1253), the mechanism of the Inquisition was further developed. In the papal bull Ad Extirpanda (1252), the following provisions were given the force of law: 1. Torture must be applied to heretics so as to secure confessions. 2. Those found guilty must be burned at the stake. 3. A police force must be established to serve the needs of the Inquisition. 4. A proclamation of a crusade against all heretics in Italy. Those participating in this crusade were to be extended the same privileges and indulgences as those who went on crusades to the Holy Land. 5. The heirs of heretics were to have their goods confiscated as well. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them’. . . Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of the impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions Commissis nobis’ and Inconsutibilem tunicam. The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake”. (Joseph Blotzer, article, ‘Inquisition’, vol. VIII, p. 34). The savagery of Innocent the IV has led the Roman Catholic historian, Peter de Rosa, to state: “In [Pope] Innocent’s view, it was more wicked for Albigenses to call him the antichrist than for him to prove it by burning them–men, women, and children by the thousands.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p. 225). Further, de Rosa makes this telling comment: “Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, pp. 175-176). It was during this same period that one of the greatest dogmatic theologians in the history of the Roman Catholic Church added his support to the idea of exterminating heretics. Let’s allow St. Thomas Aquinas to speak for himself: “With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by the secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.” (Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Aquinas Ethicus; or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas, Vol. I, pp. 332, 333. London: Burns and Oates, 1892). The fourteenth century inquisitor, Bernard Gui explained the purpose of the Inquisition: “the objective of the Inquisition is to destroy heresy; it is not possible to destroy heresy unless you eradicate the heretics; and it is impossible to eradicate the heretics unless you also eradicate those who hide them, sympathize with them and protect them.” (Salim Japas, Herejia, Colon y la Inquisicion (Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992), p. 20; ). Moving on to the fifteenth century, we think of John Wycliffe. The Papacy would have been delighted to burn him at the stake during his life, but divine providence ruled otherwise. Forty years after his death, the Council of Constance (1413) ordered his body exhumed and burned. (see more on this in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 7-8 ). Notice the words of Pope Martin V (1417-31) to the King of Poland commanding him to exterminate the Hussites: “Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery, they call the people to liberty, that is to the annihilation of kings and priests. While there is still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites.” These words were written by Martin V in 1429. The story of John Hus is very well known. In 1415 he was burned at the stake even though King Sigismund had guaranteed him safe conduct to defend himself at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The remarkable fact is that Sigismund was encouraged to break his word by the Roman Catholic religious leaders. For a vivid description of the martyrdom of John Hus, read, The Great Controversy, pp. 109-110 and Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 19-30. A year later, in 1416, Jerome was also burned at the stake. For the fascinating story of how Jerome recanted his faith and then recanted his recantation, see, The Great Controversy, pp. 112- 115 and Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 31-38. In both of these cases, the trial was held in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Constance. After the trial Hus and Jerome were delivered to the secular power to be exterminated. Also in the fifteenth century, Pope Innocent VIII proclaimed a Bull against the Waldenses (1487). The original text of this Bull is found in the library of the University of Cambridge and a English translation can be found in John Dowling’s History of Romanism (1871 edition), book 6, chapter 5, section 62. Ellen White, in The Great Controversy, p. 77 quotes a portion of this bull in the following words: “Therefore the pope ordered ‘that malicious and abominable sect of malignants,’ if they ‘refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes.’” Let me quote a Catholic church publication to put things in perspective. “You ask, if he [the Roman Catholic] were lord in the land, and you were in the minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly even hang you. But be assured of one thing: he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ‘glorious principles of civil and religious liberty’. . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled [sic] by its absurdity. . . A Catholic temporal government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants solely by the rules of expediency, adopting precisely that line of conduct which would tend best to their conversion, and to prevent the dissemination of their errors.” Civil and Religious Liberty, The Rambler, 8 (September, 1851), pp. 174, 178. The infamous syllabus of errors (infallible) echoes the above sentiments with regards religious liberty. These are relatively recent thoughts. So what happened to infallibility? “He who publicly avows a heresy and tries to pervert others by word or example, speaking absolutely, can not only be excommunicated but even justly put to death, lest he ruin others by pestilential contagion; for a bad man is worse than a wild beast, and does more harm, as Aristotle says. Hence, as it is not wrong to kill a wild beast which does great harm, so it must be right to deprive of his harmful life a heretic who withdraws from divine truth and plots against the salvation of others.” (Fr. Alexis M. Lepicier, De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis, [printed at the official printing office in Rome in 1910], p. 194. Or again even more recently perhaps from The Tablet, the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Brooklyn, New York: “Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the State has the right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same which concedes to the spiritual authority the power of capital punishment over the arch-traitor to truth and divine revelation. . . A perfect society has the right to its existence. . . and the power of capital punishment is acknowledged for a perfect society. Now. . . the Roman Catholic Church is a perfect society, and as such has the right and power to take means to safeguard its existence.” (The Tablet, November 5, 1938). The above reflects an ongoing policy that had endured for 1000 years. And although the recent apologies by the pope were welcome, albeit rather generalised, history and prophecy mitigate against any deep seated genuine change in Vatican thought. Steeped in over a thousand years of tradition and self assured righteousness, the curia I believe is far too entrenched in their own self deceptive dogmas to change in just one short generation from an attitude of total extermination of all opposition to one of brotherly love and tolerance to other faith practices. And prophecy testifies to the same. Inherent in Catholic policy is the willingness to use civil legislation to enforce church dogma. This policy has prevailed since the time of Justinian. And it continues today. If such legislation is enforced, is this not simply another form of persecution? And if it touches religious matters, does it not invade our liberties which many claim are now sacrosanct according to the Vatican? Yet I quote here Pope JP2 which totally contradicts freedom of conscience. “Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible with the sanctification of the Lord’s Day, with its characteristic joy and necessary rest for spirit and body.” (Dies Domini page 112) And Benedict added to this…. The RCC “makes its contribution (in the ethical and moral sphere) according to the dispositions of international law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it”, that we live in a time when little groups of independent people threaten the unity of the world, (Sabbath keepers perhaps ??) and that the only way to combat this problem is by establishing law and then ordering all of society according to this law, thus promoting “peace and good will throughout the earth.” (Apostolic Journey to the United States of America and Visit to the United Nations Organization Headquarters, Meeting with the Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, Address of Pope Benedict XVI, New York, Friday, April 18, 2008.) And if any here think that JP2 comment won’t affect them, consider the following..... On June 26, 2000 the United Religions Initiative was signed into what government leaders refer to as a global law. Truth is, this is actually one of many global laws popping up lately. At the signing of that document it became an all-inclusive international reality that any pope sitting in the Vatican after that date is now considered the universal moral authority over all churches with membership in the World Wide Council of churches, which essentially rules over your locally known National Council of Churches. This includes non-Christian churches that have joined as well. Whether you believe the RCC has changed or not, whether you accept her apologies over past grievances, the fact remains that the RCC has fully met all the criteria to fulfilling the prophecies regarding the persecution of the saints. Untold thousands of Christians have been tortured, harried, chased, displaced and put to death by the Roman church. The Book of Revelation and Daniel both reveal clearly that this will continue right up to the second coming. If one protests that the RCC does not do such a thing today, I can testify to being acquainted personally with a convert to another Christian denomination from Catholicism who is in fear of her life should she return to India. Even here, in her adopted country, Catholic workmates and former friends have turned against her, ostracized her, and are doing all in their power to remove her from her position at her work where she is a nurse. Her brother incidentally converted to a Pentecostal denomination in India and was physically cast from his house, his work, and village, his family have rejected him, and he is now in fear of his life. This scenario is not uncommon in countries where Catholicism has the power to implement and carry out and support such practices. The Philippines, and many South American countries and also even some south Pacific Islands come to mind. (Need I mention Ireland?) Thee things take place on a regular basis, and it is hypocritical of Catholics to complain of persecution against them by Hindus and other non-Christians sects. Catholicism has long been an enemy to true religious liberty, and when (not if)Francis or a future Pope becomes the head of the NWO, we will see a repeat of the Dark ages as it was in Europe, only on a global scale.

Sister, indeed we are discussing the very same entity. That passage in Daniel 11 is directed at the Antichrist, but you do err when thinking that he is yet to come. Do you not think that in my previous description of charactericstic 5 regarding the papal power, that she fulfills perfectly what you have quoted from Daniel 11? It harmonizes also with the passage from Thess. 2 which speaks of this power exalting himself above God. As you read on in my descriptions of him, you will realize where I am going with this, and why. I will also explain my thinking on that 3 1/2 years you mention. Time I think to put up characteristic 6.......

I am having a problem with this term being used...'control'. Yes, certain churches do indeed 'control' their members, even using the reason for doing so, 'to keep order'. If this however was of God, then we must assume that for the sake of consistency God also 'controls' His people 'to keep order'. But is that true? Is that what God really does in His dealings with man? In particular His dealing with His children? Certainly, God is a sovereign Lord over the nations, and through various rulers, kings etc raises up and pulls down nations according to His will, all in the thrust of establishing His righteousness and kingdom among His people. And sure, God has a standard by which He desires His children to live up to. Not in their own strength of course, but through faith in His power, the Holy Spirit, living in them. But to intimate that the kind of 'control' herein mentioned is control for the sake of its own end, grossly misapprehends the character God and His purposes with man. God treats us in such a way that we are led to a point where we recognize our deficiencies, recognize the evil nature of that to which we are tending, and in the light granted us of God's love and mercy, freely seek a better course, a greater piety, a more holy lifestyle , a more consecrated character. We do this by emptying ourselves of self and ego, and allowing the Spirit of God to fill the vacancy thus left. This is not accomplished through control, but through love. Control suggests force...compulsion. These are traits that do not belong to the ways God deals with His children. He desires we love and respond to Him freely, in response to the love, grace, and mercy which He has bestowed upon us. In our surrender to Him is encapsulated our worship of and our love for our heavenly Father, and His Son. If we as church leaders seek to 'control' our members through force and compulsion, by demanding our members live up to certain set standards and regulations under threat of expulsion and other forms of discipline, we are setting ourselves up as rivals to God...it is not our work to set the standard...it is our work to reveal the standard as revealed in the righteousness of Christ...the love of the Father...and lead people to a relationship with Him that He may lift them up according to His wisdom and power and love. Of course, gross disruption and ill discipline in the church cannot be condoned or tolerated, but that applies to any club, society, business or government on the planet. Accepted norms of behavior are and must be expected. But the Word, and only the Word, can be exalted as the benchmark for Who, how, and when we are to worship. @GoldenEagle I agree with you that there is a contradiction and inconsistency in allowing personal judgement to rule in the case of meat offered to idols and the eating of blood etc (who among you enjoy rare steak) and the equally personal liberty taken when considering the Sabbath.

About a years ago my wife and I 'rescued' a young family from poor housing and took them to our home until such time they found better accommodation. During their time with us, we wouldn't allow any drinking and they had to smoke outside. They respected this and I spet much time telling them of Jesus. They learned from living in our hoe, what our boundaries were by experience. As time went on, they came to honor them without any further instruction, for example, swearing or cursing is never heard in our home, and they discovered that boundary without being told. They eventually found their own home, and moved out. Then a month or so ago due to redundancy we lost our own home. They kindly then were in a position to return the favor. The boundaries they learned in our home, without Jesus, became non-existent in their own home. I would continue to share for as long as they could understand what I was speakng of without going off track because of their drinking, but I would eave it there. Thier drinking howeer grew steadily worse, and recently became violent to the point threatening with a knife and a little blood letting and subsequently of police involvement. None of this involved us personally, but it was time to leave. We stayed to do what we could, through prayer and our personal witness, but we are told that there comes a time when the pearls are trampled, and we are to move on. Like it has been said before, our own sanctification sets the personal boundaries within ourselves, and we are all different. Some Christians drink and smoke, we don't. Some use slang, we don't. However it is not up to us to impose our standards on others, we are all on the same bus heading against the flow of general traffic and its impossible to impose laws/restrictions/ethics on people going in the opposite direction. We have all relinquished our lives to the Bus Driver, and we trust Him to negotiate the traffic and get us home on time and in good shape. We call on others to join with us on the bus, not enticing them on account of our own merits or "goodness", but on the merits of the Bus Driver. He sets the boundaries for each one of us depending on our state of growth and our willingness to surrender. Some may opt out and get off the bus. Others may, through their behavior, endanger other passengers and be thrown out. Still others may remain on the bus for the entire journey, but in the end be found without the wedding garment, and be asked to return. Life is hard enough to negotiate it for ourselves, without attempting to be some elses GPS.

Characteristic 5 of the Little Horn of Daniel 7.20-21. The little horn was to speak great words against the Most High (Daniel 7:21, 25). Revelation 13:5 explains that 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). This post is not about my understanding of Catholicism, but rather what the RCC thinks of itself. 1) Roman Catholic church historians and theologians have made some audacious statements regarding the dignity and power of the Pope. Let’s notice a few of them: In an oration offered to the Pope in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512) Christopher Marcellus stated: “For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.” (Labbe and Cossart, History of the Councils, Vol. XIV, col. 109). . The Catechism of the Council of Trent states the following: “Bishops and priests, being, as they are, God’s interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.” (John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, p. 318). Notice the following words of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine: “All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” (Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. 2, “Controversia Prima”, Book 2 (“De Conciliorum Auctoritate” [On the Authority of Councils]), chap. 17 (1628 ed., Vol. 1, p. 266), translated The New York Catechism states: “The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 127) Notice the following words in the journal, La Civilta Cattolica, “The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land. . . . . He is the viceregent of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords.” (La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, An Inside View of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), p. 229 Pope Gregory IX adds his testimony: “For not man, but God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff (who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God), having weighed the necessity or benefit of the churches, dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority.” (The Decretals of Gregory IX, Book l, title 7, chap. 3, in Corpus Juris Canonici (1555-56 ed.), Vol 2, col. 203, translated). John XXIII at his inauguration address said: “Into this fold of Jesus Christ no one can enter if not under the guidance of the Sovereign Pontiff; and men can securely reach salvation only when they are united with him, since the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and represents His person on this earth.” (Quoted in Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 408). Pope Leo XIII stated in an Encyclical Letter dated June 20, 1894: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304). The following words, in a recognized Roman Catholic encyclopedia, illustrate the blasphemous claims of the Papacy: “The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. The Pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities. The Pope is called most holy because he is rightfully presumed to be such. Nor can emperors and kings be called most holy; for although in civil laws the term ‘most sacred’ seems sometimes to have been usurped by emperors, yet never that of ‘most holy.’ The Pope alone is deservedly called by the name ‘most holy’, because he alone is the vicar of Christ, who is the fountain and source and fulness of all holiness. The Pope by reason of the excellence of his supreme dignity is called bishop of bishops. He is also called ordinary of ordinaries. He is likewise bishop of the universal church. He is likewise the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertain only to the heavenly things, to the earthly things, and to the things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater. So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ. So that whatever the Pope does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as according to most doctors, etc. The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom. The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws. [In proof of this last proposition various quotations are made, among them these:] The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as viceregent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep. Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith.” (Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica nec non Ascetica, Polemica, Rubricistica, Historica, article, “Papa”.) This encyclopedia is not some offshoot production. The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume VI, p. 48 in its article, “Ferraris” lauds the virtues of this encyclopedia with the following glowing words: It is “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge” and “a precious mine of information.” Once again, Pope Leo XIII stated: “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, ‘On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens”, dated January 10, 1890, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 193. Bold is mine. Pope Nicholas I, who ruled from 858 to 867 A. D. pronounced the following awesome words: “It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves.” (Cormenin, History of the Popes, p. 243, as cited in R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, p. 248). Many other quotations could be added to prove that the Papacy claims to have the powers and prerogatives of God. 2.Not only do we have statements from Roman Catholic sources to the effect that the Papacy has the power of God, but the Pope also claims the right to be called “Holy Father”. Jesus warned the Jewish leaders of His day: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). In the light of this clear statement of Jesus, How can the Pope demand that he be called “Holy Father”? The name, Pope comes from the Italian, “Papa” which is an abbreviation of pater patruum which means “father of fathers” or “principal father” (See, Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 19). 3) The Pope allows people to approach him and bow before him and kiss his ring. In fact, Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae (Dictates of Hildebrand), article # 9 states: “That all princes should kiss his [the Pope’s] feet only.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, Vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). Acts 10:25-26 explains that Peter refused to allow Cornelius to bow before him. And supposedly, Peter was the first Pope!!! Even the angel Gabriel refused to allow John the Apostle to bow before him (see Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9). Jesus said to Satan on the Mount of Temptation, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”. How unlike Jesus is the Pope. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples but the Pope has encouraged people to bow before him and kiss his feet!! 4) The Papacy claims to possess the power to forgive sins. According to the Bible, only God can forgive sins (see Mark 2:7). If only God can forgive sins and the Pope claims to have power to forgive them, then the Pope must claim to be God! Not only does the Papacy claim that the Pope can forgive sins, but it also claims that its priesthood can forgive them. St. Alphonsus de Liguori wrote a book titled, Dignity and Duties of the Priest . Liguori lived in the mid 1700’s. What makes his book especially significant is that it is a compendium of the Roman Catholic “wisdom” of the previous 1500 years. Thus it presents with clarity, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the power and duties of the priesthood. Before we look at several blasphemous statements from this book, it is important to understand the Roman Catholic view of the Mass. In their view, l) the priest has the power to change the bread into the real flesh of Jesus and the wine into His real blood, 2) Christ is contained in his totality (known as “ubiquity”) in each host distributed by the priest, 3) because Christ is totally present in each host, the host is worshiped by the priest and the faithful. Obviously, for these concepts to be true, the priest would have to exercise the powers of Almighty God. And this is just what the Roman Catholic Church believes. Let’s listen to the words of St. Alphonsus de Liguori: “With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue–The Lord obeying the voice of man–and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards Gabaon. , . . . and the sun stood still. But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests–HOC EST CORPUS MEUM–God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 26-27. “With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution provided the penitent is capable of it. ‘Such is,’ says St. Maximus of Turin, ‘this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God.’ The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it,’ writes St. Peter Damian.”St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, pp. 27-28. “Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ and the penitents of each would be equally absolved.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 28. “ “When he ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ left his priests after him to hold on earth his place of mediator between God and men, particularly on the altar. . . The Priest holds the place of the Saviour himself, when, by saying ‘Ego te absolvo,’ he absolves from sin.” St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 34 5) The Roman Catholic Papacy claims to have changed the law of God. (Dan.7:25 ) Not even God can change the law He wrote with His own finger (see Exodus 31:18). It is as eternal as He is. This means that the Papacy not only claims power equal to God’s but actually claims a power greater than God’s. Obviously this is blasphemy in its most odious form. Notice the following words from the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XII, art. “Pope,” p. 265: “Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when, needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offenses against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to forgive sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges.” This particular topic will be dealt with more fully in characteristic 8. 6) The Papacy claims that it has infallibility in faith and morals. The Bible teaches clearly that only God is infallible and does not change (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6;Hebrews 13:8. If the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, claims to be infallible, then he must also be claiming to be God!! Notice the following evidence: Gregory VII, in his famous Dictatus Papae, makes twenty seven propositions among which is: “That the Roman Church never erred, nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err.” (Cesare Baronius, Annales, year 1076, secs. 31-33, vol 17 (1869 ed.), pp. 405, 406, translated). The Roman Catholic Papacy has put itself on the record on this point by proclaiming, in 1870, the famous Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The events surrounding this event are described by Norskov Olsen: “Viva Pio Nono Papa infallible! These words echoed and re-echoed in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome on the eventful July 18, 1870 when the great crowd, having heard the message of papal infallibility, jubilantly expressed their applause. ‘In the midst of one of the fiercest storms ever known to break across the city, accompanied by thunder and lightning, while rain poured in through the broken glass of the roof close to the spot where the Pope was standing, Pius IX read in the darkness, by the aid of a candle, the momentous affirmation of his own infallibility.’ The fierce storm and dense darkness, the thunder and lightning that accompanied the reading of this document, caused adherents of the papacy to compare the event to the lawgiving at Mount Sinai; on the other hand, opponents saw in the wrath of the elements a sign of God’s anger. By both friend and critic the declaration of papal absolutism was considered to be the most momentous event in the long history of the papacy. On that day the document entitled Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith was decreed. It contains three fundamental concepts which were made into dogma: the supremacy, the universal jurisdiction, and the infallibility of the pope.” (V. Norskov Olsen, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy, p. 2). The key portion of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith stated the following: “We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,!!?? by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one–which may God avert–presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.” Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, chapter 4, pp. 270-271). The Roman Catholic theologian, Fritz Leist, comments on this dogma: “The infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of Jesus Christ Himself. . . whenever the pope thinks, it is God Himself, who is thinking in him.” (Fritz Leist, Der Gefangene des Vatikanus, p. 344. Quoted in Symposium on Revelation, pp. 340-341). The proclamation of this Papal Dogma was the most controversial in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. A significant number of the clergy who attended the Vatican Council I were ardently opposed to this dogma and yet in spite of protests, it was passed. If you would like to read more about how this controversial dogma was passed, despite the opposition, read the opening pages of V. Norskov Olsen’s book, Papal Supremacy and American Democracy. The famous Bible commentator, Adam Clarke, remarks: “They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them. And they go against God, when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies.” ( Adam Clarke, Commentary, on Daniel 7:25). 7) According to the Bible, it is the prerogative of God alone to place kings on the throne and to depose them (Daniel 2:21) and yet the Papacy, throughout its history has boastfully claimed the right to install kings and depose them. The examples are numerous but for now, let us examine statements by Popes and theologians to this effect: In the famous Dictatus Papae of Pope Gregory VII, article 12 states: “That it is lawful for him [the Pope] to depose emperors.” Article 27 reads: “That he [the Pope] can absolve subjects from their allegiance to unrighteous rulers.” In the second sentence of excommunication which Gregory VII passed upon Henry the Fourth are these words: “Come now, I beseech you, O most holy and blessed fathers and princes, Peter and Paul, that all the world may understand and know that if ye are able to bind and to loose in heaven, ye are likewise able on earth, according to the merits of each man, to give and to take away empires, kingdoms, princedoms, marquisates, duchies, countships, and the possessions of all men. For if ye judge spiritual things, what must we believe to be your power over worldly things? And if ye judge the angels who rule over all the proud princes, what can ye do to their slaves?” James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, p. 161. The arrogance of the Papacy over the secular power is illustrated in the famous Decree of Gratian. Even though this Decree is a perversion of fact, it does show the boastful claims of the papacy: “It is shown with sufficient clearness that by the secular power the Pope cannot in any way be bound or loosed, who it is certain was called God by the pious leader Constantine, and it is clear that God cannot be judged by man.” (Decree of Gratian, part 1, div. 96, chap. 7). Notice the words of the papal bull of Pius V deposing Queen Elizabeth of England in 1570: “He that reigneth on high, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, has with all fulness of power delivered the rule of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one sole [ruler] upon earth, to wit, Peter, the prince of the apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter. Him alone he hath set as prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up, to destroy, to overthrow, and to break down, to plant, and to build, that he may keep the people faithful, bound with the bond of mutual love, and in the unity of the Spirit, and present them unhurt and safe to his Saviour.” Pope Pius, in articles 4 and 5 of this bull, states the following: “Article 4. Moreover she herself is deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and also of all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever Article 5. And so we absolve the nobles, subjects, and peoples of the said kingdom, and all others who have taken any oath to her, from the obligation of their oath and besides from all duty of dominion, fidelity and obedience: and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom and of all other things as is aforesaid: and we charge and order all and every the nobles, subjects, and peoples, and others aforesaid, not to venture to obey her monitions, commands, and laws. And we attach the like sentence of anathema to those who shall act otherwise. . . Given at St. Peter’s at Rome 25th February, 1570, in the fifth year of our pontificate.” (Charles Stuteville, Our Brief Against Rome, p. 268.) 8) The Bible makes it clear that God the Father has given Jesus Christ the right to judge because He is the Son of Man (John 5:22, 27). In fact, the Father has given Jesus ALL JUDGMENT!! But the Papacy claims that it has been given the right to serve as judge of mankind. In this way, the Papacy, once again, claims to possess the right to exercise the role which belongs to God alone. Notice the following evidence: In Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae, article 18 reads: “That his [the Pope’s] sentence is not to be reviewed by any one; while he alone can review the decisions of all others.” Article 19 states: “That he [the Pope] can be judged by no one”. Augustinus de Ancona, in a document preserved in the British Museum, states the following: “Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the Pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God himself, of which consistory the Pope himself is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper. Therefore no one can appeal from the Pope to God, as no one can enter into the consistory of God without the mediation of the Pope, who is the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life; and as no one can appeal to himself, so no one can appeal from the Pope to God, because there is one decision and one court [curia] of God and the Pope.” (From the writings of Augustinus de Ancona (R. C.), printed without title page or pagination, commencing, ‘incipit summa Catholici doctoris Augustini de Ancona potestate ecclesiastica’, Questio VI, ‘De Papalis Sententiae Appellatione’ (On an Appeal from a Decision of the Pope). We are also reminded of the words of Lucius Ferraris: “So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope. For he is of so great dignity and power that he forms one and the same tribunal with Christ.” (Lucius Ferraris, Prompto Bibliotheca, article, “Papa”, II, vol. 6, pp. 26-) Note, in the aforementioned quote a reference to the pope being” the key-bearer and the doorkeeper of the consistory of eternal life”. Now I fully appreciate that this quote comes from an old source, however, when I was a young man being taught and raised within the Catholic communion of faith, this precept, that only by the grace and authority of the pope could anyone enter heaven, was well understood and believed as a dogma and doctrine of the modern church. I do not believe for one moment that has changed. Now, after reading the above, can any true protestant continue to entertain the idea that Catholicism, as a system of religion, ( I speak not of individuals within this system) is genuinely Christian? Or were the reformers absolutely correct, when they all declared the papacy as the ‘antichrist’, that which stands in the place of , thus replacing, Christ?

Rome is identifiable as the 4th beast for several reasons. First,whatever kingdom it is, it must follow directly behind Greece according to Daniel 2. It must come from the same sea, that is the same group of peoples, nations, and tongues as the previous 3 beasts, as per Daniel 7, and Revelation 17:15. The little horn of Daniel 8 which grows from Greece, must grow to a stature exceedingly greater than that of Alexander as per Daniel 8:9. It must move and conquer horizontally, then change direction and attack vertically, as per Daniel 8:9,10. Then of course is the fact that only pagan Rome can be easily identified as having 10 kings grow from its own previously held territories as per Daniel 7:24...only pagan Rome gave rise to the 11th little horn which grew from among the 10, and which itself stood before the uprooting of 3. But lastly and not least, Paul clearly identified the pagan Roman power as the very power who was holding back the emergence of the Antichrist, a point which many early church fathers agreed to. Only a staunch apologist for papal Rome could deny this, and claim Islam or another power as the 4 th beast.

Kwikphilly, I think you are close. It is difficult for us to know precisely how it all takes place, we only have clues here and there which e must harmonize. Just as when we sleep in bed at night, we are totally unaware of time passing. One instant we are asleep, and not even aware we have actually gone to sleep, the next instant we are awake. Death I believe is like that. One instant we cease all activity and thought in as much as this world is concerned, the next, we are awakened and find ourselves rising from the earth and being carried to our heavenly mansions.

You did say when we take our final breath here, quite true. You also said quote: we will take or next breath in heaven". Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

How can one breathe when his body is turning into dust in the grave? In fact, how can one see, hear, speak, or even think when his body is corrupted? And it isn't just me who asked these questions....Psalms 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. We do not have a soul that has its own personlaity and ability to communicate , feel, touch, taste, smell, without the body. Genesis clearly states that when "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Therefore we do not have a soul, we are a soul.

John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 11:23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. 1 Cor 15:51 ¶ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Brings to mind something written by one of my favorite writers in reference to the church of the very final days... "But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.

Indeed. And when theological colleges are teaching evolution and NLP techniques for preaching, a church must set down some sort of a benchmark...although have you noticed that heresy or/and apostasy always comes down to us common folk from the top? So if a church is already infected with a disease what hope for a benchmark that isn't corrupted?