Characteristics of the Little Horn Daniel 7

Sister · September 15, 2016

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

The little horn who comes up out of the 10 kings is this man. He has only 3 1/2 yrs, then Christ comes. So he hasn't come yet.

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 7:25 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.

Only 3 1/2 yrs from his rule to his end.

  Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

  Daniel 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

  Daniel 11:39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Who is the God that his fathers worshiped?

brakelite · September 23, 2016

On 15/09/2016 at 6:32 PM, Sister said:

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

The little horn who comes up out of the 10 kings is this man. He has only 3 1/2 yrs, then Christ comes. So he hasn't come yet.

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 7:25 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.

Only 3 1/2 yrs from his rule to his end.

  Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

  Daniel 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

  Daniel 11:39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Who is the God that his fathers worshiped?

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.......

Edited September 23, 2016 by brakelite

brakelite · September 23, 2016

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 · September 23, 2016

5 hours ago, brakelite said:

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.

Brakelite

For starters, God never calls him the Antichrist, but "the False Prophet", or the "Son of Perdition".

It's "one man", that is coming, who exalts himself over God.

"One man" will be performing "miracles", before the whole world to deceive them into receiving "the Mark of the beast".

"No man" can buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast or worships his image.

When this man "to come" speaks, the whole world will be silent and will listen. They will adore this man, and hang off his every word, as he will bring peace, but for only one hour. The rest is death, destruction, and wars. He will persecute the saints and segregate them for not conforming to this new system he "enforces".

All this has not happened yet,...but it's coming. To whom much is being given is to warn the brethren and others also that this man is coming for our souls, and to warn all to come out of Babylon spiritually, and not lose our inheritance as Esau did just for a bowl of soup (FOOD), because he was hungry.

....And to make it as simple as possible so that the message gets through without mountains of information regarding the past. All that doesn't matter, what matters is that he is coming,...the false prophet, and people understand that they better be prepared and get to know their Lord, so that he can feed them, and strengthen them with knowledge, faith and perseverance, because this whole world is going to be shaken for both the Christian and non Christian lands.

We should be warning them as simple as possible, without confusion and our own opinion, but give the facts on what's just around the corner.

In other words, ...do not take the mark of the beast, which will be a microchip implant... or you will receive all the plagues that are coming, and lose your souls. It is coming soon.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Sister

brakelite · September 23, 2016

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.

Edited September 23, 2016 by brakelite

Sister · September 24, 2016

On 08/08/2016 at 6:16 PM, brakelite said:

Hi. In this thread I would like to present a series of articles detailing comprehensive descriptions of the little horn that grew from the 4th beast of the vision of Daniel in Daniel 7. While you are welcome to comment, I would rather not get bogged down too much in discussion or debate....this thread is mainly to offer a perspective and understanding of prophecy very few, if any, of you may have considered....and that is all I ask of you....to give it your most serious consideration, and the possible consequences if what I am presenting to you if true. So, with prayers for God's blessing on your reading, here goes.

The first characteristic is
1) The little horn arises from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, the little horn power grows out of Rome, therefore

the little horn must be a Roman power.

Brakelite

Ok, lets go back to your very first post. I noticed something not quite right right from the start, but you didn't want anyone to debate, only to just listen and read your whole presentation first.

Daniel 7:8 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.

You say the fourth beast is Rome and no one is to argue?

Take a look at the beasts again. The VISION was in the days of BABYLON'S rule. The four beasts were to come AFTER Babylon.

Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.

Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

Next Beast to come and conquer Babylon was Darius the Mede. Detail is given about that KING of the MEDES. Darius. One man. Darius was given the heart of a man, not the Medes,....but Darius. It's speaking of Darius.

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.

Ruling alongside the Medes, was PERSIA. This KING of PERSIA, is the 4TH King. Speaking about that particular King (who would stir up the Grecians and be taken.)

Daniel 5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

So far, Babylon is taken over by Medo/Persia. There's your first two beasts. And the two KINGS have their parts to play.

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.

Grecia conquered Medo/Persia, and this leopard is describing Alexander. He gets a mention. ....but when Alexander died, his kingdom was broken up between his four generals. We know that out of one of the generals came Rome later. So Rome is mentioned here, on the back of the THIRD BEAST, rising up out of Grecia. No details of significance given about any of Rome's Emperors. But we like to slot things in don't we?, So if God did not think it important to mention, ...then we don't need those endless historical details to understand then do we?

So Rome's rule is included in the above, ...in the third beasts description not the below, but many miss it.

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

And Rome fell. No more. Gone.

I showed you that the British Empire arose after Rome. You ignored this fact. If you look at the statue of King Nebs dream, Rome finished a the legs. The feet were next, and they are iron mixed with clay. The only thing Roman about it would be "democracy", a copycat of Rome's ruling system, and the Roman Catholic faith mingled in there also. This faith is not a ruling beast, but a belief. They would be in agreement the next beast (4th), but are not the beast with the ten horns.

...and the ten toes, they are iron and clay also. We know that from Revelation the beast who's head (kingdom) was wounded, would be healed in the end times. This is that same kingdom that would be healed,...the feet. Not the legs. The kingdom of the feet will be healed and given full power. This empire is hiding the fact that she's powerful, but will soon show the world. She's called the invisible empire. She lurks in the shadows, but will come out soon, and I pray you will see it is not the Roman Papacy. The 7th kingdom turns into the 8th when the "False Prophet" comes.

Now it skips to the end time beast. It's different from all those before it. It's a totally different kingdom.

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.

And the little horn rises out of this kingdom. Not the ones before it. Not Rome. But who is ruling now, this is him.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Sister

brakelite · September 24, 2016

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."

Sister · September 25, 2016

Quote

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.

brakelite

You have put a lot of effort into this, but let's go back here and iron this one out first. I am going back to good old simple prophecy that will explain the interpretation without even going outside the scriptures. Regarding the 4 beasts in Dan 7;

This prophecy was given during the days of the last king of Babylon.

Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.

Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

The wings being plucked means this king was humbled. The man's heart given to it, mean's he's not being described as a "beast" now, but a man who is humbled before the Lord.

When Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall, his kingdom was taken that night. Belshazzar was never humbled. It's already explained a couple of chapters back.

Daniel 5:22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

Daniel 5:23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

Daniel 5:24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.
Daniel 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
Daniel 5:26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Daniel 5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
Daniel 5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Daniel 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

Daniel 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Proof Belshazzar was not humbled, nor given a man's heart.

Now to prove to you that Darius was the man who had his wings clipped, being humbled before God is here, please follow;

Darius gave Daniel a high position in his kingdom;

Daniel 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

Daniel 6:2 And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.

Daniel 6:3 Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

You know the rest of the story, Daniel was set up by the kings presidents and princes with the decree they made Darius sign concerning no man to worship or make a petition to any God for 30 days. Daniel disobeyed and Darius being fond of Daniel was sorrowful as Daniel was thrown into the den of lions. When God delivered Daniel from the lions, Darius saw the power in Daniels God and was humbled. He then threw Daniel's accusers into the den of lions and made this decree;

Daniel 6:25 Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

Daniel 6:26 I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.

Daniel 6:27 He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.

Daniel 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

The proof now from the scriptures themselves that DARIUS was the king who's wings were plucked, and given the heart of a man because he was humbled, and saw GODS POWER and GLORY for what he did for Daniel. This first beast is Darius, not Belshazzar as you incorrectly stated. If you are writing books, then this needs to be corrected or your credibility will be lost. Just trying to help brother, not judge or humiliate, ...the truth should always come first and it's explained in scripture as the chapters are not all in chronological order. You seem humble and this is what I meant when I quoted,... a little bit here, a little bit there, precept upon precept, line upon line,.....put the dots together, the answer is in the scriptures, not in historical writings.

I have showed this to others before but they ignore because they refuse to be corrected, therefore the love of the truth is not in them. If we go out even a little bit in interpretation, the rest will be out.

missmuffet · September 25, 2016

It helps to get a reliable Christian Ministry in here to bring in the TRUTH

Question: "What is the little horn in the book of Daniel?"

Answer: In one of his visions, the prophet Daniel sees a “little horn” that grows out of a terrible beast (Daniel 7:8). The emergence of the little horn, its unusual form, and its behavior cause Daniel to wonder greatly. Fortunately for him and for us, the vision is explained.

Before we examine the little horn, we’ll take a quick look at the whole of Daniel’s vision. The prophet sees four beasts (Daniel 7:1–7) representing four kingdoms (verse 17). The first three beasts represent Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.

The fourth and final beast that Daniel sees is the most dreadful—“terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (Daniel 7:7). This fourth beast has “bronze claws” (verse 19) and “large iron teeth” with which it annihilates its prey (verse 7). Daniel sees that the terrible beast has ten horns. As he ponders the meaning of the horns, a little horn begins to grow from the midst of the ten. This little horn is quite unusual. As it emerges, three of the original horns are plucked out by the roots. Daniel sees that the little horn has “eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully” (Daniel 7:8). The proud, boastful words of the little horn continue until the day of judgment (verses 9–10). At that time, “the beast was slain and its body . . . thrown into the blazing fire” (verse 11). That is the end of the little horn.

Daniel is troubled by the vision of the beast and the little horn, and he asks specifically about it (Daniel 7:19). An angel explains: the beast’s ten horns are ten kings who will arise from that kingdom (verse 24). A horn in the Bible is often a symbol of strength and authority (see Psalm 89:24 and 132:17). The little, boastful horn with a human mouth and eyes represents a specific king; at his rise to power, three of the original kings will fall. This evil king pictured as the little horn “will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people” (Daniel 7:25). He will seek to change times and laws, and he will exert oppressive power over God’s people for three and a half years (verse 25).

The fourth beast that Daniel saw was the Roman Empire, the world kingdom that would arise after Greece. The little horn that Daniel saw is a world leader especially noted for his blasphemies and the scope of his power. Because this little horn is ruling at the time Judgment Day comes, we identify it as the Antichrist, the “ruler who will come” who sets up the abomination in Daniel 9:27. The mention of three and a half years corresponds with the duration of the Antichrist’s rule in Revelation 11:2; 12:14; and 13:5.

The little horn emerges from the fourth beast, a fact that suggests that, in the end times, there will be a “revival” of the old Roman Empire. This restoration, whatever form it takes, will feature a coalition of ten world leaders. The Antichrist will make his move to the top at the expense of three of those leaders, and he will eventually wield global authority. A true tyrant, the Antichrist will seek to control every aspect of life (see Revelation 13:16–17). He will even demand to be worshiped (verse 15).

The little horn of Daniel 7 is the same as the first beast of Revelation 13. The beast in Revelation also has ten horns. And, like the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast, John’s beast “was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies. . . . It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name” (Revelation 13:5–6).

In summary, the little horn that Daniel sees is the Antichrist, a world leader who rises to power from within a league of ten future kings. This little horn will blaspheme God and persecute God’s people during the tribulation, right up until the second coming of the Lord Jesus. At that time, the Antichrist’s “power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever” (Daniel 7:26), and Jesus will establish His millennial kingdom. The reign of the Antichrist is limited: forty-two months, and no more (Revelation 13:5). The little horn will lose his war against God. His boastful blasphemy and wanton violence are only temporary. The reign of Christ is eternal.

http://www.gotquestions.org/little-horn.html

Sister · September 25, 2016

Quote

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.

brakelite

Again, just to make it very simple. You are mixing up the two different visions.

King Nebs vision of the statue (Dan 2) starts with him as being the head of gold, this I agree with you about the next kingdoms to come in their order.

The other vision in Dan 7 of the 4 beasts (4 kings to come), are specifically identifying the KINGS of those empires. Their personal characteristics in short. Not one of Rome's emperors were given a special mention. All of them were missed out here, but we know Rome ruled after Grecia. We keep this in mind.....but it's not important because it jumps to the last empire of the end times, and it's this King (the little horn) that gets a great mention. He comes out of the last empire with the 10 kings ruling.

You say it's a continuation of Rome. I say no, it's a different kingdom, and it's clear that it's diverse from all the rest of the beasts. It's a different vision from Dan 2 concentrating on those specific 4 kings to come who get a mention after Babylon. Rome was missed out because there's too many to mention so it jumps to the last king (the little horn). Don't line it up with Dan 2 because Medo/Persia together are counted as one beast in that chapter.

Dan 7 is pointing out the 4 kings to come after Babylon. Just because no Roman Emperor got a mention doesn't mean Rome did not rule, but none of Rome's rulers were included in those 4 kings mentioned. That bit is skipped.

Sign In

Join Worthy Christian Forums today!

Characteristics of the Little Horn Daniel 7

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Serving

Sister

Last Daze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members