PAGAN ROME QUESTION: 31 BC STARTS PAGAN ROME'S SUPREMACY

Transcription

1 PAGAN ROME QUESTION: 31 BC STARTS PAGAN ROME'S SUPREMACY Jeff, Your studies have been and are still tremendous blessing to me! Thanks! Why do use 31 B.C. as the beginning of Pagan Rome s world dominion instead of 168 B.C.? Respectfully, BK. Brother BK, Daniel 11:24 identifies that pagan Rome would rule the world supremely for 360 years. The verse states, even for a time. The pioneers recognized this. You can see it in Uriah Smith s book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. The key word is supremely. According to Daniel 8, verse 9 pagan Rome would first need to overcome 3 geographical obstacles, before it ruled supremely, ie; the south (Egypt), the east (Syria) and the pleasant land (Israel). This conquering is also identified in Daniel 11:16, 17. Though pagan Rome s work on overcoming these obstacles can be traced to 168, it did not defeat the third and final obstacle until the battle of Actium in 31BC. 360 years later Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from the city of Rome to the city of Constantinople. From that point on the ability of pagan Rome to rule the world fell apart. Jeff. QUESTION: ROME FROM THE FOUR WINDS? Dear Brother Jeff, Your materials have certainly stimulated our interest in understanding more of Daniel and Revelation. Our understanding has increased in regards to the trumpets and the woes. Thank you again! We are a little perplexed about why you chose to stray from the pioneers understanding of the lineage of the little horn. Uriah Smith made it very clear that the little horn came out of one of the 4 divisions of Alexander s kingdom Macedonia. I followed your reasoning of the masculine and the feminine, but do not see how the little horn could come out of the 4 winds. The 4 winds are simply telling the direction and perhaps the extent of the divisions of Alexander s kingdom. Are the 4 winds a tangible or an identifiable kingdom or entity with a geographical kingdom? Perhaps this is a minor point in our understanding of Daniel 8, or is it. The little horn did not arise from any of Alexander s blood line as his entire family was slain. One more small point: If the little horn came out of one of the 4 winds, there would be a break in the chain of kingdoms in Bible prophecy. What kingdom do you see as one of the 4 winds? Is it not true that a kingdom is not mentioned in Bible prophecy unless it has some direct connection with the people of God. It seems that you should have followed our pioneers teaching and understanding on this point rather than another worldly author. Thank you and may the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry! M and GP. Dear M and GP, It does not seem that you are aware of this argument within Adventism. This is an area in Daniel where I certainly do not identify myself as an expert, because the argument usually focuses on the Hebrew. Nevertheless, the foundational argument of Desmond Ford and those who pattern after his false teaching on the book of Daniel emphasize that Rome is a direct descendant of Greece. This would not agree with the testimony of Daniel.

2 In Daniel seven we are specifically told that Rome was diverse from the kingdoms before it. It was not a new manifestation of Greece. This is also identified in Daniel 11:14 where Rome is introduced as the robbers of thy people. In William Miller s day and age he dealt with Protestant theologians who had the same ideas as Desmond Ford, that idea being that Rome is a direct descendant of Greece. The Protestant view, which is of course Ford s view, is that because (as they teach) Rome is a direct descendant of Greece, the antichrist of the book of Daniel is one of the last Grecian kings, named Antiochus Epiphanes. Miller met this argument and actually left in his written works the argument he made on verse 14 of Daniel 11, where he points out that the king of the north in the verses leading up to and including verse fourteen was the Grecian kings, but in verse 14 states, and also the robbers of the people. The fact that Daniel introduces the robbers of thy people in the same verse where he is addressing a Greek king, proves and agrees with Daniel 7 that Rome was a diverse, different kingdom. That is the testimony of Daniel at the prophetic level. It identifies Rome as a different king. When you get into the Hebrew language Daniel begins to employ masculine and feminine. It is here where I am weak, but I have worked through the grammar for myself, and understand that it is correct, although my grasp of grammar, particularly Hebrew, is not dependable. I am in the process of finalizing a book on the daily in the book of Daniel, and I briefly address this passage. You will notice my comments on page 93. I am attaching the book, but please note that the book is still in its copy-editing process. I have carefully looked at the Hebrew arguments and understand that they are sound, but I did not want to pretend that I was an expert in Hebrew, so I basically refer to some of the so-called experts to give testimony to a truth that has been very well documented in Adventism, especially since the attacks of Desmond Ford. I do not make a point of identifying that Uriah Smith did not recognize this fact of Hebrew, just as there are other areas of Smith s understanding, that I disagree with, which I only address when asked about them. I do not have a burden to downplay Smith s work when I am teaching others and believe that his book is God s helping hand. He makes the right identification of Rome in Daniel 8, even if he misses a point concerning verse 8, and 9. Anyway, you can take a look at the book, then check around for yourselves about the subject and let me know what you find. When I need to show why the little horn comes from the winds and not from the horns, I prefer to use chapters seven and eleven, for upon the testimony of two a thing is established, and the prophets agree with each other and themselves. In those two chapters Daniel purposely teaches that Rome is different than Greece. Jeff. QUESTION: THE THREE HORNS WALKED IN THE LIGHT THEY HAD Brother Jeff, Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. My wife and I met you and your wife one time in a church in Arkansas several years ago. We have several common friends such as AF, AB, and others. We appreciate your work and know that God is blessing your efforts. AF recently shared some papers that you wrote on the subject of the daily. I am enjoying learning more about the prophecies. One question we have is about the little horn before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots. Brother V brought out in his series that the records concerning these three horns have been destroyed by the little horn power. It would be consistent with the practices and policies to falsify the records concerning the history. This would include the pretense that they were doing something good while at the same time doing evil. Therefore the conclusion that would be consistent with the rest of the history of the powers of darkness is that the reason that the three horns were plucked up is that they were standing firm and true, to the best of their light and knowledge, to the true God of heaven. I could include more history and references, and would be happy to if you would like some more later. Please let me know what you think about this if you have time. May the Lord continue to bless your desire to know the truth and to practice it, Sincerely, AH. 2

3 Brother AH, I don t have a problem with what you suggest. My understanding of this particular prophetic history is in development, a work in progress, so to speak. I recently spoke at a camp meeting in Florida that was hosted by those who uphold the pioneer position of the Godhead. They understand the Holy Spirit is strictly the Spirit of the Father or of Jesus; and that Jesus is God the Father s Son, as opposed to the common understanding that Jesus assumed the title of Son at some point in time in order to explain Himself and the Father to mankind. I am trying to express their understanding in a way that does not cause any of them to stumble over my words, for I once stated that this group does not believe there is a Holy Spirit, and by that I meant that they do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, and when I stated that I received criticism that I had misrepresented their understanding. They do believe there is a Holy Spirit, but it is simply the spirit of either the Father or the Son. In any case, at that camp meeting there was a brother that presented the history of the early church councils where most of Catholic doctrine was invented and ratified, ect. He had very excellent information identifying that the Arians (the three horns) were at least two things of interest. They were Sabbath keepers, and above that they believed in a monotheistic God. In a few of the early council meetings in Catholic history Catholicism was inventing and establishing their understanding of the trinity. In that time-period the Catholic hatred of the Arian believers was based upon the Sabbath of course, but at that point in history, the Catholics were more specifically and aggressively opposed to the Arian concept of God the Father and God the Son. The speaker referred to a passage in Daniel 11:37, 38: 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. 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. The speaker identified that it was in these early church meetings that the papacy accepted the trinity, and then began to persecute those who opposed the trinity concept. The papacy at that point began to regard a a god whom his fathers knew not. The presentation was very well documented and interesting. The presentation also agreed with the prophetic concept that pagan Rome had to remove three obstacles, or enemies, (those being Syria, Egypt and Israel) before they took control of the world, and that modern Rome will overcome three enemies before it takes control of the world, those being the Soviet Union, the USA, and the United Nations. Prophetically, Rome always has three obstacles and or enemies to overcome before it takes control of the world. To understand the three horns as enemies of the papacy would be consistent with that prophetic fact, and if they were being true to the Sabbath and the revealed understanding of the Godhead, as opposed to Sunday and the false concept of God as identified by the Catholic trinity doctrine, then it fits. Jeff. QUESTION: KING ARTHUR/STUDY RULE FROM ANDREWS A proof reader of the following article on the Sabbath School Quarterly for the third quarter sent back this article to Bud Alavezos who penned the following article. Dear Bud, Interesting article, however, Arthur is a mythological character who may or may not have existed. He probably was based on a real person. The earliest mention of Arthur was by British monks who have him dying in or around 537/538 (although several historians have the battle where he was supposed to have been killed around 515). Also, I am not aware of Arthur ever succumbing to the rule of Rome (pagan or Christian). The tail has many elements of spiritualism and paganism with one version having him as the descendant of Jesus, but the main focus was his attempt to prevent the English from falling into the Dark Ages brought on by the Saxons. It was not until the 1200s, or later, that the Holy Grail became a part of the Arthurian

4 legend. Lastly, even if Arthur was accredited with protecting Christianity it cannot be necessarily associated with Papal Rome as Britain was some distance and at the fringe of its influence further, the death of Arthur resulted in an extended period of paganism in England with the rule of the Saxons. I just thought I would put this part in because I was reading your comment on Arthur. Signed, Jeff, I received this from and thought I should check it out. Where did you get the information about King Arthur being the last of the seven Pagan horns to come to the aid of the Papacy? Lastly, I came across a statement from Andrews something like; when you can harmonize all texts concerning a subject and there is no disagreement, then you have truth. I ll look it up. I would like to insert it in the article. Bud Alavezos. Brother Bud, Miller had similar thinking as Andrews. RULE I Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible.... RULE IV To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error.... RULE XI How to know when a word is used figuratively. If it makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, then it must be understood literally, if not, figuratively.... The divinity taught in our schools is always founded on some sectarian creed. It may do to take a blank mind and impress it with this kind, but it will always end in bigotry. A free mind will never be satisfied with the views of others. Were I a teacher of youth in divinity, I would first learn their capacity and mind. If these were good, I would make them study the Bible for themselves, and send them out free to do the world good. But if they had no mind, I would stamp them with another s mind, write bigot on their forehead, and send them out as slaves. Miller s Works, volume 1. I did not have time to respond to the about Arthur before I left. I did tell Kathy I thought Arthur is in Smith s Daniel and the Revelation. Since I arrived in Europe I did confirm that Arthur is identified by Smith. Jeff. In England, Arthur, the first Christian king, founded the Christian worship on the ruins of the pagan. (Rapin, book 2, p. 124), who claims to be exact in the chronology of events, states that he was elected monarch of Britain in 508. Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, 284. From the Review and Herald, January 28, 1858, in the 12 th article of a series titled, Synopsis of the Present Truth, we find article number 12 is titled, The 1290 and 1335 Days. Therein we find the identical paragraph that we just recorded from Uriah Smith. The editors, no doubt included James White. From another Review and Herald edition we find the pioneer Otis Nichols stating: The sanctuary and the host, were first trodden down by the Pagans. After Paganism was restrained, Papacy came into power and made the Church of Christ desolate. Paganism hindered the establishment of the Church of Rome, as long as its governments continued: but it no longer stood in their way, after England, the last of the ten Pagan kingdoms was christianized. Arthur put an end to Paganism among the Britons. He was crowned a Christian monarch of the Britons, by a Catholic Bishop in A. D Otis Nichols, Review and Herald, December 9,

5 QUESTION: KING ARTHUR? Brother Jeff, Oh, I had one other thing to mention. In the presentations at Hot Springs reference was made to King Arthur. From what I have understood from history, Arthur was a king of Wales and somewhat a legendary figure. I think he did exist but not as a king over Britain. Are you sure that it should not be another name here? PT. Sister PT, The pioneers and Uriah Smith refer to him. But it is history, not inspiration. I have heard this argument before, but I am simply referring to the pioneers and their historical sources, but whether Arthur or not it was 508 that England came into church state relation with the papacy. So I do not know. I am not necessarily a historian, but am simply referencing the pioneer position in agreement with prophecy. I would not have a problem correcting the Arthur reference, but I would like to see the historians address Uriah Smith s reference of this fact. I realize Smith has some errors and this could be one of them, so someone should demonstrate his incorrect thinking here, and then I will put that info in a newsletter for clarification. Jeff. QUESTION: PAGAN ROME'S SEAT GIVEN TO THE PAPACY Jeff, I believe that you teach that pagan Rome gave its seat to the papacy in AD 330. In Uriah Smith s Daniel and Revelation he says that Constantine moved the capitol of Rome from the city of Rome to Constantinople but he does not mention the Papacy in the transaction. So how can you say he gave his seat to the Papacy? I am not saying you are wrong, just needed to know where you are coming from. Thanks! AF. Brother AF, There is a lot of reasoning involved. It was here that pagan Rome left a power vacuum in the city which the papacy quickly took advantage of. It is here that the 360 year time prophecy of Daniel 11:24 is fulfilled. Rome, whether pagan or papal only, ruled supremely when it governed from the city of Rome. This is what verse 24 of Daniel 11 is teaching about pagan Rome. The next power, papal Rome, would also rule supremely only as it ruled from and controlled the city of Rome. Identifying 330 as the point when pagan Rome vacates the city is also identifying when it gave the city to the next power to rule, although there were other issues that needed to be fulfilled before the actual ruling of papal Rome would begin. A seat in prophecy is the center from which a power rules. Papal Rome (the beast) rules only from the city of Rome. The USA (false prophet) rules only from the USA. But the dragon (paganism) rules from different points as it moves through history. Its movement through history is a subject of prophecy. First it ruled from the plains of Shinar, then in Babylon (the city/state). At the fall of Babylon the Chaldeans fled to Pergamos, (where Satan s seat is located). When pagan Rome conquered Pergamos it brought the Chaldean religious elite from there to the city of Rome and gave them a place in the Pantheon temple. When pagan Rome moved out of the city the Chaldeans remained and brought about a metamorphosis by taking control of the compromised Christian church that was centered in the city of Rome. It was at that point that you can argue that prophetically the papacy became the king of the north, for the rule is that the power that controls Babylon is the king of the north. When the Chaldean religious leaders were moved to the city of Rome, and then the city was left to the control of the papal church, the papal church then became the power that controlled spiritual Babylon.

6 It is true that the pioneers did not place the emphasis that I do on the power, seat, and great authority, but what I say about these three prophetic issues is in agreement with them. The pioneers teach that the authority was given to papal Rome in Justinian s decree, but the papacy was not able to wield the power until the Goths were driven from the city of Rome in 538. Their emphasis is on 538. I highlight each of the three events: the power, seat, and great authority because all three are repeated at the end of the world. The papacy was given the moral seat of authority over Protestant America in Protestant America gave its military power to the papacy in the Ronald Reagan years. And the great authority is given to the papal power when the ten kings of Revelation 17 agree to give their kingdom to the papacy. The ten kings is the United Nations, but the controlling influence is once again Protestant America, or apostate Protestantism, or the false prophet. The false prophet gives its seat (1842), its power (1984), and civil authority (yet future) to the papacy; just as pagan Rome gave its seat to the papacy in the year 330, its power in 496, and its civil authority in 533. There are several issues connected with this conclusion, but it is sound, and in agreement with the pioneers, even though they did not emphasize things the same for they were at a different vantage point in history. Hope this challenges your study. God Bless. Jeff. 6