(so cute, little pudgy Napoleon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex "While I considered the horns, look! another horn, a small one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were plucked up from before it. And look! there were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and there was a mouth speaking arrogantly" - Daniel 7:8 Why a "little horn", a "small one"? Certainly this attribute MEANS something. Let's compare with another horn: "and the great horn that was between its eyes stands for the first king" That "great horn" was Alexander. Presumably, the "little horn" will conquer kings, right? So why is it small? Alexander was a "great horn" who conquered the "world" of his time. Presumably, the 11th horn will accomplish something similar, so why is it small? Is this the answer? "And by his cunning he will use deception to succeed" "a fierce-looking king who understands ambiguous sayings will stand up" NOT overt military power; rather, cunning, deception, "legal-speak" will be the form of conquest in our modern world.
This fourth beast in Dan 7 becomes mighty by this little horn; Dan 11:23 "And because of their alliance with him, he will carry on deception and rise up and become mighty by means of a little nation." It's quite literally a little nation, that has eyes like a man. Meaning it thinks like a man instead of Gods thoughts, which is the theme of the Bible from the Tower of Babel to the Garden of Eden. By this little nation Rome was able to conquer all of the known world.
What's interesting Joshua is that the small horn becomes the larger horn later in the chapter: "and about the ten horns on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth speaking arrogantly and whose appearance was bigger than that of the others." Daniel 7:20 It comes up as a "small horn", but after those other "three kings" are humiliated, it's "bigger". Interesting. Who are the three humiliated kings?
Did it really though? The problem I see with that framework is the Papal state was almost annihilated a few times; both from inside Europe and outside coming from Arabia. Primarily, the Lombards almost conquered Italy until Charlamagne, who was crowned king of the Holy Roman Empire, saved them. This empowered the Franks and all of Europe really, then you have the rise of the Plantagenets, who trolled France and the Papacy for ~400 years. Then the Tudors, Henry the VII, Church of England (etc); until finally the British Empire and then the United States. I'm not seeing this history reflected with those 10 kings. At best, the Catholic Church rode on the "back" of the post-Roman nation-states, almost always in conflict with them.
Catholicism swept all of Europe, and the church controlled the world for hundreds of years. But what appears to be happening is, the image in Dan 2 has several fulfillment's. It keeps fulfilling itself over and over. Which means the 7th head had it's deathstoke healed not only in 325 CE, but also in 1929, therefore all of the other beasts have been fulfilled several times as well. Which also means that battle in Dan 8 has been fought at least four times that I can count...
That just chops up the prophecies too much for my taste, I'm an Occam's razor type But let me ponder this a bit more, because there is a point to be made about the Roman church expressing power through other nations, effectively "not by his own power". The Roman Church influenced the world, certainly. But it also spread Christianity across the globe, and preserved the Bible for Gutenberg. By deduction, you're saying that the Catholic church is Babylon the Great, the lion's mouth on the wild beast, the 11th horn, the King of the North, and ... most importantly, the main persecutor of Jehovah's people during the time of the end [the 42 months] Is that right?
I'm not so gracious when describing the Holy See's history. I see bloodshed and war, a religion who constantly murdered and persecuted anyone who had a sliver of truth. Let alone allow anyone to read the Bible for themselves. The history I see is much more sadistic. The Holy See spread domination destruction and suppression. Did they spread the word? Hardly... Christianity as it is intended to be understood, and worshiped correctly spent 2000 years in suppression, and didn't stand a chance to reemerge until the last couple hundred years. Until the King James Version really... Yes...
A sordid history -- but Jehovah allowed Christianity to start this way, and given that, I see both positive and negative. See this scripture: I have also seen this under the sun: In the place of justice there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness there was wickedness. 17 So I said in my heart: “The true God will judge both the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every activity and every action.” - Ecclesiastes 3:16-17 So let's balance this out a bit... without Roman Catholicism, a mechanism for a time, we would have these negatives: - Islamic Europe - A Bible so copied (hand copy after hand copy after hand copy), who knows what would have happened? It happened this way, and we have preserved texts. - No worldwide Christianity - No Reformation [necessary regardless right? 2000 yrs is a long time] - Europe's focus towards Christian philosophy, just in a generic sense, gone - No "Western world" for true Christianity to flourish, study, produce research What else would be different?
I see an evil entity used by Jehovah to accomplish his will. Think about this, in 325 the Nicene Creed was adopted. Much of what was false worship from Babel was adopted doctrine in the so called Christian church. Yes that moment allowed for the culmination of the Bible as we know it, but it also brought in false worship. Let alone the history of the Catholic church is writhe with death and destruction. I don't see a conflict to say Jehovah has used evil nations to do his will, we see that all throughout the text, let alone using Babylon itself to further his will.
We just discussed Revelation 2 - 3, the 7 churches. If that is a timeline of the "church", then the Roman Church is probably Pergamum, Thyatira and Sardis. (let's say ~400 CE - ~1400 CE) They are sequential and both were warned about "fornication" and linked it with idolatry, or in the case of Sardis (the last of the 3) they are near death. Think Israel during the time of Jezebel. I definitely agree overall with your condemnation of the Catholic church, don't get me wrong But in context, it's a lot of gray area, and not black and white; they did good and bad, preserved Christianity and the Bible at a time it could have easily been snuffed out.
I haven't personally been able to narrow down the churches yet, they could just as well be seven currently, and the Catholic church not one of them, I don't know. But of course I'm not pragmatic about this subject, we are getting into opinions, but as you always say, is interesting to simply peer into it. Babylon of old preserved the Jewish faith and text, while it very could have been destroyed.
One of those "save them by bombing them situations"? Read those chapters a few times ... look for the flow, I think it's a timeline. The most history shaping Christian church would surely be mentioned!
The last church, Laodicea, evidence of sequential timeline of churches: So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all,” but you do not know that you are miserable and pitiful and poor and blind and naked - Revelation 3:16 Every other church receives a warning about their state, that Jesus says UNLESS they correct themselves he will X The last church receives something different, BECAUSE of their state, he IS GOING TO vomit us out of his mouth. The judgment begins.
Exactly! So we have the first two churches as persecuted (100 CE - 400 CE), the next 2 as corrupted spiritually (400 CE - 1100 CE), then a "dying" church (1100 CE - 1500 CE), then a strengthening church kept from the hour of test (1500 CE - 1900 CE), then the "vomited out" church which actually receives judgment, and not just a threat of judgment. (1900 CE - current) [loose dating, don't hold me to hit lol] "the timeline of Christianity"
“The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. Revelation 17 The hour of the test that Philadelphia is protected from is not a period of hundreds of years and it does not occur as from the 16th to the 20th Centuries. This is during the time of the end and is the period when the Great Tribulation will show it's ugly face to mankind. The "image" of the beast is the offspring or likeness of a previous beast. The U.N. in it's current form is the beast that exists now. When the image of Daniel 2 (the UK-US dual world power ) is brought down by the globalist's, this will start the "time of distress" of Daniel 12, which will last for 1 time which could be a day, a month, or a year. It is a year and it is during this "time of distress" that the Great Tribulation happens and is also during the "hour" that the 10 horns will rule with the fourth beast of Daniel 7 "for an hour". It is this hour that the congregation of Philadelphia is protected from by the angels of God. When the globalist's bring down the image of Daniel 2, this will spell the end of the Nation State system and for all intent and purpose the U.N. will die with this destruction because they are supposedly an organization to maintain Peace on the earth. Having failed to do that (by design) this causes a new problem that needs to be solved. I think Daniel 7 is describing the power struggle that will occur until finally the people of the earth are so tired of Tribulation that they accept the new incarnation or "image of the beast" which will be a new form of U.N. which will be ugly, mean and nasty to all who do not submit to it's authority. It is the "image" of the beast because like the U.N. it will represent or be represented by diplomats from the whole earth under a system of 7 Kings with 10 horns (which 10 horns rule with this "image of the beast" for a period of 10 months. Remember, the bible uses terms for Tribulation that are not the same and do not mean the very same time periods. The Tribulation is the time period that starts the "time of distress" and the Great Tribulation is when the fourth beast of Daniel 7 starts to rule and the "mark of the beast " comes into play. Each day that passes brings us closer and closer to the day when the Tribulation starts during the "Time of Distress" and closer to the day when the fourth beast of Daniel 7 starts to rule and the mark of the beast appears. I think the Vatican may have a large part in this as she has been riding the beast since 1964, and since then we are on the 7th "King" or as they call him "Secretary General" (they can't decide whether he is a Secretary or a General) the 7th king of the beast is Ban Ki Moon and the 8th which will only be around for a short time will be Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guteress. He was voted in in October and will formally take the reins of the U.N. on January 1, 2017. He will only rule for a short time.
The issue I see with this view is that we're invalidating the mechanism we use to understand the first 5 churches. Namely, a progression through time. So IMO, Philadelphia is roughly the Reformation period, up until the beginning of the wish-washy form of Christianity dominant today, where "we are rich" but actually blind and naked; the "test" they are protected from is the conclusion period. Laodicea, the last age of the congregation of Christ, is the one who experiences that "test". That is why Jesus says this immediately following his vomiting us out: "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent"
The seven messengers in Revelation are the seven heads over the congregations in the first and second century CE and the seven heads over the congregations in the modern presence of the Christ from Russell down to today. So, you are correct in the the seven messengers represent a continuum of time from 1 through 7 just like the days of the week. We do not know who the seven leaders were in the first and second true Christian Churches but we do know who they are today. The first five are Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz and finally Henschel (who the Bible tells us was not a first new covenant saint in Revelation 3. ‘I know your deeds, that you have the name* that you are alive, but you are dead. Rev. 3:1b He was looked upon by the congregation as someone who was anointed (alive) but he was not (dead, judicially). These are the congregations that ate the food (loaves) of the Watchtower up to and including the Apostasy when they joined and maintained a relationship with modern day Rome (the U.N.). Philadelphia is represented by a new food, not of the Watchtower. These are ones who broke from the Watchtower because of the Apostasy. Laodicea is a congregation in the Watchtower that has the remnant of Christ's bride among them who know that the Watchtower is Apostate but like the first Century Christians have not broken free as yet. In the upcoming times the congregation of Philadelphia and Laodicea and all the other faithful ones throughout the world will be gathered up by the angels of God (they know who we are as our foreheads are also marked by the man dressed in linen from Ezekiel). When the angels make their call for you to come out of Babylon (which the Watchtower is now part of) come out as fast as you can. Don't hesitate or you may be caught up in the Great Tribulation. That does not mean that you can't be saved but you may have to go through the hour of test when the fourth beast of Daniel 7 rules the earth. You can be spared that, but you will have to act quickly when you hear the call.
Why is it apostasy to become an NGO? Prostitution, yes. But I don't see the apostasy connection, assuming you're linking it with the 2 Thess 2 apostasy? --------------- How do you decide when the 7 church timeline cuts off before the Watchtower? And why are Pergamum, Thyatira and Sardis so reminiscent of the Catholic heresy?