Daniel 8:10-12

[vooks]

Daniel 8:10-12 King James Version (KJV)

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 the 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.

Am kindly requesting all my brothers with a prophecy background to walk me through these verses.

Cc BobRyan, One Baptist

 

[PreachTony]

Daniel 8:10-12 King James Version (KJV)

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 the 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.

Am kindly requesting all my brothers with a prophecy background to walk me through these verses.

I don't think it wise to go after only those verses. We need to look at the whole context of Daniel's vision by the River Ulai.

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.
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.

Daniel is informed by Gabriel that the ram with two horns symbolizes the Median Empire and the Persian Empire. The he goat with the notable horn is symbolic of the Greek Empire. Pretty much everyone I know identifies the he goat with Alexander the Great.

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.

Alexander's Greek army overran the Middle East in the 300s BC. He threw down every kingdom and empire that stood in his way.

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.

At essentially the height of his power, Alexander fell ill and died. His empire was carved up among his generals, giving rise to the horns "toward the four winds of heaven." The Ptolemaic Empire and the Seleucid Empire are two of the more famous to rise from Alexander's downfall.

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 the sanctuary was cast down.
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

The "little horn" is at times identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a Seleucid king. But Antiochus Epiphanes never really grew tot he strength that Daniel's vision describes. Others have tried to link it to the Pope, or to the Antichrist. But Isaac Newton, for all his faults, made a decent point in saying every vision of an animal with a horn, the horn represents a kingdom, and not a single individual.

I know it's not much, and my time is unfortunately limited today...but maybe this helps kick off some deeper discussion.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't think it wise to go after only those verses. We need to look at the whole context of Daniel's vision by the River Ulai.


Daniel is informed by Gabriel that the ram with two horns symbolizes the Median Empire and the Persian Empire. The he goat with the notable horn is symbolic of the Greek Empire. Pretty much everyone I know identifies the he goat with Alexander the Great.


Alexander's Greek army overran the Middle East in the 300s BC. He threw down every kingdom and empire that stood in his way.


At essentially the height of his power, Alexander fell ill and died. His empire was carved up among his generals, giving rise to the horns "toward the four winds of heaven." The Ptolemaic Empire and the Seleucid Empire are two of the more famous to rise from Alexander's downfall.


The "little horn" is at times identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a Seleucid king. But Antiochus Epiphanes never really grew tot he strength that Daniel's vision describes. Others have tried to link it to the Pope, or to the Antichrist. But Isaac Newton, for all his faults, made a decent point in saying every vision of an animal with a horn, the horn represents a kingdom, and not a single individual.

I know it's not much, and my time is unfortunately limited today...but maybe this helps kick off some deeper discussion.

I would agree with this in large part with the exception of the last part.

I think we see that Antiochus Epiphanes is an immediate fulfillment of the Prophecy and in regards to the horns, the four horns do, I believe, represent the Kingdoms which arise from Alexander's fall, and indicate the leadership, which ties it to Antichrtist's (then Antiochus) rule.

Remember that at this time there was no Roman Empire.

In Revelation we see horns again:


Revelation 17:9-13

King James Version (KJV)

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


Seven Kings (Empires), and at the time five are fallen (Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (which excludes Rome and the First Century as having fulfilled this).

That final "King" has but a short space and Antichrist is the little horn which arises from these horns. He arises out of the seven Empires, which has ten horns (i.e. rulers, kings, governors).

The ten horns:


Revelation 17:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Satan stands behind the evil empires of history. They have always been in opposition to God and Christ.

The seven "kings" represent the world empires, the last having ten "kings," and Antichrist being of the Seven which indicates a takeover of the last Empire. He will rise up in the midst of this empire and take control, being supported by the ten kings:


12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


I do not see this as speaking of the Pope, lol, but of a politician or ruler within a New World Order or Alliance of nations. The EU is a possible candidate, and if we see the US join ranks with them watch out.

But Isaac Newton, for all his faults, made a decent point in saying every vision of an animal with a horn, the horn represents a kingdom, and not a single individual.

I think we can say that horns are used to represent individual rulers.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think it wise to go after only those verses. We need to look at the whole context of Daniel's vision by the River Ulai.


Daniel is informed by Gabriel that the ram with two horns symbolizes the Median Empire and the Persian Empire. The he goat with the notable horn is symbolic of the Greek Empire. Pretty much everyone I know identifies the he goat with Alexander the Great.


Alexander's Greek army overran the Middle East in the 300s BC. He threw down every kingdom and empire that stood in his way.


At essentially the height of his power, Alexander fell ill and died. His empire was carved up among his generals, giving rise to the horns "toward the four winds of heaven." The Ptolemaic Empire and the Seleucid Empire are two of the more famous to rise from Alexander's downfall.


The "little horn" is at times identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a Seleucid king. But Antiochus Epiphanes never really grew tot he strength that Daniel's vision describes. Others have tried to link it to the Pope, or to the Antichrist.

Good point.

in fact in Malachi Martin's own book "Keys of this blood" - he freely admits that the only empire that came along and eclipsed all the empires before it - was Papal Rome. The Holy Roman Empire covered more territory and lasted longer with more direct control in every-day life than either the Romans or the Greeks.

It is the only thing that could be called "exceedingly great" as Daniel 8 says - by comparison to Persia, Greece and even Pagan Rome.

Epiphanes was nicknamed "Epimanes" (the mad man) by his contemporaries - he was a minor selucid king by every measure and did not do anything at all of significance for 2300 days or even 1150 days.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

Good point.

in fact in Malachi Martin's own book "Keys of this blood" - he freely admits that the only empire that came along and eclipsed all the empires before it - was Papal Rome. The Holy Roman Empire covered more territory and lasted longer with more direct control in every-day life than either the Romans or the Greeks.

It is the only thing that could be called "exceedingly great" as Daniel 8 says - by comparison to Persia, Greece and even Pagan Rome.

Epiphanes was nicknamed "Epimanes" (the mad man) by his contemporaries - he was a minor selucid king by every measure and did not do anything at all of significance for 2300 days or even 1150 days.

in Christ,

Bob

So BobRyan,
What has 'papal Rome' got to do with falling stars, sanctuary, daily sacrifice got to do with Daniel 8:10-12?

Thank you

 

[BobRyan]

Preterism is noted for substituting Antiochus Epiphanes into Daniel's descriptions of the "litte horn".

There has historically been general agreement with non-preterists that the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.[10][page needed][11] Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[12] and preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

 

[vooks]

The Holy Roman Empire covered more territory and lasted longer with more direct control in every-day life than either the Romans or the Greeks.

It is the only thing that could be called "exceedingly great" as Daniel 8 says - by comparison to Persia, Greece and even Pagan Rome.

Epiphanes was nicknamed "Epimanes" (the mad man) by his contemporaries - he was a minor selucid king by every measure and did not do anything at all of significance for 2300 days or even 1150 days.

in Christ,

Bob

You are right BobRyan, Epiphanes was not all that much. But Daniel chronicles nations from the Jewish perspective and from here, this guy was bad news so much that he stopped the sacrifices and provoked the Jewish revolt leading to their independence. The Greek culture and religion influenced the Jews the most.

The Apocryphal books of Maccabeus detail his terror. The books are as inspired as Great Controversy but they are a rich source of history of the 'interstestamental gap. Epiphanes and Daniel go back a long way in Judaism.

So much as I hold no strong opinion on identity of the little horn, I'd judge a hasty dismissal of Epiphanes suspect.

 

[BobRyan]

That is not true - at all.

Daniel identifies Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and then the power the dominates that same region for 1260 years in the dark ages.

However after Babylon overtakes Israel - other minor issue arrive as noted by Ezra and Nehemiah - and no mention of them in Daniel.

So when Daniel says GOD told him that the little horn power exceeds all that came before it - we can believe "God" rather than making stuff up about some minor seleucid that essentially amounted to nothing.

It does not pay to continually downsize the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

That is not true - at all.

Daniel identifies Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and then the power the dominates that same region for 1260 years in the dark ages.

However after Babylon overtakes Israel - other minor issue arrive as noted by Ezra and Nehemiah - and no mention of them in Daniel.

So when Daniel says GOD told him that the little horn power exceeds all that came before it - we can believe "God" rather than making stuff up about some minor seleucid that essentially amounted to nothing.

It does not pay to continually downsize the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

It is well BobRyan, I don't hold fast opinion on this issue and am prepared to learn. No need to get feisty

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.

Could you walk me through these verses. Exactly what did the little horn do?

 

[BobRyan]

History has already proven which empire supersedes all the previous ones - from Babylon to Pagan Rome - and it reigned for more than 1260 years in the dark ages.

Even the Protestant Reformers figured out who it was that was killing the saints for all that time and that the Papacy far surpassed a tiny seleucid king.

The Papacy claims that 25 million slain Christians was only about 1/3 of the total amount that she slew.

The Papacy claims that the LATERAN IV command to "exterminate heretics" was and still is to this very day - infallible.

The Papacy claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and such that even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" declare the Papacy to be antichrist.

The Papacy claims that Christians are to pray to the dead and that her priests "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" each week in mass.

The Papacy claims that the New Covenant is confined to the CATHOLIC Mass by Christ's words "this cup is the NEW Covenant in My blood".

The list is pretty long...

As for "changing times and laws"

For example Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -



[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church[/FONT]

 

[vooks]

History has already proven which empire supersedes all the previous ones - from Babylon to Pagan Rome - and it reigned for more than 1260 years in the dark ages.

Even the Protestant Reformers figured out who it was that was killing the saints for all that time and that the Papacy far surpassed a tiny seleucid king.

The Papacy claims that 25 million slain Christians was only about 1/3 of the total amount that she slew.

The Papacy claims that the LATERAN IV command to "exterminate heretics" was and still is to this very day - infallible.

The Papacy claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and such that even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" declare the Papacy to be antichrist.

The Papacy claims that Christians are to pray to the dead and that her priests "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" each week in mass.

The Papacy claims that the New Covenant is confined to the CATHOLIC Mass by Christ's words "this cup is the NEW Covenant in My blood".

The list is pretty long...

As for "changing times and laws"

For example Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -



[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church[/FONT]

There are several events/activities mentioned here;
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.

Could you please point by point show how they match what you just said;
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host
2.daily sacrifice taken away
3.place of his sanctuary cast down
4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression
5. Cast down the truth
6. Practiced and prospered

 

[Yeshua1]

I would agree with this in large part with the exception of the last part.

I think we see that Antiochus Epiphanes is an immediate fulfillment of the Prophecy and in regards to the horns, the four horns do, I believe, represent the Kingdoms which arise from Alexander's fall, and indicate the leadership, which ties it to Antichrtist's (then Antiochus) rule.

Remember that at this time there was no Roman Empire.

In Revelation we see horns again:


Revelation 17:9-13

King James Version (KJV)

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


Seven Kings (Empires), and at the time five are fallen (Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (which excludes Rome and the First Century as having fulfilled this).

That final "King" has but a short space and Antichrist is the little horn which arises from these horns. He arises out of the seven Empires, which has ten horns (i.e. rulers, kings, governors).

The ten horns:


Revelation 17:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

Satan stands behind the evil empires of history. They have always been in opposition to God and Christ.

The seven "kings" represent the world empires, the last having ten "kings," and Antichrist being of the Seven which indicates a takeover of the last Empire. He will rise up in the midst of this empire and take control, being supported by the ten kings:


12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


I do not see this as speaking of the Pope, lol, but of a politician or ruler within a New World Order or Alliance of nations. The EU is a possible candidate, and if we see the US join ranks with them watch out.



I think we can say that horns are used to represent individual rulers.


God bless.

The mad ruler during the time of the Maccabeans revolt would be a partial fulfillment of this prophecy, but he was merely a type of the greater fulfillment yet to come, the Antichrist himself!

 

[Darrell C]

The mad ruler during the time of the Maccabeans revolt would be a partial fulfillment of this prophecy, but he was merely a type of the greater fulfillment yet to come, the Antichrist himself!

Agreed.

We might even see Nero as a partial fulfillment, yet he was not that one that is yet to come either.

The spirit of antichrist is alive and well, and there be many antichrists. But we do not neglect to calculate that which we can say without question...has not yet been fulfilled.

That time will be a time like no other period of history.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
History has already proven which empire supersedes all the previous ones - from Babylon to Pagan Rome - and it reigned for more than 1260 years in the dark ages.

Even the Protestant Reformers figured out who it was that was killing the saints for all that time and that the Papacy far surpassed a tiny seleucid king.

The Papacy claims that 25 million slain Christians was only about 1/3 of the total amount that she slew.

The Papacy claims that the LATERAN IV command to "exterminate heretics" was and still is to this very day - infallible.

The Papacy claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and such that even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" declare the Papacy to be antichrist.

The Papacy claims that Christians are to pray to the dead and that her priests "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" each week in mass.

The Papacy claims that the New Covenant is confined to the CATHOLIC Mass by Christ's words "this cup is the NEW Covenant in My blood".

The list is pretty long...

As for "changing times and laws"

For example Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -



[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church[/FONT]

There are several events/activities mentioned here;
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.

Could you please point by point show how they match what you just said;
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host
2.daily sacrifice taken away
3.place of his sanctuary cast down
4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression
5. Cast down the truth
6. Practiced and prospered

=================================

Let's take the first example -

1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host

The Papacy claims that Christians are to pray to the dead and that her priests "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" each week in mass.

Now is there another example that is "greater" than that??

 

[vooks]

Let's take the first example -

1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host

The Papacy claims that Christians are to pray to the dead and that her priests "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" each week in mass.

Now is there another example that is "greater" than that??

Thank you BobRyan,
I don't want to interrupt you with many questions, but could you clarify what/who is the 'prince of the host'?

 

[BobRyan]

Christ is the prince of the host.

 

[vooks]

Christ is the prince of the host.

Ok.
So magnifying against him is basically blasphemy. Please carry on

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings vooks,

There are several events/activities mentioned here;
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.

Could you please point by point show how they match what you just said;
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host
2.daily sacrifice taken away
3.place of his sanctuary cast down
4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression
5. Cast down the truth
6. Practiced and prospered

Could I suggest that the little horn of the goat is firstly the Pagan Roman Empire. In a sense the Roman power did not directly conquer and overcome the Grecian Empire in the same way that Medo-Persia conquered Babylon, and in the way the Grecian conquered the Persian as depicted in the conflict between the Ram and the He-Goat. The Roman power gained a foothold in the Grecian territory and gradually consolidated its position from within and then started further conquests.

Fitting the Pagan Roman Empire into your list:
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host: A representative of the Pagan Roman Empire, Pilate, magnified himself against Jesus and crucified him.

2.daily sacrifice taken away: The Roman armies caused the daily sacrifices in the Temple to cease.

3.place of his sanctuary cast down: The Roman armies destroyed the Temple.

4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression: The success of these Roman armies was Divinely given because of the iniquity of the Jews who were also instrumental in crucifying Christ and those associated with the Temple in AD70 refused to repent with the preaching of the Apostles.

The next two may also include the development of the “Christian” Roman Empire and this eventually became headed up by the Papacy:
5. Cast down the truth: Pagan Roman persecution of the early Christians, but later the Papacy also persecuted the faithful remnant.

6. Practiced and prospered: These terms may apply more to the development of the Papacy.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[vooks]

Greetings vooks,

Could I suggest that the little horn of the goat is firstly the Pagan Roman Empire. In a sense the Roman power did not directly conquer and overcome the Grecian Empire in the same way that Medo-Persia conquered Babylon, and in the way the Grecian conquered the Persian as depicted in the conflict between the Ram and the He-Goat. The Roman power gained a foothold in the Grecian territory and gradually consolidated its position from within and then started further conquests.

Fitting the Pagan Roman Empire into your list:
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host: A representative of the Pagan Roman Empire, Pilate, magnified himself against Jesus and crucified him.

2.daily sacrifice taken away: The Roman armies caused the daily sacrifices in the Temple to cease.

3.place of his sanctuary cast down: The Roman armies destroyed the Temple.

4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression: The success of these Roman armies was Divinely given because of the iniquity of the Jews who were also instrumental in crucifying Christ and those associated with the Temple in AD70 refused to repent with the preaching of the Apostles.

The next two may also include the development of the “Christian” Roman Empire and this eventually became headed up by the Papacy:
5. Cast down the truth: Pagan Roman persecution of the early Christians, but later the Papacy also persecuted the faithful remnant.

6. Practiced and prospered: These terms may apply more to the development of the Papacy.

Kind regards
Trevor

Thank you Trevor,
I was looking for something like this. Simple, succinct.

Please permit me to ask a few more questions;
1. WHEN did this start?
2. When did it stop, or is it ongoing?

 

[BobRyan]

Greetings vooks,

Could I suggest that the little horn of the goat is firstly the Pagan Roman Empire. In a sense the Roman power did not directly conquer and overcome the Grecian Empire in the same way that Medo-Persia conquered Babylon, and in the way the Grecian conquered the Persian as depicted in the conflict between the Ram and the He-Goat. The Roman power gained a foothold in the Grecian territory and gradually consolidated its position from within and then started further conquests.

Fitting the Pagan Roman Empire into your list:
1. Magnify himself to the prince of the host: A representative of the Pagan Roman Empire, Pilate, magnified himself against Jesus and crucified him.

2.daily sacrifice taken away: The Roman armies caused the daily sacrifices in the Temple to cease.

3.place of his sanctuary cast down: The Roman armies destroyed the Temple.

4.host given him against daily sacrifice by reason of transgression: The success of these Roman armies was Divinely given because of the iniquity of the Jews who were also instrumental in crucifying Christ and those associated with the Temple in AD70 refused to repent with the preaching of the Apostles.

The next two may also include the development of the “Christian” Roman Empire and this eventually became headed up by the Papacy:
5. Cast down the truth: Pagan Roman persecution of the early Christians, but later the Papacy also persecuted the faithful remnant.

6. Practiced and prospered: These terms may apply more to the development of the Papacy.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes Rome arises out of one of the territories of Greece.

But it grows exceedingly great in the form of the Papacy where it fully engages in all the details listed in the chapter that it would do.

So it is that even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" identify the papacy as the antichrist - and the 1260 years of dark ages persecution.

in Christ,

Bob