Were they right?

[DHC]

DHC, further to my previous post. .

Hello Brakelite.

Given that you follow the historical interpretation, I am curious how you interpret selected passages in the scriptures.

How do you read the following verses from Daniel.

Daniel 9
24 “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.
25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince,
there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy
the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their
place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”


Who is the "he" that will confirm the covenant for seven years?

Historicists believe the Messiah is the one who was prophesied is to confirm the covenant.

The messiah fulfills the covenant with many for one week?

Futurists teach that "he" will be the "prince that shall come", the Antichrist.

This question is very easy to answer.

Notice that the same "he" that is to confirm the covenant, is also the same "he" that takes away the daily sacrifice
and for the overspreading the abominations of Desolation.

Now read the following verses;

Daniel 11:30-31
29 At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before.
30 For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action;
so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.
31 Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.

The verses above tell us in no uncertain terms that it is the Antichrist (the king of the north) and his followers who take away the daily sacrifice and place the Abomination of Desolation.
This passage is obviously not referring to the Messiah. Would the Messiah ever "have indignation against the holy covenant?” Would He ever "desecrate the sanctuary?”

Obviously not! The entirety of Daniel 11:21-45 is discussing the actions of the king of the north, the Antichrist.

So we can see clearly that it is the Antichrist, not the Messiah, is the one who takes away the daily sacrifice and places the Abomination of Desolation.

 

[brakelite]

Hi DHC thankyou for asking this; it is a most fascinating section of scripture and one I personally love. There is so much that can be said, for it covers a vast array of topics and themes, so rather than trusting in my own writing I once again will quote Pastor S Bohr who on his website has provided an excellent study of Daniel, specifically chapters 7 and the relationship between 8 and 9, and deals with the 70 weeks with great detail. Allow me some time if you will to prepare an response, largely based on his presentation. It is so much clearer and more incisive than anything I could give. Cheers.

Further to the above...it would seem that I am not permitted under the rules of the forum to present the Adventist perspective of the 70 weeks.
Therefore I will have to restrict myself to simply repeating what I had said earlier; placing a 2000 year gap between the early church and today with regards prophecy hides the true Antichrist in the very gap that destroys the evidence that made him known.

You have done that with Daniel 11. From verse 1 to verse 22 deals with the history of the secular governents affecting God's people from the time of the break up of the Grecian empire after Alexander's death to the time of Christ. The next 10 verses or so deal with the wars and rise and fall of nations up to the time of the break up of Rome, then from around verse 30, which one you correctly suggested was about the Antichrist, deals with the political shananigans of the church of Rome up to the time of the second coming. The trouble is is that you also have placed an uneccesary gap between the verses somewhere...a gap of 2000 years...a gap for which there is no warrant in the scriptures themselves, nor in the actual history that has been written in the blood of the martyrs over the period of Antichrist's reign during that time.

 

[Number0neSon]

Rome was overun by ten Garmanic tribes, 7 becoming the foundation of modern Europe, 3 now extinct.

Rome was overrun by more than ten tribes, and seven did not become the foundation of modern Europe. I’m sure the Sueves and Visigoths are on your list, but they were both uprooted between the 6-8th centuries as well. Fact is, there were many genealogical foundations laid and re-laid to create what is now known as modern Europe…to claim it was seven Germanic tribes is a tad ridiculous.

It was the little horn which instigated their demise, that little horn being the papacy.

What evidence can you supply for this claim? I am unaware of any contemporary evidence suggesting that the papacy instigated their demise. Please present your evidence.

The story goes like this: (the following courtesy of Pastor S Bohr.
Seven of the ten Barbarian kingdoms were converted to Christianity and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. However, three of the kingdoms converted to Christianity but embraced the heretical teachings of Arius.

Pastor Bohr’s story is incorrect. None of the barbarian tribes were converted to Catholic Christianity at the time when the first of the three kingdoms were uprooted, and only three (the Franks, Burgundians, and Heruli) were converting to Catholicism at the time when the two other kingdoms were being uprooted. Bohr tries to make it seem as if seven Germanic tribes had converted to Catholicism while three embraced Arianism; in reality, all of the Germanic tribes were either Arian or pagan at the time when Emperor Zeno authorized the war against Odoacer’s “Heruli” horn.

These three Arian kingd\oms were a threat to the supremacy of the
Bishop of Rome [later called the Pope].

There were more than three Arian kingdoms within the Western Roman Empire. If being Arian made them a threat to papal supremacy, then your theory has a serious problem since two Arian kingdoms (the Visigoths and Sueves) continued to rule a third of Western Europe after the fall of the Ostrogoths.

To make a long story short, these three kingdoms eventually were uprooted by the imperial power acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome.

Please cite contemporary evidence that the imperial power was acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome in the destruction of the kingdom of Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. I suspect neither you nor Pastor Bohr will be able to do so, but I’m open to hear any evidence you have.

The Ostrogoths (originally from Yugoslavia), by order of the emperor, dealt the heretical Heruli a devastating defeat in 493.

Odoacer’s kingdom? Yes. The Heruli kingdom? No. The Heruli kingdom was outside of the Empire’s borders. The Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, and the survivors were granted a fedorate kingdom in Pannonia by Emperor Justinian in return for their conversion to Catholic Christianity. So the Heruli were converted by an emperor, not uprooted by one.

It happened like this: The Pope requested the emperor to do something about the unorthodox Heruli.

Where can we read about this so-called “request”. Which Roman or Byzantine historian wrote about this correspondence?

In response, the emperor sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli disappeared from history.

The Heruli did not disappear from history because of the war between Odoacer and Theodoric. This is a gross misrepresentation. The Letters of Cassiodorus testify of the Heruli and their king at the beginning of the 6th Century. Procopius’ History of the Wars testified of the Heruli serving under Justinian's banner during the Vandal and Ostrogothic wars. The Liber Pontificalis testified of a Heruli invasion that oppressed most of Italy around 565AD until the general Narses subjugated them. The idea that the Heruli disappeared as a result of Odoacer's defeat is simply a myth.

I agree, Odoacer’s military contained Heruli…they may have even made up the majority of his forces…but the Heruli under his command were mercenaries and did not represent the totality of the Heruli tribe, not by a long shot.

Then the Vandals were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinians armies.

Indeed, but they weren’t crushed at the instigation of the bishop of Rome, unless of course you can provide proof to the contrary.

But there was one remaining horn which needed to be uprooted, and it was the most formidable of all: the Ostrogoths. They were also Arians, so the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths.

There was more than one remaining Arian horn; the Visigoths and Sueves were also Arian horns, and Mr. Bohr’s theory doesn’t account for them.

Again, please present contemporary evidence that the Bishop of Rome implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths.

Justinian, in turn, implored the Franks to help him in his holy enterprise: When Justinian first meditated the conquest of Italy, he sent ambassadors to the kings of the Franks, and adjured them, by the common ties of alliance and religion, to join in the holy enterprise against the Arians.

And the result? The Franks secretly aided the Ostrogoths in 539AD by sending them 10,000 Burgundian soldiers to help sack the city of Milan. Then the Franks poured in from the North and ended up attacking both the Ostrogoths AND the Byzantines, lol. They later sent treaty proposals to the Gothic king Witiges, promising him further aide in the war against Justinian as long as Italy would be divided between the two tribes. General Narses had to fight the Franks again in the 550’s because the "Catholic" tribe was intent on plundering Northern Italy. So much for common ties.

There were several battles between Belisarius and the Ostrogoths. The decisive battle, however, was in February (remember the month, we will come back to it later) of the year 538.

There were more than several.
What decisive battle occurred in February 538AD?

The armies of Justinian, as well as the ravages of disease, decimated the armies of the Ostrogoths, they were expelled from Rome and in short order, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe. The third horn had been uprooted once and for all!

More distortion from Pastor Bohr. Yes, the Ostrogoths were decimated by disease and famine after a year of laying siege, but their army was still much larger than the combined Byzantine armies in the West. Look, following their failed siege Procopius testified that 10,000 Goths were detached from the main Gothic force in order to occupy various cities in Northern Italy (Gothic War, Book V, ch. 11), while Hodgkin numbered the Gothic force at around 35,000 Goths (Italy and Her Invaders, Vol. 6, pg.321). In comparison, before 540AD the Byzantine forces involved in the Gothic war never numbered more than 24,000 men. That’s 45,000 versus 24,000.

The Goths left Rome of their own volition in order to lay siege to Ariminum; they were not “expelled”. The Ostrogothic kingdom was uprooted following the battle of Mons Lacterius in 553AD when the remaining Ostrogoths negotiated their withdraw from Italy with General Narses. That was when they disappeared from the historical scene in Europe, and that is when they where uprooted...not 538AD.

It is of great significance that in 533 A. D. Justinian proclaimed a decree which recognized the Popes headship over all the churches of east and west.

It wasn’t a decree, and I don't quite see the significance of it since Justinian's hold in the West was tenuous, and since the other kingdoms in Europe weren't bound by Byzantine law...not to mention papal primacy had previously been proclaimed in imperial legislation almost 90 years earlier (the edict of Valentinian III in 445AD).

This decree was actually a letter written by Justinian to Pope John. The letter was included in The Code of Justinian which is a collection of Justinians laws. It must be remembered that this letter had the force of law.

I think Archibald Bower put it best when he said, “(b)ut little or no account ought to be made of that extraordinary deference, will soon appear. Justinian indeed paid great deference to the pope, as well as to all other bishops, when they agreed with him; but none at all, when they did not;” (History of the Popes, Vol. II, pg.450). The letter wasn’t included in the Code because it mentioned the papacy’s headship…it was included because Justinian’s letter and the pope’s response gave the Theopaschite Formula the force of law.

The same Code contains one of Justinian’s letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople in which he called the Church of Constantinople “the source of the orthodox religion of all Christians”, so there’s that.

In effect, the Code of Justinian was the standard law of all Europe for over one thousand years until it was replaced in the late 1700's by the Code of Napoleon.

No, it was not. The Germanic kingdoms of Europe, including the Catholic Franks, used law codes other than Justinian’s (like the Lex Visigothorum or Theodosian Code) throughout most of the Middle Ages. In the 12th Century, Justinian’s Code was rediscovered and widely applied, but there is no indication that the Code in toto was made the standard of all European law.

“Justinian’s codification had never been given the force of law in Europe north of the Alps, so it is natural that when Roman law is mentioned there – for example, in the decrees of ecclesiastical councils – the references appear to have been to either the Codex Theodosianus or the Breviarium.
(The Corpus Iuris Civilis in the Middle Ages, Charles M. Radding, pg. 46)

“The Justinianic codification simply fell from sight and from use, in Italy and everywhere else, between the end of the sixth century and the end of the eighth.”
(The Corpus Iuris Civilis in the Middle Ages, Charles M. Radding, pg. 47)

And there was no “Code of Napoleon” in the 1700’s; it was penned in 1804. Pastor Bohr thinks Napoleon was emperor in the 1700’s? Yikes.

Part of Justinians decree reads as follows:
Therefore, we have exerted ourselvesto unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and, according to the doctrine of Your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests. . . because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way(as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See. . .
The significance of this decree is that the Roman Emperor was legitimizing the spiritual authority of the Pope.

As had been the case with other Roman Emperors in the past. Pope John’s response to Justinian (which is also in the Code) even confirms this. Justinian’s recognition of papal primacy was nothing new. Truth is, the papacy's rise to power in the Middle Ages occurred when it was removed from imperial authority, not while it was under it.

The state was using its clout to proclaim that only the Pope was the authentic spokesman for orthodox Christianity. Though this decree was given in 533 A. D., it was not fully implemented until the rebel Ostrogoths were devastated in 538 A. D.

It wasn’t “fully implemented” after 538AD either; Even if there had been something to “implement” regarding the letter (and there wasn't), the Ostrogothic war raged on for another 15 years, which would kind of make laws hard to implement, don’t you think? In fact, Justinian issued a pragmatic sanction in 554AD in order to put his law code into effect in the reconquered regions of Italy…obviously that didn’t happen in 538AD. How could the “decree” be fully implimented when parts of Italy, as well as the entire Iberian Peninsula, was under the control of Arians?

On the devastating defeat of the Ostrogoths in 538 A. D., Thomas Hodgkin remarks: Some of them [the retreating Goths] must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave deeper and wider than all, the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy.
(Thomas Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 5, chap. 9, last par. [vol. 4, p. 285]).

Quote mining. In the wake of the siege of Rome, Hodgkin referred to General Narses in stating that the Goths “were still essentially stronger than their own forces”, and that if luck turned in the Goths’ favor they might become an “irresistible” force (Italy and Her Invaders, vol. 6, pg. 321). He also recognized that in 539AD, the Byzantines and Goths were “still too evenly matched for the struggle to come to an end" (pg. 342). Hopefully those references will provide a more balanced view of Hodgkin's position.

Most historians agree that the decimation of the Ostrogoths in Italy marked the beginning of the Middle Ages.

Not really. There is a wide range of opinion on the matter; the man who originally helped coin the term (Bruni) marked the beginning of the Middle Ages in 476AD; All other dates spring from that foundation. Heck, Hodgkin began the Middle Ages in 753AD.

I’d be willing to wager that you could count on one hand the number of writers who support the 538AD date (maybe even on one finger). As J.B. Bury said, “In truth, the precise beginning of Medieval History is as indefinite as the precise beginning of the fog”.(Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. I, pg. xxvi)

Notice the comment by George Finlay:
With the conquest of Rome by Belisarius, the history of the ancient city may be considered as terminating; and with his defense against Witiges [A. D. 538], commences the history of the Middle Ages.(George Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, p. 295)

Yep, and Finlay is the only writer I’ve seen to date who commenced the history of the Middle Ages with the conquest and defense Rome. That’s the reason he’s continually used by Adventist apologists to prop up the 538AD date.

It is important to remember also that historians mark 538 A. D. as the transition between old Imperial Rome and the Rome of the Middle Ages. Notice the words of C. F. Young: ”It was the last time [when Belisarius entered in 536] that Imperial Rome the old imperial Rome of Italy as distinguished from the new imperial Rome by the Bosporus, the Rome created by Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Vespasian, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, Severus, and Caracalla was to be seen by mankind. . .
Rome when it was entered by Belisarius was the Rome that mankind had known for centuries. . . But this Rome was to be seen no more. When eighteen years later the Gothic war was ended, a battered ruin was all that remained; classical Rome had passed away forever, to be succeeded after a time by the squalid and miserable city which is the Rome of the middle Ages.
(C. F. Young, East and West Through Fifteen Centuries, Vol. II, p. 222)”

I don’t see Young mention the 538AD date at all. He did mention 536AD, though. And even if he did, that would be a whopping two writers giving their opinions about the start of the Middle Ages.

The Ostrogoths did not disappear in 538 A. D., but the decisive battle had been won, the handwriting was on the wall.

And yet Hodgkin understood that the Ostrogoths were evenly matched with the Byzantines a year later. Sorry, but if you ever decide to read Procopius’ history of the Gothic War you’ll understand that the fate of the war was far from decided in 538AD. The siege heavily influenced the results, yes, but it did not decide it.

In 540 A. D. Witiges (king of the Ostrogoths) was dealt a further blow by Belisarius at Ravenna.

Yep, he lost the capital city through trickery, not through combat.

And in 550 A. D.,what was left of the Ostrogoths was totally wiped out and the Ostrogoths were history.

LOL, in 550AD? I’ll let Hodgkin explain just how absurd that idea is…

"The year 550 was the high-water mark of the success of the Gothic arms. In Italy only four cities--all on the sea-coast--were left to the Emperor; these were Ravenna, Ancona, Otranto, and Crotona. In Sicily most of the cities were still Imperial, but Totila had moved freely hither and thither through the island, ravaging the villas and the farms, collecting great stores of grain and fruit, driving off horses and cattle, and generally visiting on the hapless Sicilians the treachery which in his view they had shown to the Ostrogothic dynasty by the eagerness with which, fifteen years before, they had welcomed the arms of Belisarius".
(Theodoric the Goth, Thomas Hodgkin, pg. 362)

It is of great significance that today no trace can be found of the Heruli anywhere in Europe.There is nomemory of the Vandals in North Africa. And all that remains of the Ostrogoths is King Theodoris Mausoleum (built in the early 6th century) in Ravenna.

Sorry, but the same could be said about most of the Germanic tribes that existed in the 6th Century.

Note that from the actual implementation of the declaration of civil and religious authority from Justinian in 538, that is being the year (February in fact) that the Ostrogoths were finally expelled from Rome, to the capture of the pope and the confiscation of the papal states in 1798 was precisely 1260 years. To the month!

Procopius testified in book 5 of his History of the Wars that the siege of Rome began on March 1, 537AD, and that it lasted a year and nine days. That means the Ostrogoths ended the siege of Rome on March 9 or 10, 538AD. So not only have you failed to provide contemporary evidence that the 533AD letter was declared or implemented in 538AD, but the whole “to the month!” idea is wrong as well. The Liber Pontificalis claims the siege began on February 21, 537AD, but there is no supporting evidence and the entry’s author is unknown. Procopius’ testimony is the more reliable witness in this instance since we know he lived through the siege.

And where in the world did you or Pastor Bohr get the idea that Justinian’s 533AD letter touched on papal “civil” authority? Sorry, but regardless of the letter’s ecclesiastical significance, there is nothing in it that addresses papal civil authority.

 

[brakelite]

Rome was overrun by more than ten tribes, and seven did not become the foundation of modern Europe. I’m sure the Sueves and Visigoths are on your list, but they were both uprooted between the 6-8th centuries as well. Fact is, there were many genealogical foundations laid and re-laid to create what is now known as modern Europe…to claim it was seven Germanic tribes is a tad ridiculous.

Over an extended period of centuries, yes, there were many changes. But we are discussing a specific time, that is the prophetic period that saw the rise of the little horn among the ten. Yes, over the years there has been some minor disagreements on the identity of the ten horns, but it was God who laid down the number ten, and has left it up tp us to decide who they are. It really is of minor importance as to the exact identity of them That there were ten, and that they are represented by the horns, many Bible commentators and expositors agree. Berengaud, Mede, Bossuet, Lloyd, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Hales, Faber and Clarke among them. Please note as an example of non-Adventist opinion on this matter.
"Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on
Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiavelli (>History of Florence,= 1.i) with no design of
furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it,has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in
Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli
and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy. (Albert
Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322)
I do bow to your clealy superior knowledge of the details of history. But these prophecies of Daniel can still be recognised as being fulfilled in the general trends of history, regardless of some details that may appear at times to contradict it. For example, you stated a little later in your reply that the Ostrogoths were far greater in numbers than I had previously been led to believe. Fair enough. But does that take anything away from the prophetic fulfilment of the veentual demise of one a horn, with the event in question, that is that the Ostrogoths were unable to take Rome, that after they left the pope finally had the freedom to exercise his authority there, confirmed a little later by Justinians letter, which did indeed finally put paid to the long dispute that raged between Rome and Constantinople. That said, that dispute arose again later when John rejected papal supremacy as far as the eastern churches were concerned. The trends though in the west clearly favoured the continuing rise of the authority of papal supremacy, both religious, and civil.

What evidence can you supply for this claim? I am unaware of any contemporary evidence suggesting that the papacy instigated their demise. Please present your evidence.

The Roman church was adamantly opposed to Arianism. Justinian was an avid supporter of the Roman bishopric, and was keen to secure the influence of the bishop of Rome as he began his war against the Vandals. Again, this is about trends. Papal supremacy had already begaun a hundered years earlier, a trend against paganism, (although Catholicism itself is still but a form of paganism) and Arianism. In fighting on behalf of the bishops wishes the Catholic kings (such as Clovis) and the emperors and the fall of those powers is a fulfilment of the prophecy. Note that the prophecy does not state the horns were uprooted by the little horn, but that they were uprooted before him. That the bishops influenced and was the instigator in these uprootings I have no doubt. The Ostrogoths were strongly opposed to the religion of the bishop and Justinian; the war between them could not be anything but a religiously influenced event.

Pastor Bohr’s story is incorrect. None of the barbarian tribes were converted to Catholic Christianity at the time when the first of the three kingdoms were uprooted, and only three (the Franks, Burgundians, and Heruli) were converting to Catholicism at the time when the two other kingdoms were being uprooted. Bohr tries to make it seem as if seven Germanic tribes had converted to Catholicism while three embraced Arianism; in reality, all of the Germanic tribes were either Arian or pagan at the time when Emperor Zeno authorized the war against Odoacer’s “Heruli” horn.
There were more than three Arian kingdoms within the Western Roman Empire. If being Arian made them a threat to papal supremacy, then your theory has a serious problem since two Arian kingdoms (the Visigoths and Sueves) continued to rule a third of Western Europe after the fall of the Ostrogoths.

Yet as you stated, the Sueves and the Visigoths met their demise a little later. Okay, I accept your contention that they were also Arian. Ijn fact, most of the tribes were Arian and I agree that if Pastor Bohr has intimated that only 3 were and 7 weren't then That would be quite wrong. Still, that doesn't take away anything form the prophetic interpretation of the rise of the papacy among the ten, and the uprooting of the 3 before him. At the time of the papal rise, when the Emperor confirmed papal authority in Rome and Rome was freed (whether by Providence or arms or both it doesn't matter) from Arian power, then I think we can safely state that Roman autonomy then began, with the civil authority granting the Bibshop of Rome the right to "correct hereics" as stated in a another letter. And as atested to by Mosheim, the Arian tribes had no tolerance whatsoever for any claims by the Roman bishops to being ruler over all Christendom, and "set bounds to the power of those arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election". (Mosheim "History of the Church). In Bowers "History of the Popes" He states....When, on the death of Pope Simplicius ad493, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, prefectus praetoria, and lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to begun anew. Surely, NumberOneSon, a horn exercising such power needed to be taken away before any pope could reach the predicted supremacy. After the Hertuli were expelled from Italy, the Ostrogoths, being also Arian, continued rule all elections to be subject to the king.

Please cite contemporary evidence that the imperial power was acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome in the destruction of the kingdom of Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. I suspect neither you nor Pastor Bohr will be able to do so, but I’m open to hear any evidence you have.

Knowing the political and religious ambitions of Rome, and the close relationship between the popes and the emperors of that time, how could there not be any influence?

Odoacer’s kingdom? Yes. The Heruli kingdom? No. The Heruli kingdom was outside of the Empire’s borders. The Heruli were defeated by the Lombards, and the survivors were granted a fedorate kingdom in Pannonia by Emperor Justinian in return for their conversion to Catholic Christianity. So the Heruli were converted by an emperor, not uprooted by one

Interesting. Yet the Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric in Italy, and later the Lombards, who were certainly in the western portion of the empire, did eject the Heruli from that portion of the empire, thus taking nothing from the prophecy, that they were uprooted before the little horn. The prophecy does not state at which time the horns are uprooted, just that they are uprooted at a time of the rise of the little horn. History, regardless of the tools that were used to implement the specific events, still fulfilled the prophecy.
One might ask why should we focus on just the western part of the empire in which to find the fulfilment of prophecy? I rather like Sir Isaac Newtons explanation to that question.
"Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the Western Roman Empire. I say of the
western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast;
for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away . "As concerning the rest of the beasts", saith Daniel, "they had their dominion taken
away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time".Daniel 7:12. And therefore, as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, all four beasts are still alive, though
the dominion of the three first be taken away.
Note also .....The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia
Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined
to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads
of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.
(Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240)

Where can we read about this so-called “request”. Which Roman or Byzantine historian wrote about this correspondence?

The correspondence I think that Pastor Bohr refers to wasn't between the pope and the emperor, but between the Theodoric and the Emperor Zeno. Zeno was of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and according to Machiavelli, was anxious to drive the Heruli under Odoacer from Italy. Zeno was given this desire as a gift when Theodoric , being friendly with Zeno, asked permission to lead his armies against Odoacer because the Ostrogoths were too many for the small areas in which they had settled, being Moessia and Pannonia. This permission was granted and Theodoric, after a 3 year war, took over the Italian peninsular. Interestingly, Theodoric, in 523, commanded pope John to go to Constantinople and convince emperor Justin, the predeccesor to Justinian, to pull back from his avowed war against Arians, or Theodoric would do the same against Romans. He wasn't permitted to return to Italy until such time this was accomplished. Thus any so called papal autonomy or supremacy [prior to this event anyway was non-existent. The Ostrogoths had to go before the little horn could begin his reign. 538ad, the year the Ostrogoths left Rome, for whatever reason, is the year the Roman bishops finally gained the autonomy they desired.

The Heruli did not disappear from history because of the war between Odoacer and Theodoric. This is a gross misrepresentation. The Letters of Cassiodorus testify of the Heruli and their king at the beginning of the 6th Century. Procopius’ History of the Wars testified of the Heruli serving under Justinian's banner during the Vandal and Ostrogothic wars. The Liber Pontificalis testified of a Heruli invasion that oppressed most of Italy around 565AD until the general Narses subjugated them. The idea that the Heruli disappeared as a result of Odoacer's defeat is simply a myth.

I agree, Odoacer’s military contained Heruli…they may have even made up the majority of his forces…but the Heruli under his command were mercenaries and did not represent the totality of the Heruli tribe, not by a long shot.
Indeed, but they weren’t crushed at the instigation of the bishop of Rome, unless of course you can provide proof to the contrary.

Granted, that any 'uprooting' of the Heruli horn didn't take place overnight. But it did happen, and it happened at that significant time of history when the little horn, the papacy, was beginning to grow among the ten. While I admire your knoweldge of history, it doesn't actually contradict the fulfilment of the prophecy as understand by Adventists. Details clearly differ, as they do even among ourselves, but like I said earlier, the prophecy itself doesn't give exact names and dates...God leaves that up to us to figure out if we feel so inclined. 538 still makes sense to me.

Where can we read about this so-called “request”. Which Roman or Byzantine historian wrote about this correspondence?

The correspondence I think that Pastor Bohr refers to wasn't between the pope and the emperor, but between the Theodoric and the Emperor Zeno. Zeno was of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and according to Machiavelli, was anxious to drive the Heruli under Odoacer from Italy. Zeno was given this desire as a gift when Theodoric , being friendly with Zeno, asked permission to lead his armies against Odoacer because the Ostrogoths were too many for the small areas in which they had settled, being Moessia and Pannonia. This permission was granted and Theodoric, after a 3 year war, took over the Italian peninsular. Interestingly, Theodoric, in 523, commanded pope John to go to Constantinople and convince emperor Justin, the predeccesor to Justinian, to pull back from his avowed war against Arians, or Theodoric would do the same against Romans. He wasn't permitted to return to Italy until such time this was accomplished. Thus any so called papal autonomy or supremacy [prior to this event anyway was non-existent. The Ostrogoths had to go before the little horn could begin his reign. 538ad, the year the Ostrogoths left Rome, for whatever reason, is the year the Roman bishops finally gained the autonomy they desired.

There was more than one remaining Arian horn; the Visigoths and Sueves were also Arian horns, and Mr. Bohr’s theory doesn’t account for them.

Again, please present contemporary evidence that the Bishop of Rome implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths.

Sure, his details may be wrong. But the prophecy doesn't state they are Arian either. Our discussion on how the prophecy was explicitly fulfilled in detail may differ, but again, this doesn't negate the appearance of a little horn before whom 3 were uprooted.

(Gothic War, Book V, ch. 11)[/I], while Hodgkin numbered the Gothic force at around 35,000 Goths (Italy and Her Invaders, Vol. 6, pg.321). In comparison, before 540AD the Byzantine forces involved in the Gothic war never numbered more than 24,000 men. That’s 45,000 versus 24,000.

The Goths left Rome of their own volition in order to lay siege to Ariminum; they were not “expelled”. The Ostrogothic kingdom was uprooted following the battle of Mons Lacterius in 553AD when the remaining Ostrogoths negotiated their withdraw from Italy with General Narses. That was when they disappeared from the historical scene in Europe, and that is when they where uprooted...not 538AD.

When you pull a tree from the gorund it doesn't come out all at once. It takes time. As far as the little horn was concerned, 538 marks the year that the bishops of Rome finally had autonomy, the year the Ostrogoths left Rome. Their uprooting from other parts of the empire took a little ;longer. But as you say, they were uprooted all the same.

 

[Number0neSon]

Over an extended period of centuries, yes, there were many changes. But we are discussing a specific time, that is the prophetic period that saw the rise of the little horn among the ten.

I also was referring to a specific time period, that of 476AD. The Western Empire was not divided into ten kingdoms at that time.

Please note as an example of non-Adventist opinion on this matter.

But I’m seeing nearly all historicist opinions being presented, which is no more authoritative on European history than Adventist opinion is.

Machiavelli (>History of Florence,= 1.i) with no design of
furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it,has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322)

Albert Barnes was either being dishonest or confused; Machiavelli didn’t list all of those above tribes together. He had two lists, one beginning in the reign of Emperor Theodosius II in chapter one, the other pertaining to 476AD in chapter 2. Concerning the latter, he divided the Western Roman Empire into six divisions. I won’t belabor this discussion by addressing all of Barnes’ errors, but if he claims that Machiavelli placed the Visigoths in Pannonia in 476AD then it is clear he didn’t bother to read Machiavelli’s work. By all means, feel free to see for yourself….look up Niccolo Machiavelli’s History of Florence in Google Books, pages 1 and 6.

But these prophecies of Daniel can still be recognised as being fulfilled in the general trends of history, regardless of some details that may appear at times to contradict it.

I really don’t understand how a prophetic interpretation can be fulfilled in a “general sense” when a detailed examination of the claim appears to contradict it.

For example, you stated a little later in your reply that the Ostrogoths were far greater in numbers than I had previously been led to believe. Fair enough. But does that take anything away from the prophetic fulfilment of the veentual demise of one a horn, with the event in question, that is that the Ostrogoths were unable to take Rome,

But that’s the thing…the Ostrogoths did take Rome nine years later in 546AD, and then again in 549AD. As Hodgkin explained in my previous post, the Goths succeeded in retaking all of Italy - including Rome - with the exception of four coastal cities by 550AD.

Those details should affect the notion that the Ostrogoths were uprooted in 538AD, and that the bishop of Rome somehow had autonomy to implement a decree with a war still going on.

that after they left the pope finally had the freedom to exercise his authority there, confirmed a little later by Justinians letter, which did indeed finally put paid to the long dispute that raged between Rome and Constantinople.

But it didn’t “put paid” the long dispute…it continued on for hundreds of years, culminating in the Great Schism which has continued to this day. Justinian’s letter no more put the dispute to rest than Valentinian’s decree did, or Justin’s signing of the Formula of Hormisdas, or Justinian’s 520AD letter to Pope Hormisdas, or the decree of Phocus.

That said, that dispute arose again later when John rejected papal supremacy as far as the eastern churches were concerned.

Indeed, which proves Justinian’s letter did not put the matter to rest.

The trends though in the west clearly favoured the continuing rise of the authority of papal supremacy, both religious, and civil.

I agree, the trends did favor the rise of papal authority in the West (ie; lack of imperial oversight due to the Lombard invasions), but those trends were due to reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Justinian’s legislation. If Justinian had never penned that letter, the history of the papacy would have continued along exactly the same path that it did.

The Roman church was adamantly opposed to Arianism. Justinian was an avid supporter of the Roman bishopric, and was keen to secure the influence of the bishop of Rome as he began his war against the Vandals. Again, this is about trends.

Justinian was an avid supporter of Chalcedonic Christianity, not necessarily the bishop of Rome. He supported any high ranking bishop or patriarch whenever it suited his purposes, and ignored their authority when it didn’t.

What exactly did Justinian do to secure the influence of the pope as he began the Vandal War? I’m unfamiliar with this claim.

Note that the prophecy does not state the horns were uprooted by the little horn, but that they were uprooted before him.

Actually, the interpretation of the prophecy given by the angel in verse 24 clearly says that the little horn would be the one that subdues the three.

That the bishops influenced and was the instigator in these uprootings I have no doubt.

You should have plenty of doubt if you are unable to provide specific examples of these instigations.

The Ostrogoths were strongly opposed to the religion of the bishop and Justinian; the war between them could not be anything but a religiously influenced event.

Not true. The Ostrogoths were not strongly opposed to the religion of the pope; King Theodoric protected the Roman religion and enriched the church in the process. If the Goths had been strongly opposed, they would have persecuted Chalcedonians and forced Arianism upon all Roman citizens, like the Vandals tried to do.

At the time of the papal rise, when the Emperor confirmed papal authority in Rome and Rome was freed (whether by Providence or arms or both it doesn't matter) from Arian power, then I think we can safely state that Roman autonomy then began, with the civil authority granting the Bibshop of Rome the right to "correct hereics" as stated in a another letter.

No, we can’t say that. Roman autonomy did not begin in 538AD; every historian I have read on the matter agrees that Justinian’s re-conquest of Italy was a period of caesaro-papaism that decreased the power and authority of the bishops of Rome; it was not an era of Roman autonomy.

Again, even if it were true that Rome was “free” in 538AD, what bearing would that have on papal authority throughout the rest of Italy? Or throughout the rest of Western Europe? The Gothic War continued for 15 more years, and the Church in the Iberian Peninsula was under the sovereignty of Arian kingdoms. There was no Roman Catholic autonomy or hegemony in 538AD, I’m afraid to say.

And no, Justinian did not grant “civil authority” to the bishop of Rome to “correct heretics”. None of Justinian’s letters in his Code make that claim, and none of them touch on papal civil authority.

And as atested to by Mosheim, the Arian tribes had no tolerance whatsoever for any claims by the Roman bishops to being ruler over all Christendom, and "set bounds to the power of those arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election". (Mosheim "History of the Church).

As did Justinian and every Byzantine emperor that followed him. Actually, the emperors did far more to set bounds to papal power than the Gothic kings. On the same page, Mosheim lumped the emperors in with the Gothic princes by saying, “…both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude, which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church” (pg. 101).

“Since the conquest of Italy the Popes had been the humble subjects of the Eastern Emperor. They were appointed, if not directly by his mandate, under his influence. They dared not assume their throne without his permission. The Roman Ordinal of that time declares the election incomplete and invalid till it had received the imperial sanction. Months elapsed, in the case of Benedict ten months, before the clergy ventured to proceed to the consecration.”
(History of Latin Christianity, H.H. Milman, Vol. 1&2, pg.476)

“With this sordid episode (the Three Chapters) Justinian had clearly won a triumph over the Papacy. Humiliated and thoroughly under the Emperor’s thumb in all matters, from election to doctrine, it (the papacy) had been brought by Justinian to a new low as a dependency of the Emperor in Constantinople. So it was to remain in one degree or another for more than a century.”
(Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, John W. Barker, pg. 111)

In Bowers "History of the Popes" He states....When, on the death of Pope Simplicius ad493, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, prefectus praetoria, and lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to begun anew. Surely, NumberOneSon, a horn exercising such power needed to be taken away before any pope could reach the predicted supremacy. After the Heruli were expelled from Italy, the Ostrogoths, being also Arian, continued rule all elections to be subject to the king.

Don’t stop there…finish what Bower said; “...expressed great surprise at their taking upon them to appoint a successor to the deceased Bishop, without him; adding, that it belonged to the Civil Magistrate to prevent the disturbances that might arrive on such occasions, lest from the church they should pass to the state; that (Pope) Simplicius had conjured him, on his Death-bed, as they all well knew, to suffer no election to be made, without his advice and direction, and that were Simplicius still alive, nothing of moment ought to be undertaken till it was approved by him, who represented the Person of the King”. The votes were then re-gathered and Pope Felix II unanimously elected.

So according to Prefect Basilius (who was a Roman), it was the civil magistrate’s duty to prevent“disturbances” like those that may occur during papal elections; the recently deceased pope, Simplicius, had made a death-bed request that no election be made without Basilius’ “advice and direction” (and this request was public knowledge); and Simplicius would have insisted that nothing be undertaken until it was approved by Basilius. I’m not exactly seeing how this is an indictment against Odoacer, nor am I seeing how a Roman prefect’s involvement is the same as saying that papal elections were “subject to the king”.

Now Basilius did present a law from Odoacer forbidding Felix and his successors from committing simony in future elections, but that was the extent of Odoacer’s involvement in papal elections. I find it telling that Pope Felix’s first communication with Emperor Zeno wasn’t to complain about suffering under an oppressive Arian king, but to chastise the Eastern emperor for his own interference in church affairs (Zeno’s support of the Henoticon).

Knowing the political and religious ambitions of Rome, and the close relationship between the popes and the emperors of that time, how could there not be any influence?

Close relationship? Do you have any idea that at the time Zeno sent the Ostrogoths against Odoacer, he was embroiled in what was called “the Acacian Schism”, a 35-year conflict between the Eastern and Western churches that Zeno helped instigate? There was no “close relationship” between Felix and Zeno. There was definitely no close relationship between Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius…more like thinly veiled animosity. The reign of Emperor Justin finally helped heal the schism, but papal historian Claire Sotinel testified that, with the exception of Pope John’s 526AD visit, “Constantinople and Rome went their separate ways until 533. The new pope Felix (526-530) had no dealings at all with the imperial court, a policy largely continued by his successor, Boniface (530-532). In 532, Boniface asserted the rights of Rome over Illyricum, in answer to an appeal by the bishop of Larissa, who had been deposed by the patriarch of Constantinople, which worsened relations with the East.”(The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, pg. 273-274). Sotinel also recognized “there was no correspondence between popes and emperors” for five years after John’s visit, and “although actively trying to reconcile Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian, (Justinian) did not consult Rome about religious matters. No pope felt the need for a permanent representative in Constantinople before 533AD”.

I don’t think you are actually aware of how close or distant the popes and emperors were during that 50-year period…so no, simply speculating “how could there not be any influence” does not substantiate your claim that the imperial power was acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome. Either provide evidence for it or lay the claim aside.

Interesting. Yet the Ostrogoths, led by Theodoric in Italy, and later the Lombards, who were certainly in the western portion of the empire, did eject the Heruli from that portion of the empire, thus taking nothing from the prophecy, that they were uprooted before the little horn.

The Ostrogoths either destroyed Odoacer’s military or incorporated the remaining men into their own ranks. The Heruli as a tribe or nation was not ejected out of the Western Empire since their kingdom lay outside the empire at that time. The Lombards were not within the Western Empire when they overthrew the Heruli kingdom.

One might ask why should we focus on just the western part of the empire in which to find the fulfilment of prophecy? I rather like Sir Isaac Newtons explanation to that question.

The reference you provide was from Thomas Newton, not Isaac. Isaac Newton was all over the map when it came to the start of the 1260 years (445AD, 609AD, 800AD). I don’t think he gave any mind to 538AD.

The correspondence I think that Pastor Bohr refers to wasn't between the pope and the emperor, but between the Theodoric and the Emperor Zeno.

Pastor Bohr’s own words were, “The Pope requested the emperor to do something about the unorthodox Heruli.” I’m sorry, but there is no ambiguity in that statement. If Pope Felix sent Emperor Zeno a request to get rid of the Heruli, then Bohr is obligated to substantiate that claim. But he didn’t do that in his study, so at this point it’s merely Bohr’s wishful thinking.

Theodoric, in 523, commanded pope John to go to Constantinople and convince emperor Justin, the predeccesor to Justinian, to pull back from his avowed war against Arians, or Theodoric would do the same against Romans. He wasn't permitted to return to Italy until such time this was accomplished. Thus any so called papal autonomy or supremacy [prior to this event anyway was non-existent.

Sure…and within five months of the Byzantine “liberation” of Rome, Pope Silverius was uncanonically stripped of the pontificate due to the machinations of the Empress Theodora. And then in 545AD, the imperial authority commanded Pope Vigilius to go to Constantinople in order to validate Justinian’s condemnation of the Three Chapters. The pope suffered house arrest and physical harassment. During the Council of Constantinople in 553AD, Justinian declared that “the very religious pope of old Rome had made himself an alien to the catholic church by defending the impious chapters” (Sotinel, pg. 283). As a result, the council condemned the Chapters, deposed Vigilius, Justinian broke communion with Vigilius, and the bishops who had accompanied him were thrown into prison or sent to the mines until he condemned the Chapters several months later (Ibid).

Like Pope John, Vigilius was not allowed to return to Italy until Justinian got what he wanted, and when Vigilius died on his return trip, Justinian simply made Pelagius pope without giving Rome the opportunity to elect their own bishop. Sorry, but I’m not seeing papal autonomy or supremacy here either.

The Ostrogoths had to go before the little horn could begin his reign. 538ad, the year the Ostrogoths left Rome, for whatever reason, is the year the Roman bishops finally gained the autonomy they desired.

Well, if that’s your standard then the reign of the little horn wouldn’t have started any earlier than 553AD since the Ostrogoths retook the city of Rome twice during the 540’s, and Rome was an Ostrogothic possession for three years after 549AD.

While I admire your knoweldge of history, it doesn't actually contradict the fulfilment of the prophecy as understand by Adventists.

I don't see how that's possible. If Adventists claim the papacy acquired autonomy in 538AD when the historical record clearly shows it did not, then Adventists are choosing to ignore the contradiction in order to support their personal interpretation.

Sure, his details may be wrong. But the prophecy doesn't state they are Arian either. Our discussion on how the prophecy was explicitly fulfilled in detail may differ, but again, this doesn't negate the appearance of a little horn before whom 3 were uprooted.

It matters because the interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel 7:24 states that the little horn would do the subduing, and neither you nor Pastor Bohr have provided any evidence that the Bishop of Rome was the one responsible for subduing any of those three kingdoms. If you believe the papacy fulfills verse 24 and yet you can’t provide examples of the papacy orchestrating the destruction of Odoacer’s kingdom, the Vandals, or the Ostrogoths, then I would think that’s a pretty big problem with your interpretation.

When you pull a tree from the gorund it doesn't come out all at once. It takes time. As far as the little horn was concerned, 538 marks the year that the bishops of Rome finally had autonomy, the year the Ostrogoths left Rome. Their uprooting from other parts of the empire took a little ;longer. But as you say, they were uprooted all the same.

The type of roots Daniel described come from vestigial horns, not vegetation, so your analogy is off. No, 538AD does not mark the year the bishops of Rome had autonomy, whether from the Ostrogoths or the Byzantine emperors. As Machiavelli said, “the whole of Italy, being subject either to the emperors or the kings till the coming of the Lombards, the popes never acquired any greater authority than what reverence for their habits and doctrine gave them” (pg. 15).