When Did the Roman Church Start?

I do not believe 1260 ever refers to 1260 years in the Bible. It is always 1260 days. Always! It pertains to the last 42 months of the Tribulation called the Great Tribulation. If you treat 1260 as years either from the time of the Dome on the Rock to 1948 or when Roman Church was formed from 538 AD to 1798, in either case you will take the mark of the beast and be deceived into who the Antichrist really is. If you think the 1260 pertains to Muslims then you will look to the Antichrist as a Muslim Antichrist (e.g. perhaps Barack Hussein Obama 675=666). Or if you think the 1260 pertains to the Roman Church you will think the next Pope which does come to 666 is the Antichrist. Again, you will be deceived.

We know the Antichrist will hate the Roman Church according to Revelation 17.16: "The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute." So that excludes the Antichrist coming from the Roman Church. But Muslims still hate the Roman Church also at the end of the day, but of course a man of power will not come from an Islamic country, for the Gross Domestic Product of Islamic countries is a fraction of United States and the European Union, BRIC countries, Japan and Korea.

The Vatican will be nuked and Israel might nuke Iran which brings the nations into the Great Tribulation.

According to 666man.net:

There are good reasons for why 538 was chosen as the start date of the
1260 years, but it is not obvious to most people because they don't
understand the history, the identity of the power it applies to, and they
ofter don't understand exactly what the prophecy actually prophesied would
happen to mark the 1260 days, or in other words, they don't know what the
1260 days is all about.

To begin, consider Daniel 7:25, which says:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws:
and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the
dividing of time.

The important part is the phrase which says "and they shall be given into
his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." In the Bible,
to be given into the hand of a king was to be placed completely within
their power. They had it within their power to decide for life or death
for a person and a person was subjected to it, like it or not. It also
says that this would happen for a time period of 1260 days, which is
symbolic of 1260 literal years because a "time" in that era was
representative of a year.

Now, the point of this is that the power that I like to call the Talking
Horn will have power even of life and death over the people of God and
would have this for a period of 1260 years. This is what the 1260 year
was actually about. It was not about power over the kings of the nations,
unlike what some people like to think it was, but those people usually do
not read their Bibles carefully.

The next logical question is: when does this 1260 days (literal years)
start and who does it?

It is easy to figure out who does it because this power "think(s) to
change times and laws" (Daniel 7:25) The only law and times that this can
refer to is that found in the ten commandments, specifically, this points
to the time in the law and also to the law itself. This must refer to
God's laws as the laws of the Romans would be of much less significance to
God than his own law. He would not count it a sin for some power to think
to change the Roman laws or the laws of some nation. Now, in the ten
commandments, there is a law that refers to time, which is the Sabbath
commandment. The Catholic Church has for centuries claimed that it
changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. If you go back into history
and read about the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s, you will find the
Catholic authorities discussing the fact that they changed the Sabbath.

So, what this does is tell us that the Talking Horn is the Catholic
Church. The Catholic Church also changed other aspects of the ten
commandments. They removed the prohibition against the making of images
of God or worship of them or worship of any other false god or even
serving them. In order to make the ten commandments be ten in number,
they divided the last commandment into two commandments. They have
claimed that they can change the law of God at will. However, God sees it
differently. He says that he will never give his glory to another (Isaiah
42:8), meaning that he will never give his position and authority as God
to anyone - never in all of eternity will he do that. If the Catholic
Church is right about their claim, then God is a liar. It is that simple.

You get to choose who you will believe - the popes or God.

Thus, they thought to change the times, the Sabbath commandment, and the
law, specifically the other commandments. The Catholic churh fulfills
this precisely and nobody else does so.

Now, what is interesting is that the Talking Horn is said to rise to power
after the ten other horns on the head of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 rose
up. This means that this power rises after the fall of Western Rome and
after the Roman Empire has been divided among the successor nations. What
we know in history is that the Catholic Church was given authority over
the people of God long before 476 (the fall of Rome), but God ignores this
and says that this power over the people of God will rise after the fall
of Rome and would then last for a period of 1260 years. That does not
imply that the Catholic Church did not exist prior to the fall of the
Roman Empire, but God was marking this time period out as one of their
characteristics so we would have further information to identify them and
know what they would do.

In history, the power over the people of God was given to the Catholic
Church through the laws specifying that heretics (some of whom were
genuine heretics, but the remainder of them were God's people) were to be
punhished by the legal authorities. Such power was given to them through
decrees of Roman Emperors long before the fall of Western Rome. In order
for such decrees to be properly carried out, the legal authorities had to
be properly informed as to who the heretics were. The Church was the only
entity capable of making that decision. Thus, the Catholic Church was
given the task of deciding who was a heretic and who was not a heretic and
could then have the heretics prosecuted by the authorities for heresy by
merely handing these people over to the authorities and accusing them of
heresy. This gave them the power of life or death over the people of God.

The power that the Catholic Church got over the people of God prior to the
fall of Western Rome lasted for at most a few hundred years and was taken
away from it at the fall of Rome in 476. The way this happened is that
when Rome fell, the Roman army, led by one of the members of the Barbarian
tribes, turned on Rome and killed the youthful emperor and then installed
their Barbarian leader on the throne. That man's name was Odoacer
(sometimes spelled Odovaker). When he took over the emperor's throne by
deposing the previous emperor, he declared that all he wanted to rule was
Italy. This spelled the end of the Western Roman Empire because the
Eastern Roman Empire had not the resources to rule what was left of the
Western Roman Empire in 476. So, the Western Roman Empire just fell apart
and divided into some 50 nations of various sizes. The ten horns on the
head of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is symbolic of all of these nations.

Odoacer was an Arian, meaning that he was a Christian, but did not believe
that Jesus was divine. He also continued to rule by Roman laws that had
been in place before he took over in 476. But there was one important
exception to the Roman laws that existed prior to his takeover of the
throne: he granted everyone, Arian, Catholic, or pagan, to have religious
freedom and they could worship as they pleased. The decrees in the Roman
laws granting the Roman Catholic Church the right to have power over the
people of God was taken away from them through the decree granting
everyone religious freedom and the right to worship as they saw fit. You
see, if the authorities would no longer prosecute anyone for heresy, then
the Catholic Church could not have anyone they deemed a heretic tried and
convicted for heresy and then punished. It was impossible after the fall
of Western Rome. So, when Odoacer granted everyone religious freedom, the
right for the Catholic Church to have power over the people of God was
destroyed at that very moment.

In 493 the Ostrogoths took over Odoacer's kingdom and ruled it until
ousted by the invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire, beginning in 535 and
continuing until 561. The Ostrogoths were wanting to be a separate people
from the Romans, but they did work with the Roman Senate and
administration that was still in place from the days of the Western Roman
Empire. The ostrogoths ruled their own people by ostrogothic laws and the
Romans by Roman laws. However, again, the Ostrogoths were Arians and they
too granted everyone, Romans and Ostrogoths, the right to have religious
freedom, to worship as they pleased. As a result, the Catholic Church was
unable to have heretics prosecuted for heresy. You can be sure that they
missed having that power for having power like that often breeds a hunger
for more.

Now, to get at the specifics of your question. In December of 536, the
troops of Justinian marched into Rome from the south side and at the exact
same time, the Ostrogothic troops were leaving out the north gate because
they did not think they had enough troops to defend Rome. However, they
left word that they would be back and would contest they takeover of Rome.

They planned to retake it - and they would have succeeded had not events
intervened that greatly weakened their efforts and eventually forced them
to give up the siege. They began their siege of Rome in, as I recall,
February of 537, and continued it until March of 538, at which point they
gave up. One major factor in causing them to give up was that they broke
open the aquaducts supplying Rome with water, hoping to force
capitulation, but instead only caused the breeding of millions of malaria
loaded mosquitos that found the Ostrogothic troops a very close and very
tasty meal which so weakened them that most of them could not fight.

They gave up their siege and left in March of 538. Thus, they ceased to
contest the Eastern Roman Empire's claim upon Rome at that moment.
Now, here is why 538 is chosen for the date. Before the troops of
Justinian took over Rome, obviously they had no jurisdiction over it. If
they did not own it, their laws did not apply there. This is sensible, is
it not? Some people try to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire did own
Italy because the Ostrogoths did technically recognize the ownership of
the Eastern Roman Empire of Italy. But, if the Eastern Roman Empire truly
owned Italy, then why did they have to send troops in to capture it? You
don't do that to territory which you own. Now, once Justinian's troops
got into Rome, the city was held by them, but their hold on it was
contested until March of 538. Until the siege was lifted, nobody at that
time could say for sure who would win in the final outcome of the battle,
though it is true that the Eastern Roman Empire was the stronger of the
two. Thus, until the siege was lifted, there was a question as to who
would ultimately own Rome and that would decide whose laws applied to the
people of Rome and also to the Catholic Church in Rome. The question was
not decided until March of 538. Once the question of jurisdiction was
decided for the foreseeable future, THEN the laws of the Eastern Roman
Empire applied to the Catholic Church in Rome. Here is the final decisive
factor: the laws of the Eastern Roman Empire were largely the same as
those of the Western Romen Empire, with a few additional laws that the
Eastern Romen Emperors had added. Both sets of laws included the laws
giving the government the right to prosecute people for heresy, which in
turn gave the Catholic Church the right to decide who was and who was not
a heretic and hand them over to the government for prosecution. However,
while it is true that the laws of the Romans was applied to the Romans in
Italy under the governments of Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, those
governments also granted everyone religious freedom, Romans and other
nationalities alike. However, by granting everyone that right, it
automatically nullified the laws giving the government the right to
prosecute people for heresy. Thus, in the kingdom of Odoacer and the
Ostrogothic kingdom later, the Papacy was not permitted to find heretics
and turn them over to the government for prosecution. In other words, the
persecution laws were not valid in those kingdoms. But when Justinion
gained uncontested rightful jurisdiction over Rome, this power over the
people of God was restored - in March of 538. The reason it was restored
is because the laws of the persecution of heretics, which was the law in
the Eastern Roman Empire, would then cover the pope in Rome.

There are those who argue that there was no administration to carry out
those laws until about 540, which is true, but the law was still the law
and that is what actually applies. You can be sure that Roman laws
applied with or without an administration to carry out those laws. They
had soldiers and officers on the ground in Italy and they could administer
the law until a proper administration was set up. I am sure that if
someone stole the property of others, I doubt that the Eastern Romans
would have ignored it but would have punished the wrongdoer for his deeds.
If they did not, then anarchy would have soon prevailed. Anyway, when
the laws of the Eastern Roman Empire went into effect in Rome, this
fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 7 because AFTER the fall of Rome
(followed by the division of the Roman Empire into many kingdoms), then
the Talking Horn rose to power. That is precisely what happened because
in 538 the Papacy regained the power to have so-called heretics prosecuted
for heresy, giving it power over the people of God. It gained the power
of a king over the people of God, the power of life or death over them.

The return of the laws permitting the Catholic Church to have people
prosecuted for heresy is just like having a new decree written for them
and applied on that date because it was a new law to the people of Rome
and the Papacy, a law that was no longer enforceable. Justinian had a
compilation of the Roman laws done just prior to his invasion of Italy,
and those laws that were compiled together from previous emperors were put
back into effect by his publication of them. Apparently many of them had
been forgotten over the years and were no longer being used. Thus, 538
was the year in which a decree was implemented in Rome.

Some historians do recognize that the year 538 set up the pattern for the
next 1260 years. Here is what one historian said about this date:
"By this time (speaking just prior to that of Justinian's excuse to invade
Italy in 535), Catholicism was victorius everywhere in the West except in
Spain where the Visigoths would retain their Arianism for another fifty
years, and in Britain now divided between Celts and Anglo-Saxons.

Elsewhere, the older Latin civilization represented by the aristocratic
and often monastic-disciplined episcopate prevailed over the Germanic
national churches. Success had fallen to superior organization and
civilization backed by the passive support of the mass of the people. For
good or ill, medieval Europe would be based on the papacy, and on the
Catholic but barbarian monarchies the most powerful of which was that of
the Franks. And in the background, thanks largely to Justinian, would be
the imperial idea whose ghost was destined to survive until the Napoleonic
era." (W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, page 815, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1984)

While it is true that this statement does not point specifically to 538,
it does point to early in the campaign by Justinian in Italy for the setup
of a trend, a trend that remained in place until Napoleon came along and
put an end to it once and for all for the Roman Church in 1798 and soon
after for the nations of Europe.

Once this happened, then God started the clock ticking on the 1260
prophetic days (literal years) and it continued to tick until the power
over the people of God was formally removed 1260 years later in 1798 by a
decree of the French government five days after French troops took over
Rome. A law created the power over the people of God in 538 and only a
reversal law could remove it, something that was accomplished in 1798. As
near as I can tell, there was no reversal law passed by any other power
that owned Rome from 538 untl 1798.

It is interesting that once the law was in place in 538, God did not stop
the clock ticking until 1260 years later, in spite of several apparent
short interruptions to the application of this law.

There are people who argue that the Ostrogoths came back and retook Rome
twice from the Eastern Romans, which is true, and so they argue that the
538 date is wrong because there was an interruption in the ability to
enforce the prosecution of heretics laws, so the 1260 years does not
apply. This appears to be a valid argument on the surface of it, but the
fact is that it fails to take into account one key fact: there was a law
reversing the right of the Catholic Church to prosecute people for heresy
that was written and enforced in 1798 upon the church, exactly 1260 years
later. Is that just some odd coincidence? If so, why did it occur to the
power that this prophecy is clearly applied to? Thus, the 1260 days
started in 538 and continued onward until 1798 - a total of 1260 years
just as predicted without regards for the short interruptions that
occurred.

Wendell

1260 days can never mean years for the following reasons:

Recently the study of prophecy had earned for itself a bad reputation among believers because of the so-called year-day theory. According to this theory, many numbers of days in the Scriptures are computed as though a day were a year [even Isaac Newton made this mistake with all kinds of calculations], thus fostering predictions as to the precise date for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ—an exercise of the mind which is plainly contradictory to the Lord’s announcement: for no one knows the date of His return, not even Jesus himself. Then, too, some commentators on Revelation have twisted God’s word in ways that are meant to fit in with this year-day theory. We have no intention to argue about this theory; we only desire to point out a right understanding of the “days” that are mentioned in the Bible.

The advocates of the year-day theory base their conception on Numbers 14.34 and Ezekiel 4.6. Let us first examine Numbers: "After the number of the days in which ye spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my alienation." Here we are told that due to their unbelief, the children of Israel were disciplined by God for forty years, a year for every day they had spied out the land. But this does not apply equally to other "days" mentioned in Scripture, and certainly not to the "days" found in Revelation. As to Ezekiel: "And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah: forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it unto thee." Here we see that God commanded Ezekiel to lie down in a certain position as a response to the iniquity of Judah. This has nothing to do with the other "days" found in the Bible.

Let us look at a few more passages.

(1) "And yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights" (Gen. 7.4). Did God wait for seven years and then have the rain fall for forty years? No, for the record goes on to explain as follows: "And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. . . . And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights" (vv.10,12). Here, a day is not a year.

(2) "Joseph said unto him, This is the interpretation of it: the three branches are three days; within yet three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head" (Gen. 40.12,13). Was it that after three years the chief butler was released from prison? Not at all: "And it came to pass the third day . . . [that] he restored the chief butler unto his butlership again" (vv.20,21).

(3) "Then said Jehovah unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day . . . And it shall come to pass on the sixth day . . . [that] it shall be twice as much as they gather daily" (Ex. 16.4,5). The children of Israel went out to gather manna every day, not once a year.

(4) God gave meat to the children of Israel to eat for "a whole month" (Num. 11.19, 20). They did not eat meat for thirty years.
(5) "Within three days ye are to cross this Jordan" (Joshua 1.11). What actually happened afterwards? Did the children of Israel cross over Jordan after three years? No, they crossed after three days.

(6) "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12.40). Was the Lord Jesus in the heart of the earth for three years? We know from the biblical record that He was there for only three days and three nights.

From this evidence, therefore, we can easily conclude that the year-day theory is erroneous. If some of the "days" appearing in the book of Revelation are to be taken as years, then the rest of the "days" found therein should also be treated as years. And in that case, the three and a half years of the Great Tribulation would have to be calculated as a thousand two hundred and sixty years; and the millennial kingdom would have to be extended out to three hundred and sixty thousand years. Obviously, we know that such calculations as these cannot be true.

May we therefore trust the Holy Spirit to guide us correctly as we read the word of God. Let us not seize upon strange ideas like this. Even though the Bible is most wonderful, it is not to be explained in any quaint or bizarre way. We ought to learn to be more obedient to God in our thought. And then we will not be likely to misinterpret His word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendell

What most people do not know is that the word Antichrist has two meanings to it, which are based on the fact that the prefix anti- has two meanings. The two meanings of the prefix anti- are as follows:

1. to be against
2. to substitute for

Now, in Revelation 13, the first beast is the Antichrist. Here is why I know that. In the description of that beast, it says that the beast is worshipped AND it is said to speak blasphemy and have blasphemy written on the heads, which means they behave in a blasphemous manner - equivalent to speaking blasphemy in Bible prophecy. Now, stop and think about this for a moment. Who else in the Bible was worshipped and was said to speak blasphemy? The obvious answer is Jesus because he was worshipped and he was accused of speaking blasphemy. He was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be God and he claimed to have authority to forgive sins against God's laws. Jesus was God and he did have authority to forgive sins because he was God. However, anyone claiming to be God and claiming to have authority to forgive sins is claiming to substitute himself for Jesus. Guess what! The Catholic priests and popes claim to have authority to forgive sins and the popes have claimed to actually be Christ himself. Therefore, they are making claims of being the Antichrist by way of substituting themselves for Christ. Of course, their claim is a fraud, but that is what they teach and I assume they actually believe it even though it is not true.

Most people in looking for the Antichrist look for a person who acts against Christ in an obvious way, so they often look for a Muslim. But acting against Christ is best done from a position in which people see the Antichrist as Christ himself, and then he can subtly act against Christ without people realizing it. This means the Antichrist must substitute himself for Christ and then act against the best interests of Christ but in a way that appears to be the opposite. The Catholic Church has done this very effectively.

I understand why you think that there is a problem with seeing the Antichrist in Revelation 17 turning on and destroying the church, and of course, a pope would not do so. However, may I suggest to you that you have misunderstood the information in Revelation 17? At least consider it. Here is why. I know that there are version of the Bible that say that the beast AND the ten horns turn on the woman, but I believe, for very good reasons that I won't go into here, that this statement in Revelation 17 as it commonly reads in many modern translations is due to interpretation of the verse that is faulty due to a scribal error that occurred centuries ago. One word was accidentally changed and that changes the entire meaning so that instead of the ten horns turning on the beast (the correct interpretation), it is the beast and the ten horns that turn on the woman (the interpretation due to the scribal error). I am not one who thinks that only the King James Version of the Bible should be read, but I have found that it more accurately portrays Revelation 17 than most of the more "modern" versions. It says that only the ten horns turn on the woman and destroy her. The ten horns are not the Antichrist. Consequently, they can and will turn on and destroy the beast, which is the 8th, who goes to perdition (destruction by God). The beast there is primarily the Catholic Church and will be destroyed by the ten horns, but the pope will survive this because it says in 2 Thessalonians 2:4-8 that the final Antichrist will be destroyed by the brightness of the coming of Jesus.

You quote Colossians 2:16-17 to point out that we are not to judge anyone over feast days, Sabbath days, and so on. I agree. That also means that if one wants to do those things, we should not condemn them for it. They are free to do so. It does no good, but is not wrong.

However, there is something you might want to think about. It says in verse 17 that all the things listed in verse 16 are shadows of things that were yet future in the time when these things were to be done. In other words, the ceremonial laws were symbolic of things yet future and pointed towards the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. That is true, is it not? I think we both can agree on that.

The ceremonial Sabbaths clearly did point forwards to Jesus. Nobody who understands the ceremonial system or has studied it will likely deny that they pointed forwards to Jesus. Yet that is not true of the 4th commandment Sabbath. Lots of people try to make it say things that it does not say in the Bible because they claim that the Sabbath commandment points forwards to Christ. But, don't take their word for it or ever my word for it, but go read the 4th commandment for yourself in Exodus 20 and you will see that it clearly points BACKWARDS to creation, not forwards to Christ. It plainly says so in that commandment. Be very careful to read it for what it actually says, not what you want it to mean or have had others say it means. God is particular about things so you must be sure to read it exactly as it reads. lots of people in reading the Bible actually read the commentary out of their heads and think they have read the Bible when in fact all they did was read the commentary - it will mislead you for sure if you do this. Anyone claiming the 4th commandment points forwards to Christ is making up things than are not in the 4th commandment (which is the whole of that commandment - it isn't scattered around in the Bible). It seems to me that anyone who claims it points forwards to Christ when it plainly does not say any such thing is likely going to get the same reward promised to those who add to the book of Revelation, for the result is the same.

Therefore, because Colossians 2:16-17 says that the things listed in verse 16 point forward to Christ, it is impossible for the Sabbaths mentioned there to be the 4th commandment Sabbath, but instead is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths. The 4th commandment Sababath has never been changed. It remains in effect to this day. Watchman nee is wrong.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the Dome of the Rock approach. I am not familiar with that. Sorry, but I have not studied every possible theory out there on this. I mostly just study the Bible and history.

As for Prince William or Prince Charles (another one that I have seen on the web), they are not the beast so therefore are not the Antichrist.

You say that the year-day theory does not work "for the reasons I gave you." I don't know any reasons you gave because prior to your asking the question about the year 538, I have no record of communication from you. Is it possible that you somehow got me mixed up with someone else?

However, there is something that will prove the 1260 day-year theory one way or the other. We have found in our studies, which is based in part on the 1260 year theory, that pope Benedict XVI will change his Papal name. He will do this when he is given the power to hand people over to the governments of Europe to be prosecuted for heresy and will change his Papal name to reflect his new status. The new name will be a unique name, unused before in Papal history. Receiving the power to have people prosecuted for heresy will make him the beast and changing his name will make him the 8th, the 8th spoken of in Revelation 17. IF we have the correct method of interpretation, then he should someday change his Papal name. If the 1260 day-year theory is wrong, then he won't do that and will drop dead before Jesus comes again. But if we are right, then he is the final Antichrist and will die when Jesus comes again. It also means the end is here and the end events will follow. Should he change his name someday, you should come back to our web site at 666man.net to learn how we got this information from the Bible.

Wendell

---

The KJV is often wrong. For example, it confuses Hell for Hades which the new versions corrected. I favor the KJV too, but it makes mistakes too. The beast is to take over three little horns of the 10 probably because of their indebtedness, so the reason it hates the harlot also is because at least it is in name in Christ. Revelation 14 shows how religious Rome (Rev. 17) is destroyed before the last trumpet rapture and before the wrath is poured out which destroys political Rome (Rev. 18). But it is hard to believe the European Union coming against the Vatican because they are on the same continent, unless the head is the Antichrist, perhaps Prince William; and it might be done by simply a nuclear explosion which is blamed upon the European Union because they allowed the Antichrist to take over three countries or bankers. It will be very convoluted to say the least.

I don't see you dealing with the 1290th day, 1335th day, 42 months which is 1260 days, last three and half years of the Tribulation, breaking a covenant for one week at the midpoint in the middle of 84 months. There is likely not a double meaning for 42 months. So what you are waiting for is that which will deceive you because you mistreat the 1260 days. And that is always a reflection of overassuming, undiscerning, and a matter of the heart. You will take the mark of the beast because you claim the actual mark is not worshiping the proper day for the Sabbath.

The Antichrist could be someone like Prince William whose name in King William V in Greek comes to 666 and is alleged to fulfill the Merovingian line from Jesus and the Davidic line for Israel. And many claim he looks like the person on the Shroud of Turin. Of course the Shroud was Carbon 14 dated to 1260 to 1390, and the DNA is not recoverable to compare to William. But the Royal Family might still be able to work out their scheme.

I assume the 10 are the 10 countries from 1951 to 1981 (Greece was the last of the 10), the first 10 countries, including Italy, that formed the European Union. Prince William was a little horn born 1982. He will suffer a deadly wound, and his recovery will be seen throughout the world. The three most televised events in history had to do with Prince Charles, Diana and William. This shows you where peoples' hearts are really

If three of those countries which today are in massive debt like Italy, Greece and one other are taken over by the little horn, then how can Italy as one of the 10 turn on the Vatican without the Antichrist being a man who does not belong to Italy? Some say the 3 little horns are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the 4 countries of the United Kingdom. It works either way for me.

If a nuclear bomb blows up the Vatican which seems to be the case ("burn her with fire" Rev. 17.16) then how could the Pope not die also? So the Antichrist can't be the Pope since the Antichrist must remain to the end when Jesus returns and destroys him from the 1260th to the 1290th day.

You see the point though about keeping days that many historicists promote, that is, those who claim the 1260 days is years. They will confuse the implant for the beast for not keeping Saturday or Sunday depending on their persuasion.

I believe the Jewish Sabbath pointed towards the specific covenant that Israel had as the nation to bring in the Messiah. And yes, of course, it is related to the 7 days of creation, but ultimately it points to the day of rest; now that day is fulfilled every day with the veil rent and the rest and peace and quietude of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers. Why deny this peace and rest of the Holy Spirit indwelling? Remember, Jesus came to fulfill the law and that's how He does it. The reason there is no Sabbath today or Christian Sabbath is because the Holy Spirit is that rest. I think someone who denies this can't help but come under judgment. God is not pleased with keeping days and using that to judge, so you are violating Scripture, so this is how you are judged.

Please see the previous post why the Day-Year Theory doesn't work. I sent you the link, but you just didn't read it.

Just realize the Bible uses the term "months" for the 42 months so it is weird to turn months into days then days into years. It's like you need an explanation for the explanation. I hate it when Atheists do that endlessly to Hell.

I believe Benedict will change his name to Peter also. What the Holy Spirit is showing me is that since Benedict will be the 266th and 666th someone will realize this and blow up the Vatican with a nuclear bomb thinking they have destroyed the Antichrist. This is Satan's deception to divert attention off of himself. The real Antichrist is Prince William or simply the leader of the European Union. Do you see how sneaky Satan is?

Remember, the woman which is the Roman Catholic system rides the beast. How can the Roman Church ride the Pope? If anything the pope rides the woman. So who does the woman sit upon? The beast. Who is the beast? The Antichrist. Who is the Antichrist? The leader of the European Union of Political Rome.

Watchman Nee was right. If you want to understand more what I feel is very accurate writing on his part, read here which really fills me up,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Aids_to_Revelation.htm
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/satanstrinity.htm
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Revelation_17.htm

It is said by some Watchman Nee had the highest IQ in Church history. It's one thing to be really smart but another to be consecrated. He spent the last 20 years of his life in jail.

I like his comment,

There is a failure in this second school to distinguish between rapture and the appearing of the Lord. There is a difference between Christ coming for the saints and Christ coming with the saints. That which Enoch prophesied, as recorded in Jude, points to the coming of the Lord, "with his holy myriads” (see Jude 14-15 mg.) when His feet step down on the Mount of Olives. So does the prophecy which is given in Revelation: “Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen” (1.7). In taking the historical view, the second school of interpretation regards that part of Revelation up to chapter 17 as having already been fulfilled, with only the part from chapter 17 onward waiting to be fulfilled. (This is exactly opposite to the futuristic view taken by the first school of interpretation which deems only chapters 1-3 as having already been fulfilled, with the rest remaining to be so). If the book of Revelation only records primarily things of the past, then how can the average child of God ever understand it? It would require doctors of philosophy and learned historians to comprehend it! Furthermore, it would no longer be revelation either!
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Partial_rapture.htm
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew_24.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wendell

Inasmuch as I did not explain to you why the idea that the beast and the ten horns turn on the woman is wrong, I suppose I should expect that you would say this. However, in this case, I know the KJV is not wrong. The explanation of this is somewhere on my web site.

I do not believe that the ten horns are political powers. They are an outgrowth of the beast, which primarily represents the Papacy, from the time of the Protestant Reformation onward. The beast is a religious power, so they must be religious powers unless it makes an exception for that in the text, which it does not do. Therefore, they are the Protestant Churches that came out of Catholicism, and particularly they are the Protestant Churches of America.

After I sent my e-mail to you last night, I discovered that you had sent an explanation regarding the 1260 days in a later e-mail. Sorry about that.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on a number of points. For example, there is no command in the Bible to not keep the Sabbath on the seventh day and neither is there a command to keep the first day of the week. Those who make up excuses to do otherwise will someday discover that God meant what he said and we are not authorized to change it. There is a rest, all right, and it is the Sabbath day in which we are to especially meet with and honor God on the seventh day of the week. The Holy Spirit is not our rest.

In the Bible there is the story of two guys who were priests in the Old Testament sanctuary (the sons of Aaron) who decided that they would go into the presence of God with fire that was not from the source that God told them to take it from. He destroyed them. You see, they did what they wanted to do instead of obeying the word of God. Those who choose to worship on Sunday knowing that God has given the Sabbath day are making the same choice and the same result that happened to the sons of Aaron will come to them in the end. I'm sorry, but that is the truth. We cannot substitute our own thing for what Gad has specifically commanded. Sunday is not the Sabbath and never has been and never will be no matter any excuses of rest in the Holy Spirit or any other argument people may give to you. God has never authorized any other day of worship. You violate God's command by doing otherwise. However, God gives everyone the right to choose for right or wrong, but the consequences of those choices rest with each of us individually.

You need to carefully read the Bible for yourself about this issue and not listen to Watchman Nee or anyone else. You need to listen to God's word and it alone. Shut off the commentary in your head while reading it and let the word of God really enter your mind. Ernestly seek real truth and purpose to obey it regardless of whether it is accepted by the common Christian world. God wil honor you someday for doing so. And always pray for God's guidance before you begin to read God's word, or you will most certainly be led astray by Satan.

The day will come in America when as a matter of law you will be required to honor the pope's day of worship, Sunday, and when it does, please come back to our web site and learn more about what is going to happen.

I am not going to discuss the 1260 days or most of the other issues you mentioned because you will not believe anything I say, so there is no point in wasting time on it.

As for the Rapture, that is a deception of Satan. It isn't going to happen.
Wendell

---

It is still the beast going after the harlot even if you use the KJV version: "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore" (Rev. 17.16). The "these" includes the ten horns and the beast.

Rev. 13.1 “Ten horns” represent ten minor kings (17.12), while “seven heads” speak of seven supreme kings (17.10). Since the heads are bigger than the horns and the latter are on the heads, the seven heads and ten horns must stand for seven emperors and ten kings.

The “seven heads” indicate seven successive emperors, whereas the “ten horns” speak of ten contemporary kings. (Altogether, the ancient Roman Empire had thirteen Caesars, among whom five, at the time of John the Apostle, died violently. The term “fallen” (17.10) in the original bears in it the sense of a violent death. The sixth Caesar, Domitian, it should be recalled, was also slain. And the seventh one will likewise be killed. So that all seven Roman Emperors mentioned by God do not die peacefully. The ten horns are but subordinate kings to political Rome.)

I believe those 10 kings could be either the G-10 bankers, the ten countries on the security council for the UN, or even the first 10 countries that joined the EU with the 10th being Greece in 1981. 3 of them will be taken over by the Antichrist which is different from the others. It doesn't make sense that the Vatican would take over three countries, nor does it make sense that 10 major countries or bankers would give their power to the Pope.

I totally side with Watchman Nee that there is no Sabbath to be kept, neither on Saturday nor Sunday. Nee said the thing to fear most are those who produce a Christian Sabbath or claim you have to keep Saturday or Sunday, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lordsday.htm

We are to judge no man on such things because the Jewish Sabbath was just a shadow of what is to come, namely the Holy Spirit indwelling rest. Some people have to work on Saturdays or Sundays, so your legalism falls apart I think.

Worshiping on Sunday is more appropriate than Saturday, because Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, not Saturday. This is perfectly acceptable in Church history. For the Church to make Saturday the weekly worship day would be a strange fire, because the Lord's Day which is Sunday is totally unlike the Sabbath. The Sabbath no work can be done for ancient Israel, but on Sunday it is full of vibrant spiritual activity. I see you erecting an idol, a point of pride and self-exaltation but the Lord says He never knew you.

When I read the Bible I don't see the necessity for the Church to keep Saturdays. This is your idol and strange fire. I see the Sabbath as a covenant with Israel only and fulfilled when the Holy Spirit now indwells. In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit came upon men, but did not indwell men.

I don't even think I could call you a Christian because you deny the rapture "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9). There is no other way to get to the throne in 3rd heaven unless by rapture (1 Thes. 4.15-17).

You didn't seem to have an answer how 42 months can turn into 1260 years, nor how to apply the 1290th and 1335th days spoken of in Scripture. Obviously nothing happened 30 years after 1798 nor 45 years after that.

Pray on this.