Understanding the 'Little Horn' power of Prophecy in Daniel.

[Hobie]

So Matthew did all that for nothing, OK.

Matt 24 A (and the others) is clearly about the 1st century . Compare Mt 10–the same first cent language. Luke is very detailed about the revolt against Rome in 13, 15, 17, 19 and of course 21. In 23:28 he makes a biological time stamp when referring to Hos 6.

Then there is an allowance that the final day of judgement might be put back, and Peter explains why., 2 P 3.

it wasnt going into the prophecies to the end like Daniel and Revelation, concerning the apostate church of the antichrist, which the deceiver was trying to raise up even then.

 

[Hobie]

God has given us much information regarding the thinking and behaviors of the 'Little Horn' power of Daniel and we see it is also also the 'Beast' power in Revelation and we saw how matches up.

• Daniel 7:25, "time, times and a half".
• Daniel 12:7, "time, times and a half".
• Revelation 11:2, "42 months".
• Revelation 11:3, "1260 days".
• Revelation 12:6, "1260 days".
• Revelation 12:14, "time, times and a half".
• Revelation 13:5, "42 months".

Now in the book of Daniel the 'Little Horn' power is the primary antagonist of the faithful with a time span set here, so clear that the 'Little Horn' is an earthly system through which Satan seeks to influence and deceive mankind. We see the same thing with the 'Beast' power, and this earthly system is also identified in many ways including as 'Mystery Babylon' or the woman (church) that rides the Beast, who would give its mark to those who follow it.
Revelation 17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Revelation 17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

And compare on the Beast she rides...

Daniel 7:7
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Revelation 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,

Now looking at Daniel 7, it help us to identify the little horn which grows into the antichrist entity.
It is a little kingdom which would come into being with great power and influence.
It came up among the ten horns on the head of the fourth beast which is the Roman Empire.
It would become powerful after Roman Empire and would arise after the ten horns. Therefore, it would arise after Rome fell in 476 AD.
Three Nations would be removed In Its rise. Three of the ten kingdoms were displaced by his rise to power.The Papacy subdued and destroyed three out of the ten kingdoms, Heruli, Ostrogoths & Vandals.
It would be different or diverse. "He was diverse from the former" . So it was different from the previous ten kings which were only temporal. This little horn would claim authority like God.
It has a Human element as it says would have "eyes like the eyes of a man," This horn has "eyes", not of God, but of man. It is guided by human intelligence, human leadership, and human authority. With a man as leader, it usurps God's leadership.
And it is blasphemous as it would have a "mouth speaking great things" and "shall speak great words against the most High" The little horn power would speak great, or pompous things, and would speak out against God.
Rules 1260 Years. It would last for "a time, times and the dividing of times". and we see the same in Revelation 12: 6. Describes this period as 1260 days and Revelation 13: 5. Describes this period as forty two months.
It would have dominion and also persecute God's saints for 1260 years as we saw in the Dark Ages.
it would changes times And laws as we see "think to change times and laws" .

So the little horn power would be both a political and a religious power and would also think to change "Times and Laws". If you look the only commandment in the Ten of the Law that deals with time is the fourth commandment which gives it for the Sabbath.
And finally it would be destroyed by God, so it would be powerful until the Second Coming.

So we can see that all of the identifying marks in Daniel and much of the same in Revelation, were fulfilled in the history of this apostate church.

 

[EarlyActs]

it wasnt going into the prophecies to the end like Daniel and Revelation, concerning the apostate church of the antichrist, which the deceiver was trying to raise up even then.

My masters is in NT background. In one term I translated from Josephus Jewish War. What I said about the direct reference to that revolt in the gospels means that that material, and even a great part of the Rev, was written to warn or interpret the revolt. I'm pretty sure the revolt is the 'apostosia' because it is so cataclysmic for Israel. It is the one thing that would ruin the country.

Dan 9:24-27, then, is a miniature of NT history, from the Gospel event (Christ's suffering) to the destruction of the race-nation later that generation.

If there is no clear NT reference to a passage, I greatly hesitate to go very far into it. The apostles did not, says Acts 26. And with 2500 allusions, it hardly seems like we need to. The mistakes of the medieval period don't need to be pre-dated to be considered wrong.

One thing that has always puzzled me about 1260 or the 1300 figure, for the sake of argument, is that the period from Constantine declaring Christianity a nominal state religion to the first real pluralism (where a state allows people beliefs without fear of persecution) is much longer. The latest Protestant-Catholic physical conflict that I know of was in the 1800s, although L'Abri Fellowship tried to set up in one canton of Switzerland without realizing it was Catholic and were told they needed to move to a 'free' one, in the 1950s. In the 2010s, I was in Moldova and a Baptist church's windows were recently shattered by an Orthodox priest. The locals told me he usually referred to Baptists as 'charismatics.' (That's not a state at work, but it is intolerant conflict).

And all that presumes we are to track Europe instead of the middle east area.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, it is the nations that came out of the Roman Empire, and we see them today in the EU trying to bring the 'clay' and the 'iron' of the different nations together, but they keep failing.

Your timing for the blending of iron and clay elements is way off. There has to be a considerable length of time for the stone kingdom to grow steadily into a great mountain that fills the whole earth. So, the destruction of Daniel's entire statue by that stone striking its feet of combined iron and clay has to come long before the close of human history's final judgment. If scripture calls the OT nation of Israel the "CLAY" in Isaiah 64:8, then this is what the element of the clay in Daniel's statue represented. We are not at liberty to arbitrarily define it otherwise.

They werent mistaken, and we see many are being deceived and are backing away from identifying the Antichrist power, who Reformers and even those before them saw clearly who the Antichrist was. H

The Reformers WERE mistaken, according to Paul's original writing about the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness. You could post a list of thousands who mistakenly think that the Papacy is the Antichrist, but they all conflict with Paul's writing on the matter. Therefore, none of them have any standing whatever on this point.

If Paul said that the restrainer was THEN restraining the Man of Lawlessness / the Antichrist in his days ("He who NOW restrains..."), this was a restraint of the Man of Lawlessness / the Antichrist long before the Papacy ever developed. Your timing again is way off.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It came up among the ten horns on the head of the fourth beast which is the Roman Empire.
It would become powerful after Roman Empire and would arise after the ten horns. Therefore, it would arise after Rome fell in 476 AD.

Odd thing about the word "after" in the LXX. The meaning of the Greek word "opiso" there is "behind, back, or backward". Therefore, there is no need for this little horn to arise chronologically after Rome fell.

 

[Hobie]

My masters is in NT background. In one term I translated from Josephus Jewish War. What I said about the direct reference to that revolt in the gospels means that that material, and even a great part of the Rev, was written to warn or interpret the revolt. I'm pretty sure the revolt is the 'apostosia' because it is so cataclysmic for Israel. It is the one thing that would ruin the country.

Dan 9:24-27, then, is a miniature of NT history, from the Gospel event (Christ's suffering) to the destruction of the race-nation later that generation.

If there is no clear NT reference to a passage, I greatly hesitate to go very far into it. The apostles did not, says Acts 26. And with 2500 allusions, it hardly seems like we need to. The mistakes of the medieval period don't need to be pre-dated to be considered wrong.

One thing that has always puzzled me about 1260 or the 1300 figure, for the sake of argument, is that the period from Constantine declaring Christianity a nominal state religion to the first real pluralism (where a state allows people beliefs without fear of persecution) is much longer. The latest Protestant-Catholic physical conflict that I know of was in the 1800s, although L'Abri Fellowship tried to set up in one canton of Switzerland without realizing it was Catholic and were told they needed to move to a 'free' one, in the 1950s. In the 2010s, I was in Moldova and a Baptist church's windows were recently shattered by an Orthodox priest. The locals told me he usually referred to Baptists as 'charismatics.' (That's not a state at work, but it is intolerant conflict).

And all that presumes we are to track Europe instead of the middle east area.

Well, if you look, the 1,260 year Prophecy began in the year 538 AD when the Arian Ostrogoths were driven away from Rome, allowing the bishop of Rome (basically Papal Rome) to assert control of Christian churches according to the decree of Justinian in 533. The period ended in 1798 AD, when the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic and took the pope prisoner.

This is a good study on the starting point of 538 AD for the 1260 year prophecy, and easy to grasp:

"But with the rise of Napoleon, and the exile into captivity of the pope by French general Berthier, there was a rare moment of near prophetic unanimity among Protestant expositors, who declared that this period ended in A.D. 1798. It was a matter, then, of running the period backward to find the starting point, which would be A.D. 538....A careful study of Daniel 7:24-26 and some related prophetic passages reveals that the decisive events of the terminal moments of the 1,260 years should be understood primarily legally, rather than militarily. Once this legal framework is understood and given its due weight it becomes clearer how the 538 event relates to the 1798 event. In a nutshell, the Justinian Code, which was completed in 534, 'enacted orthodox Christianity into law,' placed the pope as the formal head of Christendom, ?ordered all Christian groups to submit to [his] authority,? and gave him civil power of life and death over heretics.

This code, however, did not become legally promulgated and enacted on the ground until the siege of Rome was lifted in 538. Justinian's general, Belisarius, had entered Rome unopposed at the end of 536, but shortly thereafter the Ostrogoths came and laid siege to Rome. After about a year the siege was broken, and Belisarius had control of Rome and its environs.5 It was then that the provisions of the code elevating the Papacy could actually be implemented by Belisarius beyond the borders of Rome itself. The Gothic Wars continued, with the Ostrogoths being finally driven out in 553.

But these later battles and sieges did not nullify the papal-centered legal system that had been put into place in 538. Even when Rome fell again to the Goths, they did not control the Papacy, as at that time it was operating outside Rome. 'After 538,' Adventist scholar Jean Zukowski observed, ]the papacy never came back under the control of the Ostrogothic kings.'7 The papal system, placed at the head of Christendom and given the power of life and death over heretics by the Justinian Code, endured in the West for more than 1,000 years, being given a great boost in the legal revolutions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, forming the legal scaffolding of many modern states.8 That is, until the secular revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where the code and its religious character were explicitly rejected.

These secular revolutions began with the French Revolution, which soon led to the capture and exile of the pope by Berthier in 1798. But again, more significant than the military/political event of the capture and exile was the replacement of the religious-centric Justinian Code by the secular Napoleonic Code. The secular code was implemented by the famous bill number 8 of February 15, 1798, where General Berthier declared Rome an independent republic and 'in consequence, every other temporal authority emanating from the old government of the Pope, is suppressed, and it shall no more exercise any function.'" Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy | Adventist World

 

[Hobie]

Your timing for the blending of iron and clay elements is way off. There has to be a considerable length of time for the stone kingdom to grow steadily into a great mountain that fills the whole earth. So, the destruction of Daniel's entire statue by that stone striking its feet of combined iron and clay has to come long before the close of human history's final judgment. If scripture calls the OT nation of Israel the "CLAY" in Isaiah 64:8, then this is what the element of the clay in Daniel's statue represented. We are not at liberty to arbitrarily define it otherwise.


The Reformers WERE mistaken, according to Paul's original writing about the Antichrist / Man of Lawlessness. You could post a list of thousands who mistakenly think that the Papacy is the Antichrist, but they all conflict with Paul's writing on the matter. Therefore, none of them have any standing whatever on this point.

If Paul said that the restrainer was THEN restraining the Man of Lawlessness / the Antichrist in his days ("He who NOW restrains..."), this was a restraint of the Man of Lawlessness / the Antichrist long before the Papacy ever developed. Your timing again is way off.

It is Christ at His second coming who will put and end to these 'iron and clay' kingdoms and the 'Little horn' entity. The restraint was the Roman Empire as it could not give away its power just like that, but eventually it did and even gave it the power over all the christians and the title the emperor had held, 'Pontifex Maximus', and the empires center of power, Rome....

 

[Hobie]

Now not only Daniel and Revelation, but we see what you were quoting, Paul when he wrote a warning to believers of the coming antichrist and his apostasy in Thessalonians..
2 Thessalonians 2:3:
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the second coming of Jesus) shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

We see it was restrained, and history shows it was the Roman Empire which had a restraining element, and then it began to arise after the empire fell Then we see it revealed as 'that lawless one' and what happens to it at the end, 'whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming.'

So here is a good explanation on this as we see the following:

1. Apostasy. Paul warns of a falling away. The Greek for "falling away" is APOSTASIA which means literally "a falling away or departure from the purity of faith", or "an apostasy."

2. Betrays God. The term "son of perdition" is given only one other place in Scripture, to describe Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Lord. In other words, the popular Christianity would get caught up in a landslide apostasy and betray the essentials of the gospel while maintaining an outward form and profession of faithfulness.

3. Lawless. The Bible says this leader would be a man called the "man of sin". In the original Greek, the phrase is "the man of lawlessness". Paul teaches here that he would stand in opposition to the law of God.

4. Cloning God or trying to take His place. The Bible says he sets himself up in the temple of God, as God. In Ephesians 2: 19-22 Paul tells us that the temple of God is a symbol for the Church (made up of the believers). Paul teaches that this man of sin would actually take his "seat" of political authority in the church. And he would claim for himself the prerogatives of God.

Paul warned even more about the following things that would happen from this power:

1. First, opposition from without. Much like the damage of wolves as they attacked the sheep. He also saw satanic persecutions that would attempt to destroy the true church. Yet the church would still survive.

2. Then internal apostasy (Already Among Us). The second problem would be more serious. This is apostasy from within. Men would arise speaking perverse ("crooked" or "twisted") things. The antichrist is not simply a man who will show up at the end of time, the antichrist is from a long lineage of apostasy beginning in the days of the disciples. John also warns the church of Philadelphia about the infiltration of false Jews or false worshippers in the church (Revelation 3: 9). We see elsewhere in the New Testament which shows the wolves already coming after the sheep in 1 John 2:

1 John 2:18-19
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

3. Starts In Paul's Time. Third, the beginning of apostasy would come quickly. Paul said, "Of your own selves shall men arise." John says the same thing as the synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9). And John also warns the church of Philadelphia about the infiltration of false Jews or false worshippers in the church (Revelation 3: 9).

4. Spirit Of Error. And every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ is not from God; this is the spirit of the Antichrist of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. We are of God: he that knows God hears us; he that is not of God hears not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.(1 John 4: 3, 6)

4. The Antichrist power denies Jesus. The goal of the antichrist is to negatively affect the work of Jesus Christ through His sacrifice, His priesthood and His claims as Messiah and of divinity. Some will even deny that He existed and try to seduce the faithful with deception. The real antichrist will do this while being a member of the Christian community or one who has left it:

1 John 2:22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:26
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

We can see this power is a deceiver and brings false doctrines:

2 John 1:7
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 John 1:9
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

 

[Hobie]

Now what is really interesting is that the 1260 years of this antichrist entity, which is seen as the Papal Supremacy, is attested to by many sources, not just a few:

Long ages ago, when Rome through the neglect of the Western emperors was left to the mercy of barbarous hordes, Romans turned to one figure for aid and protection and asked him to rule them; and thus in this simple manner, the best title of all to kingly right, commenced the temporal sovereignty of the Popes. And meekly stepping to the throne of Caesar, the Vicar of Christ took up the sceptre to which the emperors and kings of Europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages, from sentiments of respect for the dignity of his office and because he was the only mediator whom they recognized in their almost interminable wars.

Source: Two Romes, by James P. Conry, in The American Catholic Quarterly Review, Volume XXXVI (36), edited by James Andrew Corcoran, Patrick John Ryan, Edmond Francis Prendergast, 1911, pgs. 193-194.

... the right to her Temporal Sovereignty is an integral right of the Church as constituted by her Divine Founder. It has prevailed de facto for more than twelve hundred years, and has been possessed de jure by Divine Natural Law from the beginning of Christianity,... Source: The Victories of Rome and the Temporal Monarchy of the Church, 5th edition, By Kenelm Digby Best, London, 1906, pg. xii.

Rome has been a government under the Popes for some twelve hundred years. Source: Complete Works of the Most Rev. John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, 1866, Volume 2. pg. 778

... In books of all sizes, and from the pulpit of every church, we have been taught from our infancy, that the "beast, the man of sin, and the scarlet harlot," mentioned in the Revelations, were names which God himself had given to the Pope; and we have all been taught to believe of the Catholic Church, that her worship was "idolatrous," and that her doctrines were "damnable.".... Now let us put a plain question or two to ourselves, and to these our readers; and we shall quickly be able to form a just estimate of the modesty, sincerity, and consistency of these revilers of the Catholic religion: ―they will not, because they cannot, deny, that this religion was the ONLY CHRISTIAN religion in the world for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ. They may say, indeed, that for the first three hundred years there was no Pope seated at Rome. But, then, for twelve hundred years there had been; and, during that period, all the nations of Europe, and some part of America, had become Christian, and all acknowledged the Pope as their head in religious matters; and, in short, there was no other Christian Church known in the world, nor had any other ever been thought of. Can we believe, then, that Christ, who died to save sinners, who sent forth his gospel as the means of their salvation, would have suffered a false Christian religion, and no other than a false Christian religion, to be known amongst men all this while? Will these modest assailants of the faith of their and our ancestors assert to our faces, that, for twelve hundred years at least, there were no true Christians in the world? Will they tell us, that Christ, who promised to be with the teachers of his word to the end of the world, wholly left them, and gave up hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people to be led in darkness to their eternal perdition, by one whom his inspired followers had denominated the "man of sin, and the scarlet harlot"? Will they, indeed, dare to tell us, that Christ gave up the world wholly to "Antichrist" for twelve hundred years?

Source: History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, Showing How That Event Has Impoverished and Degraded the Main Body of the People in Those Countries, by William Cobbett, published in 1832 in New York by John Doyle, 12 Liberty-street; and Thomas Doyle, Market-street, Providence R.I., pages 6 and 7.

 

[Hobie]

So the prophecy of the 1260 years is unveiled by the Day/Year Principle and Daniel 7 and 12, Revelation 11, 12 and 13, all mention this same persecuting power with its false system of worship, who enforce a church and state union, causing the kings of the earth to bow down and worship it. And history gives us a timeline which outlines just how the Pope first took it's powers over church and state:

533 AD - Emperor Justinian decrees John, as the Bishop of Rome, Chief Bishop of all the churches and he was not to be questioned that in her was the supremacy of the pontificate. Edicts of Novellae, 131st chap. II. This was not the first time that the Bishop of Rome declared himself to be ruler of all the churches, but it is the first time the claim was backed up by the secular sword and temporal powers granted to the Papal System.

536 AD - General Belisarius, under the command of Justinian, marched to Rome, deposed the Ostrogoth installed Bishop of Rome (Silverius) and exiled him.

537 AD - Belisarius installed Vigilius as Bishop of Rome

538 AD - General Belisarius broke the siege and the Ostrogoths withdrew from Rome. Pope Silverius died in prison, marking it the first time Justinians Decree, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Church could actually be implemented by Vigilius.

1798 AD - General Berthier marched to Rome, entered it unopposed and proclaimed it a Roman Republic, demanded of the Pope the renunciation of his temporal authority, then take prisoner.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia states on Pope Vigilius beginning pontificate and his temporal powers:

"From this time on the popes, more and more involved in worldly events, no longer belong solely to the Church; they are men of the state, and then rules of the state.[ EDITORS' NOTE : Some writers hold that the beginning of Vigilius' legitimate pontificate should be reckoned from 538 rather than 537, because his deposed predecessor, Silverius, did not die until June, 538." Original Catholic Encyclopedia - Home of the largest Catholic Encyclopedia resource on the web...

 

[3 Resurrections]

It is Christ at His second coming who will put and end to these 'iron and clay' kingdoms and the 'Little horn' entity. The restraint was the Roman Empire as it could not give away its power just like that, but eventually it did and even gave it the power over all the christians and the title the emperor had held, 'Pontifex Maximus', and the empires center of power, Rome....

Paul wrote that the restrainer was not only a "WHAT" that was restraining (2 Thess. 2:6), but also a single "HE" individual (2 Thess. 2:7) who was then in Paul's days restraining the Man of Lawlessness until "HE" the restrainer was going to be taken out of the way. The "WHAT" was the high priesthood of Israel wanting to preserve peace with Rome, and the "HE" was a particular single high priest who existed at that time who was doing the restraining of the Man of Lawlessness from his purpose. The Man of Lawlessness Zealot leader Menahem as the Antichrist individual in AD 66 murdered his restrainer, the high priest Ananias. This resulted in Menahem the Antichrist briefly rising to power in control of Jerusalem until Ananias's son Eleazar captured and killed Menahem in vengeance for slaying his high priest father.

The Thessalonians knew exactly who both men were, because Paul had personally told the Thessalonians about both of them while he was among them (2 Thess. 2:5-6). This was all before the Papacy ever arose much later as an institution.

Your premise of the Papacy being identified as this Antichrist individual is flawed, according to Paul.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well, if you look, the 1,260 year Prophecy began in the year 538 AD when the Arian Ostrogoths were driven away from Rome, allowing the bishop of Rome (basically Papal Rome) to assert control of Christian churches according to the decree of Justinian in 533. The period ended in 1798 AD, when the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic and took the pope prisoner.

This is a good study on the starting point of 538 AD for the 1260 year prophecy, and easy to grasp:

"But with the rise of Napoleon, and the exile into captivity of the pope by French general Berthier, there was a rare moment of near prophetic unanimity among Protestant expositors, who declared that this period ended in A.D. 1798. It was a matter, then, of running the period backward to find the starting point, which would be A.D. 538....A careful study of Daniel 7:24-26 and some related prophetic passages reveals that the decisive events of the terminal moments of the 1,260 years should be understood primarily legally, rather than militarily. Once this legal framework is understood and given its due weight it becomes clearer how the 538 event relates to the 1798 event. In a nutshell, the Justinian Code, which was completed in 534, 'enacted orthodox Christianity into law,' placed the pope as the formal head of Christendom, ?ordered all Christian groups to submit to [his] authority,? and gave him civil power of life and death over heretics.

This code, however, did not become legally promulgated and enacted on the ground until the siege of Rome was lifted in 538. Justinian's general, Belisarius, had entered Rome unopposed at the end of 536, but shortly thereafter the Ostrogoths came and laid siege to Rome. After about a year the siege was broken, and Belisarius had control of Rome and its environs.5 It was then that the provisions of the code elevating the Papacy could actually be implemented by Belisarius beyond the borders of Rome itself. The Gothic Wars continued, with the Ostrogoths being finally driven out in 553.

But these later battles and sieges did not nullify the papal-centered legal system that had been put into place in 538. Even when Rome fell again to the Goths, they did not control the Papacy, as at that time it was operating outside Rome. 'After 538,' Adventist scholar Jean Zukowski observed, ]the papacy never came back under the control of the Ostrogothic kings.'7 The papal system, placed at the head of Christendom and given the power of life and death over heretics by the Justinian Code, endured in the West for more than 1,000 years, being given a great boost in the legal revolutions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, forming the legal scaffolding of many modern states.8 That is, until the secular revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where the code and its religious character were explicitly rejected.

These secular revolutions began with the French Revolution, which soon led to the capture and exile of the pope by Berthier in 1798. But again, more significant than the military/political event of the capture and exile was the replacement of the religious-centric Justinian Code by the secular Napoleonic Code. The secular code was implemented by the famous bill number 8 of February 15, 1798, where General Berthier declared Rome an independent republic and 'in consequence, every other temporal authority emanating from the old government of the Pope, is suppressed, and it shall no more exercise any function.'" Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy | Adventist World

The Constantinian shift was prior to your start by 100 years.

 

[Hobie]

Paul wrote that the restrainer was not only a "WHAT" that was restraining (2 Thess. 2:6), but also a single "HE" individual (2 Thess. 2:7) who was then in Paul's days restraining the Man of Lawlessness until "HE" the restrainer was going to be taken out of the way. The "WHAT" was the high priesthood of Israel wanting to preserve peace with Rome, and the "HE" was a particular single high priest who existed at that time who was doing the restraining of the Man of Lawlessness from his purpose. The Man of Lawlessness Zealot leader Menahem as the Antichrist individual in AD 66 murdered his restrainer, the high priest Ananias. This resulted in Menahem the Antichrist briefly rising to power in control of Jerusalem until Ananias's son Eleazar captured and killed Menahem in vengeance for slaying his high priest father.

The Thessalonians knew exactly who both men were, because Paul had personally told the Thessalonians about both of them while he was among them (2 Thess. 2:5-6). This was all before the Papacy ever arose much later as an institution.

Your premise of the Papacy being identified as this Antichrist individual is flawed, according to Paul.

We see the text that Paul says: “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not that when I was yet with you I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”

The 'he' represents Rome, but in its Pagan and Papal forms. That which held back the rise of the papacy in Paul’s day was paganism, which was manifested in the Roman Empire. These are the two powers, Pagan Rome, then Papal Rome which have desolated the people of God, of which the angel speaks in the vision of Daniel 8. We see Pagan Rome or the Roman Empire power which took down the Temple in 70 AD in verse 11 of Daniel 8 '11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.' Then we have Rome in the rise in the form of the Papacy, or Papal Rome and it is a transgressor, the 'man of sin' that Paul talks about, and a corrupter of the truth which it casts aside as you see in verse 12 of Daniel 8, '12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.'

 

[Hobie]

The Constantinian shift was prior to your start by 100 years.

He was the Pagan part of Rome, we are looking at what followed, the Papal part of Rome.

 

[Hobie]

My masters is in NT background. In one term I translated from Josephus Jewish War. What I said about the direct reference to that revolt in the gospels means that that material, and even a great part of the Rev, was written to warn or interpret the revolt. I'm pretty sure the revolt is the 'apostosia' because it is so cataclysmic for Israel. It is the one thing that would ruin the country.

Dan 9:24-27, then, is a miniature of NT history, from the Gospel event (Christ's suffering) to the destruction of the race-nation later that generation.

If there is no clear NT reference to a passage, I greatly hesitate to go very far into it. The apostles did not, says Acts 26. And with 2500 allusions, it hardly seems like we need to. The mistakes of the medieval period don't need to be pre-dated to be considered wrong.

One thing that has always puzzled me about 1260 or the 1300 figure, for the sake of argument, is that the period from Constantine declaring Christianity a nominal state religion to the first real pluralism (where a state allows people beliefs without fear of persecution) is much longer. The latest Protestant-Catholic physical conflict that I know of was in the 1800s, although L'Abri Fellowship tried to set up in one canton of Switzerland without realizing it was Catholic and were told they needed to move to a 'free' one, in the 1950s. In the 2010s, I was in Moldova and a Baptist church's windows were recently shattered by an Orthodox priest. The locals told me he usually referred to Baptists as 'charismatics.' (That's not a state at work, but it is intolerant conflict).

And all that presumes we are to track Europe instead of the middle east area.

Well, you seem to be all over the place, but its the historic timeline right straight through if you study it thoroughly. As for some scholarly works, I came across this study that you might like, which goes over some key points of arguments against Antiochus N Epiphanes as the Little Horn power and the meaning itself, which is a good in depth explanation in the "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" by Professor William H. Shea. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/selected_studies_on_prophetic1.pdf

Is the word "horn" used to denote a king or a kingdom in the book of Daniel?
Dan 7:24. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones and shall subdue three kings.

The ten horns are not just kings but are smaller kings to the previous four kingdoms in Dan 7:17. Those great beasts, which are four are four kings who arise out of the earth. Fx. Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and Rome.

Dan 2:37.38. You O king – are the head of gold. (King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon).

Dan 2:39. But after you shall arise another kingdom. (Medo-Persian).

Dan 2:40. Fourth kingdom.

Dan 2:41. Feet and toes. The kingdom shall be divided.

Dan 2:44. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom – it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms.

Dan 8:20. The ram which you saw, having the two horns – they are the kings of Media and Persia.

Dan 8:22. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.

Dan 8:23. And in the latter time of their (four horns) kingdom – – – a king shall arise. (Little horn).

Conclusion

Horns, kings and kingdoms can be used to mean the same in the book of Daniel. So the little horn is a kingdom in the book of Daniel. The papacy is both a political and a religious kingdom, which makes it different. Antiochus IV was only one king and not a kingdom. He was one of the twenty rulers of the Seleucid dynasty ruling that kingdom.

The greatness of the little horn.
Dan 8:4. The Persian ram magnified himself.

Dan 8:8. The Grecian goat magnified himself. Exceedingly.

Dan 8:9.11. The little horn magnified himself exceedingly in different directions. Toward the south, toward the east, and towards the glorious land. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the Host.

Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in greatness. This is not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but little success.

"To the glorious land." Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.

Dan 8:11. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of Host; and by him the daily were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.
Antiochus IV took away the daily. But it does not fit in with Antiochus IV that he cast the sanctuary to the ground.

Mákon in Hebrew is used seven times for the place of God´s dwelling place in heaven, six times for the place of His earthly dwelling, and twice for the place of His throne in a metaphorical sense.

The Romans cast the sanctuary down to the ground in A.D. 70. But Antiochus IV never did anything to the temple which would qualify as "casting down it´s mákon," or "place." Desecrate it he did; but, as far as is known, he did not damage it architecture in any significant way.

Dan 8:23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise – – -.
The Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C. Antiochus IV was the eight in line, and he ruled from 175 to 164/63 B.C. Since more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he can hardly be said to have arisen "at the latter time of their kingdom."

Dan 8:19. And he said, "Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time of the end shall be.
When is the appointed time of the end?

Daniel´s time prophecies had to extend to the time of the Messiah in the first century. Dan 9:24-27. The time of the end could only arrive after the fulfilment of this prophecy. Therefore, Antiochus IV who died in 164/3 B.C. cannot be placed at the time of the end because he lived before the Messiah came to this earth.

The nature of the "end of the little horn." Dan 8:25. He (little horn) shall be broken but by no human hands.
This sentence is similar to the one in Dan 11:45 he shall come to his end, with no one to help him. The little horn shall come to its end, not by human hands but by God. Dan 7:9-11. The end of the little horn came about by a decision from God in the heavenly court. Antiochus IV did not fulfil this prediction, because he died of natural causes and not in battle.

Origin of the little horn. Did it come from the four horns of the Grecian Empire after Alexander or did it come from the four winds of heaven?
Dan 8:8.9. Therefore, the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong the large horn was broken, and in place of it there came four notable conspicuous horns towards the four winds of heaven. Out of one of them came a little horn.

What does the plural word "them" refer to?

Does it refer to four winds or four horns?

The word for "them" in the Hebrew is "hem" and is masculine. The antecedent is "winds" in verse 8 and not horns, since "winds" may be either masculine or feminine, but "horns" only feminine.

The gender of the first two elements in verse 9 (one/them) lines up perfectly with the gender of the last two elements at the end of the verse 8 (winds/heaven). The antecedent of "them" in the phrase "from them" is neither winds nor horns but heavens. Therefore, the little horn comes from the four winds of heaven and not from the four horns.'

I have seen how many people dont understand the 'little horn' in Daniel 8 and how it is the same as in Daniel 7, but the little horn of Daniel 8 represents the Roman Empire as a whole, while the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Empire only under one phase, the whole empire being represented by the fourth beast, of which the little horn was only a part, so kind of confusing to say the least.

 

[EarlyActs]

He was the Pagan part of Rome, we are looking at what followed, the Papal part of Rome.

Why?

 

[EarlyActs]

Well, you seem to be all over the place, but its the historic timeline right straight through if you study it thoroughly. As for some scholarly works, I came across this study that you might like, which goes over some key points of arguments against Antiochus N Epiphanes as the Little Horn power and the meaning itself, which is a good in depth explanation in the "Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation" by Professor William H. Shea. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/selected_studies_on_prophetic1.pdf

Is the word "horn" used to denote a king or a kingdom in the book of Daniel?
Dan 7:24. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones and shall subdue three kings.

The ten horns are not just kings but are smaller kings to the previous four kingdoms in Dan 7:17. Those great beasts, which are four are four kings who arise out of the earth. Fx. Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and Rome.

Dan 2:37.38. You O king – are the head of gold. (King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon).

Dan 2:39. But after you shall arise another kingdom. (Medo-Persian).

Dan 2:40. Fourth kingdom.

Dan 2:41. Feet and toes. The kingdom shall be divided.

Dan 2:44. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom – it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms.

Dan 8:20. The ram which you saw, having the two horns – they are the kings of Media and Persia.

Dan 8:22. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.

Dan 8:23. And in the latter time of their (four horns) kingdom – – – a king shall arise. (Little horn).

Conclusion

Horns, kings and kingdoms can be used to mean the same in the book of Daniel. So the little horn is a kingdom in the book of Daniel. The papacy is both a political and a religious kingdom, which makes it different. Antiochus IV was only one king and not a kingdom. He was one of the twenty rulers of the Seleucid dynasty ruling that kingdom.

The greatness of the little horn.
Dan 8:4. The Persian ram magnified himself.

Dan 8:8. The Grecian goat magnified himself. Exceedingly.

Dan 8:9.11. The little horn magnified himself exceedingly in different directions. Toward the south, toward the east, and towards the glorious land. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the Host.

Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in greatness. This is not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but little success.

"To the glorious land." Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because Antiochus III had already taken Palestine away from the Ptolemies in 198 B.C.

Dan 8:11. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of Host; and by him the daily were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.
Antiochus IV took away the daily. But it does not fit in with Antiochus IV that he cast the sanctuary to the ground.

Mákon in Hebrew is used seven times for the place of God´s dwelling place in heaven, six times for the place of His earthly dwelling, and twice for the place of His throne in a metaphorical sense.

The Romans cast the sanctuary down to the ground in A.D. 70. But Antiochus IV never did anything to the temple which would qualify as "casting down it´s mákon," or "place." Desecrate it he did; but, as far as is known, he did not damage it architecture in any significant way.

Dan 8:23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise – – -.
The Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C. Antiochus IV was the eight in line, and he ruled from 175 to 164/63 B.C. Since more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he can hardly be said to have arisen "at the latter time of their kingdom."

Dan 8:19. And he said, "Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time of the end shall be.
When is the appointed time of the end?

Daniel´s time prophecies had to extend to the time of the Messiah in the first century. Dan 9:24-27. The time of the end could only arrive after the fulfilment of this prophecy. Therefore, Antiochus IV who died in 164/3 B.C. cannot be placed at the time of the end because he lived before the Messiah came to this earth.

The nature of the "end of the little horn." Dan 8:25. He (little horn) shall be broken but by no human hands.
This sentence is similar to the one in Dan 11:45 he shall come to his end, with no one to help him. The little horn shall come to its end, not by human hands but by God. Dan 7:9-11. The end of the little horn came about by a decision from God in the heavenly court. Antiochus IV did not fulfil this prediction, because he died of natural causes and not in battle.

Origin of the little horn. Did it come from the four horns of the Grecian Empire after Alexander or did it come from the four winds of heaven?
Dan 8:8.9. Therefore, the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong the large horn was broken, and in place of it there came four notable conspicuous horns towards the four winds of heaven. Out of one of them came a little horn.

What does the plural word "them" refer to?

Does it refer to four winds or four horns?

The word for "them" in the Hebrew is "hem" and is masculine. The antecedent is "winds" in verse 8 and not horns, since "winds" may be either masculine or feminine, but "horns" only feminine.

The gender of the first two elements in verse 9 (one/them) lines up perfectly with the gender of the last two elements at the end of the verse 8 (winds/heaven). The antecedent of "them" in the phrase "from them" is neither winds nor horns but heavens. Therefore, the little horn comes from the four winds of heaven and not from the four horns.'

I have seen how many people dont understand the 'little horn' in Daniel 8 and how it is the same as in Daniel 7, but the little horn of Daniel 8 represents the Roman Empire as a whole, while the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Empire only under one phase, the whole empire being represented by the fourth beast, of which the little horn was only a part, so kind of confusing to say the least.

I make no connection to Antiochus and Mt 24:15 is not about him, an oxymoronic thought.

I do know that 8:13 introduces that a rebellion would desolate the country. Later in 8 we find that this is an arrogant evil person and in the time of the Roman kingdom.

God doesn’t desolate Israel for what pagans do to it. Only for its own failures. In the 1st century revolt, Israel followed some zealots and finally one controlled all the city and it was ruined through him, through failing to seek terms of peace with Rome, Lk 13 and 19. Israel did this instead of becoming missionaries of Messiah.

That pretty much finalizes the answer. He is mentioned again in 9:27 in only one line.

This is why Mt 24:15 is a vital , direct warning to watch out for his rise. Get out! It would lead to surrounding the city and that’s the signal in Luke 21, and somehow many Christians still stayed so that the interruption of the siege in 69 was the only way they could have escaped death.

He is also the person Paul identified as leading the ‘falling away’. That was the mass failure of Israel just referenced above. It would be connected , he said, to this arrogant person at the temple who was deluded and deceiving others. That’s all in that generation, spoken of as present, direct issues. Not a detached X000 years later.

My book is titled THE COVENANT WAR at Amazon.

 

[3 Resurrections]

We see Pagan Rome or the Roman Empire power which took down the Temple in 70 AD in verse 11 of Daniel 8 '11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.' Then we have Rome in the rise in the form of the Papacy, or Papal Rome and it is a transgressor, the 'man of sin' that Paul talks about, and a corrupter of the truth which it casts aside as you see in verse 12 of Daniel 8, '12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.'

This was Antiochus Epiphanes IV and his campaign to squelch the Jewish nation and religion by corrupting it. We know this was occurring during the Greek empire because this in Daniel 8 results following the breakup of Alexander's Greek empire divided among his four generals, with this "little horn" coming out of one of those four. Your timing is off according to scripture - again. The Roman empire had not yet arisen in this Daniel 8 context - let alone the Papacy.

 

[Mr GLee]

The 'he' represents Rome, but in its Pagan and Papal forms. That which held back the rise of the papacy in Paul’s day was paganism, which was manifested in the Roman Empire. These are the two powers, Pagan Rome, then Papal Rome which have desolated the people of God, of which the angel speaks in the vision of Daniel 8. We see Pagan Rome or the Roman Empire power which took down the Temple in 70 AD in verse 11 of Daniel 8 '11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.' Then we have Rome in the rise in the form of the Papacy, or Papal Rome and it is a transgressor, the 'man of sin' that Paul talks about, and a corrupter of the truth which it casts aside as you see in verse 12 of Daniel 8, '12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.'

Not sure why you split the powers Pagan Rome, Papal Rome kIngdom of men as governments of dying mankind it's all one false authority . The .Legion is not limited to Rome, the father of lies is the father of all the pagan nations of this world Baha'i, Buddhism, , Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism. . . whose foundation is "out of sight out of mind" as who believes in a eternal God known after as it is written in the law and the prophets?

No sign were given to wonder or marvel after.When Jesus in Matthew 23 walked out of the abomination of desolation. . temple made with human hands. (Hands represent the will). He declared it is desolate not will be down the road . The mark of his word what he says comes to pass.

 

[Ghada]

The Little Horn would speak 'great words against the most High' or blasphemy.

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;

We see the little horn and the first beast are the same, because they do the same.

And since he's a man with the number of a man, then if he's already risen, he doesn't have too much time left to show himself as God before the Lord's return.

This is Papal Rome, we see much agreement in history..

Papal Rome has been a notable part of Mystery Babylon, but she is the great ministerial mother of all such organized religions of men, that corrupt the pure religion of God.

The Jews religion was first to do so.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The ministerial Mother of the pure religion of God, is heavenly New Jerusalem.

(Let's not over-demonize the papacy. Afterall, they're pretty much making a full joke of themselves these days. The serpent tries to keep things subtil...)