What Does Daniel Prophecy Mean By He Will Think to Change Times and Laws

[CDF47]

It has nothing to do with the RCC or Papacy.

What will the Anti-Christ/BEAST/Little Horn seek to do when he comes to power? He will of course seek to be "Worshiped as GOD" and he will destroy all Religions. So we have our base, now we need to go forth from there.

A.D. (Anno Domini or In the Year of our Lord) So changing Times in my opinion will be this Little Horn/BEAST changing the Calendar to YEAR ONE in the Year of (ANTI-CHRISTS NAME). New Calendar.

As per changing Laws, well that goes without saying, most dictators do that. Hitler Confiscated all the guns to start with and propagandized the children. So many laws will be changed, I imagine Gabriel is revealing unto Daniel the things that this BEAST will do to Israel, so what Laws will he change? Well expressly outlawing any observance to ANY GOD except him is a start. ETC. ETC. Of course many laws could changed. But some are just assumed.

This to me is obvious.

The papacy already fits all the prophecies in Daniel as little horn and the first beast of Revelation.

 

[CDF47]

The 1260 days, the time, times, half times, the 42 months are elements within the 7 years of the confirms the covenant for 7 years in Daniel 9:27.

The confirms the covenant for 7 years is found in Deuteronomy 31:9-13. Moses was the first to confirm the covenant for 7 years.

How does 1260 days as 1260 years fit into 7 years?

It's 3 1/2 years using 360 day calendar.

 

[CDF47]

Could also mean that the devil developed a time machine, and he keeps going back in time trying to do things differently over and over and over to actually beat God, but it never works. But I doubt it.

No the only reason I say that though is because upon hearing that verse, and noticing all of the time travel in pop culture.... I wonder if that isn't at least something that would love to be attempted. It could also just be in the media to make us think that any old speedster can just buck the laws of time, thus desensitizing us to perceiving God's power over time.

But I digress

God is the only one with power over time as He transcends time. We can go certain speeds which slows down time a fraction. Also, we can go to outer space which speeds time up a fraction since the mass of the earth drags on time but these are fractions. We will never be able to move through time due to the amount of energy it would take.

 

[Hal A Peno]

bb

 

[Hal A Peno]

b

 

[Hal A Peno]

b

 

[Hal A Peno]

n

 

[CDF47]

I don't call myself a Christian anymore, I call myself a believer, because I don't want to be associated with people in a religion who attibute these end-time evils to Christians and the Church, and even go as far as saying the anti-Christ will come from WITHIN THE CHURCH! It's no wonder Islam is growing at a much faster rate that Christianity.

Sorry to say but I'm not conceeding. You attribute all of the evils of the man of sin to Christianity and the church, and I won't back down. You are in the middle of a major case of blasphemy and YOU DON'T CARE.
You argued to maintain your blasphemous accusations by arguing with me about the word BUT in verse 13 of 2 Thes. 2. Christians LOVE to demonize one another, and I'm sick of it AND CHRISTIANS.

I've asked and asked and asked for you people to quote ONE verse OF PROPHECY to support this Church connection to the man of sin and NOT ONE OF YOU CAN QUOTE ONE! YET you continue to believe it!

I would like any Christian on this forum to show me where the church is found in this passage.

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;

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:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The pope is referred to as the most holy father which is pure blasphemy. Jesus said not to do repetitive prayers but look at the rosary. The Lord said call no man father but every priest is called father. The Lord said do not worship idols yet the Catholic church is filled with idols. Their is an Egyptian pagan obelisk outside the Vatican in the courtyard. Catholicism is a combination of paganism with Christianity.

 

[CDF47]

The possibility is something I've studied and canned. It's completely unscriptural. Christians don't care about good hermeneutics or arriving at the truth. They care more about NOT having to admit mistakes.

SHOW ME ONE VERSE OF END-TIME PROPHECY IMPLICATING ROME IN ANY WAY! You can't do it because ONE doesn't exist! As if I'm going to the library for sound when I know that anyone who mixes Rome with Islam has no clue whatsoever about anything prophetic.

It's symbolic. See symbols below:

Bible Symbols Chart

 

[Hal A Peno]

b

 

[Hal A Peno]

zgh

 

[Hal A Peno]

drh

 

[Hal A Peno]

ZDh

 

[jgr]

I've heard it all before. Maybe if you'd familiarize yourself with Islam instead of demonizing your Catholic brothers and sisters God would enlighten your mind and bless your studies.

Must have entered one ear and exited the other.

History neither deifies nor demonizes; it simply realizes.

 

[CDF47]

Hi CDF,

As with pretty much all the prophecies found in the Scriptures, man generally has at least a couple of understandings of just what exactly they are intended to show us and how they were or will be fulfilled.

So, let's look at the possibility that this prophecy is a prophecy against the organization known to most of us as the 'papacy'. First of all, we are told that it will be a 'little horn'. Most godly people who study the Scriptures are in agreement that this little horn will be a ruler/leader of some kind. However, whether it refers to a specific and individual person or some sort of governing body is debatable. The Scriptures speak of nations as being governing organizations that outlive just one single ruling individual. So, this little horn could be seen as some governing body rather than an individual. The papacy would qualify under such an understanding and so we would look over the entire existence of the papacy rather than honing in on just one single pope.

Throughout the existence of the papacy there have certainly been determinations made that would qualify, to most of us, as 'changing times'. Constantine is most often seen as the first person who claimed to be a part of the Catholic organization to do this:

Constantine named himself Bishop of the Catholic Church and enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in A.D. 321.

"On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrate and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however, persons engaged in agricultural work may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain growing or for vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost." —Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. III, chap. 75.

Notice that he not only determined that Sunday should be the 'day of rest', but also exempted farming as 'work'. Neither of these two understandings are in agreement with what we are told, through the Scriptures, as the 'law of Sabbath'. I think it good to point out at this time that God's 'law of Sabbath' doesn't seem to be about worship, but about rest. Therefore, I have no problem with Christians desiring to hold their corporate worship services on Sunday, but determining that now Sunday is the 'day of rest' would be a changing of times.

What about Easter? The word 'Easter' found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles is actually a translation of the word 'pasach', which is the Greek word to refer to 'passover'. So, it would seem that in the days when King Herod held Peter in prison, his intention was to hold him in prison until after the days of the Jewish passover. However, the Jewish passover actually came at different times every year according to the calendar that was then in use, and so, by tying Jesus death and resurrection to the practice of the passover, we aren't really celebrating the 'day' that Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the year that it actually happened. This could well be seen as another example of changing times and the celebration of Easter does seem to have originated with the practices of the Catholic organization. Just the fact that the word 'pasach' was translated as 'Easter' very likely comes from the practice that was fairly well established in the days of the King James translation work as the celebration begun by the Catholic organization. Many translations do actually translate this word in the above mentioned passage as 'passover'.

What about laws? Well, as mentioned above, the law of the Sabbath does seem to have been changed when Constantine exempted farming as 'work'. In the days in which the Sabbath was instituted by God, many, many people held as their work, the raising of crops and herds. Did God mean to infer that those people could still go out in their fields and do their normal duties on the Sabbath? Or, did God mean that even the farmers were to stop and rest and leave their fields in honor of the Sabbath? The Jews did seem to think the later since they accused David's men of breaking the Sabbath when his soldiers were found to glean from a field on the Sabbath. Constantine seems to have determined that because the crops and herds still needed care on that day, that they should be exempted. The Jews seemed to have understood that one day of rest wasn't going to kill either the crops or the herds.

What about marriage? God's intention for marriage seems to have been a lifelong commitment and there doesn't seem to be any instruction that such a marriage had to be performed in some certain way or by some certain personage in order to be valid. The Catholic organization seems to have changed that law. There understanding of a 'valid' marriage is that it must be performed under the auspices of a Catholic personage in order to be valid. That a couple can live together as a married couple for sometimes years, but it can later be determined that because their marriage wasn't performed as per their requirements, their marriage never existed. Is that what God intended when He said that for this reason a man shall leave his family and cleave unto his wife and she unto him, until death do they part? In the Jewish community there never seemed to be such an understanding of marriage. While the Scriptures do speak quite a bit of divorce, and the condemnation thereof, we never see that there were marriages that were not considered to be proper marriages. Would this be a change in the law of marriage?

There are actually, as I understand it, quite a few such 'changes' made to God's law in the practice of religion within the Catholic organization. So, each one must determine for themselves; do the practices of the Catholic organization change times and laws? Further, even if we believe that such practices do change times and laws, according to the Scriptures, does that then mean that such an organization is the 'little horn'?

What all does the prophecy given unto Daniel tell us?

“After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns."

This beast is identified as having 'large iron teeth'. What is that supposed to intend to us? That this beast also was terrifying and frightening and very powerful and crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. Can this be describing the Roman government? It's seemingly relentless work of conquering the known world in that day? Roman power and authority stretched from western Europe (what is now known as the UK) in the north, to the most northern provinces of the African continent to the south and all around the area of the Mediterranean sea. It became the largest single governing empire that the world had ever known up to that point and arguably ever has been as regards its imprint on many of today's governing bodies. The laws and practices of the Roman empire can still today be found in many governments. However, among that great mass of land and people, there were assigned rulers of smaller parts of it. Could that be the 'ten horns'?

"The Roman Empire was among the most powerful economic, cultural, political and military forces in the world of its time. It was one of the largest empires in world history. At its height under Trajan, it covered 5 million square kilometres. It held sway over an estimated 70 million people, at that time 21% of the world's entire population." (source: Wikipedia)

So, according to this prophecy, out of that 'beast' would come 'ten horns', and among them would come a 'little horn'.

"It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully."

Admittedly, this is open to various interpretations. Who or what were the ten horns? Who or what is the little horn? Who or what were the three horns that were uprooted? However, the description of the little horn says that it had the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully. That would seem to infer that it was of man and spoke too greatly about itself. Is it possible that this describes the rise of the RCC? That the papacy is a ruled by a mere man and that the organization speaks so very, very greatly about itself? That the inference of its having the eyes of a man, means that it sees as man sees and not as God sees, although boasting of itself to be able to see as God sees?

This is an understanding that each one must weigh and determine for themselves, but I can see where such an analogy can be drawn.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

Great well thought out posts. Below is a description of the different horns:

The Ten Horns, the Little Horn, and the Three Uprooted Horns

 

[miamited]

Great well thought out posts. Below is a description of the different horns:

The Ten Horns, the Little Horn, and the Three Uprooted Horns

Hi CDF,

Right. I had further thoughts regarding the ten horns, but my post was merely to show the changing of times and laws that your post was referring to. There is certainly some evidence that the ten horns were a part of the empire of Rome. It would also seem very likely that the beast with iron teeth was a reference to the empire of Rome. If that be the case, and we know that the Scriptures are true, then the ten horns had to come by way of the empire of Rome and the little horn then came about during that time of the ten horns.

It is difficult to determine when the RCC began, as what we see today. If you ask any Catholics, they will tell you that the first pope was Peter. However, I'm fairly confident that Peter didn't see himself in that way or that any contemporaries of Peter referred to him as 'St. Peter'. I'm fairly well convicted that Peter saw himself and represented himself as just another of the many apostles. Neither greater or lesser than any of the others. Once the formal Roman Catholic organization came to be, it would seem that they then created a history whereby they could trace their particular method of religion back to Peter. The first few supposed popes seem to be merely men who were mentioned in the Scriptures or extrabiblical writings as great men of the growing christian movement and not necessarily some formally installed person as the 'head' of the church.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi hal,

You asked:

SHOW ME ONE VERSE OF END-TIME PROPHECY IMPLICATING ROME IN ANY WAY! You can't do it because ONE doesn't exist!

I'll take up that challenge. In the writings of the Revelation of Jesus Christ we do find a reference to a prostitute. A blasphemous harlot who is represented by colors and by wealth. The colors are the official colors of the RCC and there isn't any greater religion with more wealth than the RCC. We can try to tie Islam, as you seem wont to do, but...

There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls.

As far as I know there aren't any corresponding colors of Islam. As color goes, Islam is a very dull and drab religion. Lots of black, grey and similarly dark colors. Can you link Islam to the colors of purple and scarlet? Islam is most certainly not rich in any way. Can you link Islam to great wealth such as might be described as 'glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls'?

Later we are given the understanding of the 'seven heads' and the ten horns:

"The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings."

So, according to the Scriptures, the 'seven heads' represents two truths. It is seven hills upon which the woman sits and it is also a reference to seven kings. The city of Rome, where the Catholic church holds its seat of power is a city that has long been referenced as the 'city of the seven hills'.

“The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast."

Note that these 10 kings have not received a kingdom, but for a while (one hour) will receive authority as kings along with the beast. The prelates of Rome could will qualify as these ten kings.

So, while one may make the claim that there aren't any end times prophecies that can be tied to the RCC which has its headquarters in Rome, there actually are some that 'could' be explanations of such. As the prophecy of the Revelation declares regarding this very matter, “This calls for a mind with wisdom". Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but your claim cannot be substantiated as categorically truthful.

BTW, one of the most blasphemous names may well be Holy Father. Jesus cautions us to call no man father, but God who sits enthroned in heaven. Then add to that the term 'holy', and that could be pretty blasphemous in God's sight.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Revealing Times]

The papacy already fits all the prophecies in Daniel as little horn and the first beast of Revelation.

Ummm no it doesn't. The Papacy has nothing to do with the Beast, that stuff is been dis-proven long ago.

 

[CDF47]

Hi CDF,

Right. I had further thoughts regarding the ten horns, but my post was merely to show the changing of times and laws that your post was referring to. There is certainly some evidence that the ten horns were a part of the empire of Rome. It would also seem very likely that the beast with iron teeth was a reference to the empire of Rome. If that be the case, and we know that the Scriptures are true, then the ten horns had to come by way of the empire of Rome and the little horn then came about during that time of the ten horns.

It is difficult to determine when the RCC began, as what we see today. If you ask any Catholics, they will tell you that the first pope was Peter. However, I'm fairly confident that Peter didn't see himself in that way or that any contemporaries of Peter referred to him as 'St. Peter'. I'm fairly well convicted that Peter saw himself and represented himself as just another of the many apostles. Neither greater or lesser than any of the others. Once the formal Roman Catholic organization came to be, it would seem that they then created a history whereby they could trace their particular method of religion back to Peter. The first few supposed popes seem to be merely men who were mentioned in the Scriptures or extrabiblical writings as great men of the growing christian movement and not necessarily some formally installed person as the 'head' of the church.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Good post. I agree, I believe the RCC began in 313 AD.

 

[CDF47]

Ummm no it doesn't. The Papacy has nothing to do with the Beast, that stuff is been dis-proven long ago.

I disagree.