AD 622 to AD 1922 – seventh beast empire?

[Christian Gedge]

If this word is interpreted as when the woman actually takes the seat on the beast then it is at the same time that there are 5 fallen heads, 1 that is, and 1 that is to come.

Yes, see my answer to claninja. The world economic system rides the political power of the day. She is always treated comfortably, except at the end evidently.

 

[claninja]

Not necessarily. In many cases they were Gothic foederati – client kingdoms who were given land within Roman territory as cooperation arrangements.

Was this Roman territory still considered the ROman empire, in order be consistent with interpretation?

The four horns of the Goat (Lysimachus, Cassander,Ptolemy and Seleucus) were still considered the greek empire prior to its fall. In order to be consistent in interpretation, the 10 horns of the 4th beast should still be considered a part of the roman empire prior to its fall.

Additionally, this still doesn't seem to rectify that it would only be 4 kingdoms but the saints would possess the kingdom forever. The historicist position, as well as Futurists positions seem to add many more kingdoms, while Amils and Preterists hold it to occurring during the 4th kingdom.

Historicists usually equate the prostitute with the unfaithful church. However, Rev 18:11-13 describes it as more to do with commerce. So, my definition is different:

The ‘Great Harlot’, aka ‘Babylon the Great, is the world economic system that rides the beast, providing the means of exchange and wealth to all who trade with her, and economic power to the kings who make use of her services.

But using scripture to interpret scripture we can see that the evidence points to Jerusalem as the Harlot of revelation 17-19.

Jerusalem is the great city per revelation, not a world economic system
Revelation 17:18 And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

Revelation 11:8 bodies will lie in the street of the great city—figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where their Lord was also crucified

Jerusalem is charged with all the righteous bloodshed, not a world economic system
Matthew 23:35-36 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Revelation 18:24 And there was found in her the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who had been slain on the earth

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the wedding feast is ready, not after the destruction of the world economic system.

Matthew 22:7-8 The king was enraged, and he sent his troops to destroy t hose murderers and burn their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited were not worthy

Revelation 19:2,7 For His judgments are true and just. He has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality. He has avenged the blood of His servants that was poured out by her hand.” Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him the glory. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready.

The scriptures I've posted show Jerusalem to Babylon the great/prostitute. However, if it is not 1st century Jerusalem, then scriptures can you provide to support historicists position that shows the prostitute/Babylon the great to be a world economic system?

1.) Where does scripture have anyone or anything else besides 1st century Jerusalem as being charged with all the righteous blood shed?

2.) Where does scripture have anyone or anything else besides 1st century Jerusalem being destroyed followed by the wedding feast?

3.) What other city in revelation is called the great city besides Jerusalem?

 

[Christian Gedge]

Was this Roman territory still considered the ROman empire, in order be consistent with interpretation?

The four horns of the Goat (Lysimachus, Cassander,Ptolemy and Seleucus) were still considered the greek empire prior to its fall. In order to be consistent in interpretation, the 10 horns of the 4th beast should still be considered a part of the roman empire prior to its fall.

Forget the Greeks; we are talking about Rome.

Yes, the early growth of Foederati kingdoms were part of the Roman Empire. Foedus was official Roman policy and this policy was a source of weakness - iron mixed with clay for about 100 years. But the time came when they broke away and became independent kingdoms. When we count all the geo-political realms within the former Roman Empire it counts to ten for another 100 years. This map shows the situation shortly before the Islamic Caliphate arose taking three of them.

 

[claninja]

Forget the Greeks; we are talking about Rome.

I was just using the 4 horns from the goat (greek kingdoms) as a template for the 10 horns of the 4th beast.

Yes, the early growth of Foederati kingdoms were part of the Roman Empire. Foedus was official Roman policy and this policy was a source of weakness - iron mixed with clay for about 100 years. But the time came when they broke away and became independent kingdoms. When we count all the geo-political realms within the former Roman Empire it counts to ten for another 100 years. This map shows the situation shortly before the Islamic Caliphate arose taking three of them.

View attachment 271872

I find this all very interesting. I have never learned about any of this before, so thanks for bringing this up CG. However, reviewing the foederati, I am having a hard time nailing down only 10 foederati or even 10 geopolitical factions of the Roman empire. Additionally, these 10 foederati and geopolitical kingdoms do not seem to be of Rome, but multiple tribes that moved into Rome.

From Wikipedia: Foederati - Wikipedia


"The Franks became foederati in 358 CE,"

"In 376 CE, some of the Goths asked Emperor Valens to allow them to settle on the southern bank of the Danube river, and were accepted into the empire as foederati"

"In 451, Attila the Hun was defeated only with help of the foederati (who included the Visigoths, Alans and Saxons),"

Seems that the Vandals and Visigoths became independent nations in the 5th century
" Even before the eventual collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 several kingdoms with the status of foederati managed to gain a full independence formally recognized by the Western Roman Empire, such as the Vandals through the peace treaty concluded in 442 between their king Genseric and Valentinian III[2] and the Visigoths through the peace treaty concluded in 475 between their king Euric and Julius Nepos.[3]"

"After the collapse of the Hunnic empire, the Ostrogoths entered into relations with the Eastern Roman Empire and were settled in Pannonia to become foederati of the Byzantines."

"In the east, foederati were formed from several Arab tribes to protect against the Persian-allied Arab Lakhmids and the tribes of the Arabian peninsula. Among these foederati were the Tanukhids, Banu Judham, Banu Amela and the Ghassanids."

"At the Battle of Taginae, a large contingent of the Byzantine army was made up of Lombards, Gepids and Bulgars"

 

[Christian Gedge]

Thanks,

I don't mean to say that every area was foederati. The Britons, Basques and Moors were native inhabitants under Roman rule when Rome was at its peak. And some kingdoms were replaced by others, such as the Ostrogoths by the Lombards.

My point is simply this: There were ten geo-political areas left standing by the 7th century. During that time a 'little horn' arose who laid claims to Jerusalem as a holy city. He was "different to the former ones, and put down three kings." (Daniel 7:24) I call this little horn 'Islam' but you may call him Muhammad if you prefer. In either case, we have an interpretation of Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 that is credible don't you think? (See timeline post #6)

I realise that my view is a minority view today, but it was the general understanding in medieval times. Ill dig up quotations if anyone is interested.

 

[jgr]

Thanks,

I don't mean to say that every area was foederati. The Britons, Basques and Moors were native inhabitants under Roman rule when Rome was at its peak. And some kingdoms were replaced by others, such as the Ostrogoths by the Lombards.

My point is simply this: There were ten geo-political areas left standing by the 7th century. During that time a 'little horn' arose who laid claims to Jerusalem as a holy city. He was "different to the former ones, and put down three kings." (Daniel 7:24) I call this little horn 'Islam' but you may call him Muhammad if you prefer. In either case, we have an interpretation of Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 that is credible don't you think? (See timeline post #6)

I realise that my view is a minority view today, but it was the general understanding in medieval times. Ill dig up quotations if anyone is interested.

I'd be interested to see some of the historical arguments for the caliphate over the papacy,
particularly given the significantly greater historicity of that papacy, both religiously and geopolitically.

The origin of the little horn in Daniel 7 is unmistakably Roman, arising as it did from the dissolution of Daniel's fourth beast/kingdom, the imperial Roman empire.

The papacy is Roman, both in origin, and identification i.e. Roman Catholic.

The eastern Byzantine Roman empire continued, but never did penetrate into the Arabian peninsula, wherein lies Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad and Islam. Islam did not have the Roman origin which the papacy did.

How then does the non-Roman origin of Islam conform to Daniel's description of the little horn, to which the Roman origin of the papacy does conform?

 

[Christian Gedge]

I understand where you’re coming from jgr. The Reformation Historicists identified the ‘little horn’ as the Roman Catholic Church, but that wasn’t always so. The Medieval church pointed at Muhammad, as did Luther, although he said both.

Your objections to the Islam option boil down to his birthplace being outside of Rome’s boundaries. (Medina) The scripture you will quote is Daniel 7:8.

“I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)​

However, Muhammad began his prophetic career in Syria where he had a lot of contact with Christians from an early age. This information is found in multiple accounts of Sira literature. So, a strict insistence concerning his birthplace need not bother us IMO. The scripture that SHOULD get our attention is 1 John 4:3.

“Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist.”​

Romanism, for all its faults, does teach that God came in the flesh. Islam, on the other hand, categorically denies it, and is one of its central creeds! Then, there is how Islam changes AD. into their Hijrah calendar as soon as Sharia law is imposed. I think I’ve already quoted Daniel 7:25 regarding that. Enough for now, but Ill try to get to other reasons why I prefer the early interpretation soon.

 

[jgr]

I understand where you’re coming from jgr. The Reformation Historicists identified the ‘little horn’ as the Roman Catholic Church, but that wasn’t always so. The Medieval church pointed at Muhammad, as did Luther, although he said both.

Your objections to the Islam option boil down to his birthplace being outside of Rome’s boundaries. (Medina) The scripture you will quote is Daniel 7:8.

“I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)​

However, Muhammad began his prophetic career in Syria where he had a lot of contact with Christians from an early age. This information is found in multiple accounts of Sira literature. So, a strict insistence concerning his birthplace need not bother us IMO. The scripture that SHOULD get our attention is 1 John 4:3.

“Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist.”​

Romanism, for all its faults, does teach that God came in the flesh. Islam, on the other hand, categorically denies it, and is one of its central creeds! Then, there is how Islam changes AD. into their Hijrah calendar as soon as Sharia law is imposed. I think I’ve already quoted Daniel 7:25 regarding that. Enough for now, but Ill try to get to other reasons why I prefer the early interpretation soon.

Thanks for your response, Chris. I await the medieval arguments for the caliphate with interest.

My premise is not invalidated:

Daniel's little horn is Roman in origin.
The papacy is Roman in origin.
The papacy's origin comports with the little horn's origin.
Islam is not Roman in origin.
Islam's origin does not comport with the little horn's origin.

Re. antichrist, the prefix "anti" means either "against" or "another", thus "against Christ" or "another Christ".

The following declarations leave no doubt:

Pius X: "The Pope...is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."

Pius XI: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

Pius IX was described as "the living Christ", and "the Lamb of the Vatican".

The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope."

Martin V was addressed as: "The most holy and most blessed, who holds the celestial jurisdiction, who is Lord over all the earth...the anointed...the ruler of the universe, the father of kings, the Light of the World."

During the Vatican Council, 9 January 1870, it was stated: "The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning said: "He [the Roman pope] was elevated to be, in his Divine Master's Name, King of kings and Lord of lords." (Manning, Temporal Power, Preface, 42-46)

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17 Bellarmine (1542-1621), a professor and rector at the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome, is generally considered to have been one of the outstanding Jesuit instructors in the history of this organization.

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II” (Ferraris was an Italian Catholic canonist and consultor to the Holy Office in Rome.)

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[Douggg]

Re. antichrist, the prefix "anti" means either "against" or "another", thus "against Christ" or "another Christ".

That part you got right.

The other part though....

32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

 

[jgr]

That part you got right.

The other part though....

32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Who was antichrist in that verse?

 

[Douggg]

Who was antichrist in that verse?

The person who will become the King of Israel of instead of and against Jesus, the rightful King of Israel.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Reformation Historicists identified the ‘little horn’ as the Roman Catholic Church, but that wasn’t always so. The Medieval church pointed at Muhammad and the Caliphate. Here are a few quotes I’ve managed to find:

“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings.”
(Jerome 347-420 AD)

“This eleventh king who arises after the others, diverse from the first, who subdues three kings, is it not Muhammad, who vanquished the Greeks, the Romans, and the Goths? "And he shall speak great words against the most High": did he not deny the divinity of Christ, thus, according to Saint John, showing himself to be an Antichrist? He "shall wear out the saints of the most High": is this not a prediction of the persecutions inflicted by the Muslims, in particular of the martyrdoms of Cordoba? He will "think to change times and laws": did he not introduce the Muslim calendar and the Koran?”
(Paulus Alvarus 800-861 AD)

“We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of the Antichrist and other profane doctrine.”
(Martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Beheaded 850-857 AD)

“The little horn represents the Ishmaelites, the followers of Muhammad.”
(Rabbi David Altshuler 1687-1769)

Ive been trying to find alternative quotes from the reformers. Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s friend, identified the Muslim empire, rather than the papacy, with the ‘Antichrist,’ and he showed how it fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy of the four beasts. Muhammad was the horn that formed on the last terrifying beast (Roman Empire) and its eyes and speech were equated with the Koran and Muhammad’s teachings. (Das siebend capetel Danielis von des Turken Gotteslesterung und schrecklicher Morderey, 1543 BC)

Hey, that’s about my lot. Google is sending me cross-eyed.

 

[claninja]

View attachment 271269


This is how the Roman empire looked when it was breaking up. Notice how there were now 13 distinct geo-political regions. Ten horns in the making? Stay tuned.

There seems to be more than 13 kingdom/realms/geopolitical entities around 476.

View attachment 271330

Here they are folks – Daniels ten kingdoms! Count up and see.

Even by 526, there are still more than 10 kingdoms/realms/geopolitical ares of western Rome. I can't seem to find any maps, besides the one you posted, that shows only 10 geopolitical areas by 600AD.

In either case, we have an interpretation of Daniel 7 and Revelation 17 that is credible don't you think?

Unfortunately I don't CG. I find this all very interesting, but it doesn't at all correlate that there would only be 4 kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome), but the saints would possess the kingdom forever (daniel 7:17-18).

The early church and anti-nicene writers agreed, there would be only 4 kingdoms but the saints would possess the kingdom forever. They agreed that the 4th kingdom was Rome. There seems to be more evidence that the early church writers believed the 10 horns to be kings at the end of the roman empire, However, there is no definite identification of the 10 horns and little horn among the early church writers, and thus speculations abound.

 

[Christian Gedge]

You are counting kingdoms beyond Romes boundaries. Don't count the Picts or the Scots. Don't count anything north of the Rhine and Danube rivers except Gepids (Romania for your interest)

Now, look at your last map. The Burgundian kingdom was absorbed by the Franks (Think burgundy wine) and Suebi by the Visigoths only a few years after your map was drawn.

Now, count again. Ten kingdoms! - Not nine, not eleven, but ten kingdoms lasting another hundred years until the Caliphate took three of them.

 

[Andrewn]

The early church and anti-nicene writers agreed, there would be only 4 kingdoms but the saints would possess the kingdom forever. They agreed that the 4th kingdom was Rome.

A balanced Christian belief would be that the Kingdom of God has been established in the 1st century and continues to spread by God's grace. At the same time, the kingdoms of the world continue to pursue the saints and persecute them and attempt an assault on the Kingdom of God.

This would show the balance between portial preterism, historicism, and idealism.

 

[claninja]

You are counting kingdoms beyond Romes boundaries. Don't count the Picts or the Scots. Don't count anything north of the Rhine and Danube rivers except Gepids (Romania for your interest)

There were not 10 kingdoms within the Bounds of the Roman Empire upon the dissolution of the Western Empire in 476AD. From the 1st Map:

1.) Eastern Roman Empire
2.) Kingdom of Gepids
3.) Kingdom of Ostrogoths
4.) Kingdom of Odoacer
5.)Kingdom of Rugii
6.)Kingdom of the Burgundians
7.)Kingdom of Visgoths
8.) Kingdom of Suebi
9.) Kingdom of the Vandals

1.) Realm of Nepos
2.) Realm of Syagrius

1.) Franks
2.) Alamanni
3.) Anglo-Saxons
4.) Jutes
5.) Basques

Now, look at your last map. The Burgundian kingdom was absorbed by the Franks (Think burgundy wine) and Suebi by the Visigoths only a few years after your map was drawn.

In the 2nd map, there seems to be even less kingdoms by 526AD. If the Franks absorbed the Burgundians, and the Visgoths absorbed the Suebi, there are still more than 10 groups

1.) Eastern Roman Empire
2.) Kingdom of the Gepids
3.) Kingdom of the Ostrogoths
4.) Kingdom of the Burgundians
5.) Kingdom of the Franks
6.) Kingdom of the Visgoths
7.) Kingdom of the Vandals
8.) Kingdom of the Suebi

1.) Anglo-saxons
2.) Brittons
3.) Basques

Now, count again. Ten kingdoms! - Not nine, not eleven, but ten kingdoms lasting another hundred years until the Caliphate took three of them.

The following map only shows 6 groups from 600ad:

History of the The Lombards, Portrayed as The Strongest Germanic Warriors - About History


The following map of 600ad doesn't show 10 kingdoms either within the bounds of the roman empre

This map of 600ad also doesn't show the same 10 kingdoms as yours

I'm still not finding a map that can show the exact same 10 kingdoms as the maps you have provided

 

[claninja]

A balanced Christian belief would be that the Kingdom of God has been established in the 1st century and continues to spread by God's grace. At the same time, the kingdoms of the world continue to pursue the saints and persecute them and attempt an assault on the Kingdom of God.

This would show the balance between portial preterism, historicism, and idealism.

I absolutely agree, which is good.

But the main difference seems to be when the saints actually possess the kingdom that Christ established in the 1st century.

Daniel 7:17-18 States there would be 4 kingdoms but the saints would possess the Kingdom forever.

 

[Andrewn]

I absolutely agree, which is good.

But the main difference seems to be when the saints actually possess the kingdom that Christ established in the 1st century.

Daniel 7:17-18 States there would be 4 kingdoms but the saints would possess the Kingdom forever.

I wrote, "The Kingdom of God has been established in the 1st century." Since then, the saints have possessed the Kingdom. Of course, there is the victorious Church in heaven and the militant Church on earth which is still assaulted by kingdoms of the world. Any disagreement .

 

[jgr]

Reformation Historicists identified the ‘little horn’ as the Roman Catholic Church, but that wasn’t always so. The Medieval church pointed at Muhammad and the Caliphate. Here are a few quotes I’ve managed to find:












Ive been trying to find alternative quotes from the reformers. Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s friend, identified the Muslim empire, rather than the papacy, with the ‘Antichrist,’ and he showed how it fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy of the four beasts. Muhammad was the horn that formed on the last terrifying beast (Roman Empire) and its eyes and speech were equated with the Koran and Muhammad’s teachings. (Das siebend capetel Danielis von des Turken Gotteslesterung und schrecklicher Morderey, 1543 BC)

Hey, that’s about my lot. Google is sending me cross-eyed.

The most egregious manifestations of papalist apostasy occurred and continued in the centuries following the times in which those whom you've cited lived.

Thus, in the earlier eras, the caliphate appeared to some to be the most probable fulfillment of Daniel 7.

By the time of the Reformation, however, with the aid of additional centuries of hindsight, the Reformers accurately discerned the true fulfillment of Daniel's little horn.

Ref. post 48. No Muslim has ever made claims approaching those of the apostate papacy e.g. God on the earth, Christ in the flesh. A claim by a Muslim to be Allah on the earth would be a veritable instant death sentence. No Muslim mouth has "spoken greater things (Daniel 7:20)" than those spoken by the apostate papacy.

As appalling as Islam's depredations against the saints are, they pale historically into insignificance compared to those of the apostate papacy, both in scale and duration i.e. 50 million exterminated over some ten centuries. It was unarguably a "war on the saints which wore them out". (Daniel 7:21,25)

In a comparison between the historical papacy and the historical caliphate, the former clearly emerges as the fulfillment of Daniel's little horn.

 

[Christian Gedge]

There were not 10 kingdoms within the Bounds of the Roman Empire upon the dissolution of the Western Empire in 476AD. From the 1st Map:

Go back over my older posts where I said there were thirteen regions in 476 AD. The whole situation was in flux and settled into ten over the next century. Then it remained at the count of ten until the Muslims came.

In the 2nd map, there seems to be even less kingdoms by 526AD. If the Franks absorbed the Burgundians, and the Visgoths absorbed the Suebi, there are still more than 10 groups

1.) Eastern Roman Empire
2.) Kingdom of the Gepids
3.) Kingdom of the Ostrogoths
4.) Kingdom of the Burgundians
5.) Kingdom of the Franks
6.) Kingdom of the Visgoths
7.) Kingdom of the Vandals
8.) Kingdom of the Suebi

1.) Anglo-saxons
2.) Brittons
3.) Basques

Some of your maps are not showing the Moorish kingdom. (formerly the Roman province of Mauretania) Add the Moors, deduct the Burgundians, deduct the Suebi, and give us a single list of 1 to 10. Done!